homersapien 11,370 Posted October 10, 2019 Author Share Posted October 10, 2019 21 hours ago, johnnyAU said: None of it is driven by man made CO2 You sound like the "stable genius". How about sharing the real cause with us? The one virtually every qualified scientist in the world is overlooking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,370 Posted October 10, 2019 Author Share Posted October 10, 2019 21 hours ago, johnnyAU said: Estimates....based on scenarios.....by the end of the century....Could be nearly..... Yep, there were estimates, based on scenarios, that snow would be a thing of the past, and that we could be 4-6 warmer by 2020. There are tons of those "scenarios" and mythical "tipping points" that have never happened. Reality doesn't care about predictions, fear mongering or politics. How about sharing those "estimates" with us? Let's see what they said exactly, who said it and when. One of the characteristics about valid scientific theories is they are predictive. A review of prominent climate models between 1970 and 2016 show they are not too far off from what actually occurred: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming (Please note than none of these models are anywhere close in range as "4-6 degrees warmer" so I am particularly curious about that one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 10, 2019 Share Posted October 10, 2019 2 hours ago, homersapien said: The one virtually every qualified scientist in the world is overlooking. LOL. Who is the "stable genius" again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,370 Posted October 11, 2019 Author Share Posted October 11, 2019 22 hours ago, johnnyAU said: LOL. Who is the "stable genius" again? There is a scientific consensus regarding AGW. You are in simple denial if you think otherwise. Oh wait..... I forgot. You aren't arguing against the fact there is a consensus of scientists around the world who agree with AGW theory, you are arguing that all those scientists are actually co-conspirators who are perpetuating a global scientific hoax! And the self-identified "stable genius" agrees. Only he thinks China is coordination it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,370 Posted October 11, 2019 Author Share Posted October 11, 2019 On 10/10/2019 at 1:11 PM, homersapien said: How about sharing the real cause with us? The one virtually every qualified scientist in the world is overlooking. Still waiting on your explanation of what is causing global warming if it's not CO2 and other greenhouse gases. What do you know that all those scientists don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 The sun https://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 2 hours ago, homersapien said: Oh wait..... I forgot. You aren't arguing against the fact there is a consensus of scientists around the world who agree with AGW theory, you are arguing that all those scientists are actually co-conspirators who are perpetuating a global scientific hoax! Never once have I said that "scientists are actually co-conspirators who are perpetuating a global scientific hoax" BTW. That's just the typical CAGW cult belief that every skeptic is of that opinion. There isn't a actual consensus of scientists on AGW. There is an agreement on the behavior of CO2 with regard to radiative physics, but the degree of its actual impact on global climate remains hotly debated. Papers based on Google searches of abstracts trying to pick out phrases and categorizing them (in most cases not even reading the actual abstract or paper), isn't a real measure of "scientific consensus" on the subject. It is good optics for those with lenses fitted filters of confirmation bias though isn't it? The sun is the main driver and always will be, though CO2 does play a role. However, many other natural factors (and their interactions with each other) are involved, including solar, lunar, ocean cycles, cloud cover, cosmic rays and the electromagnetic connection between the sun and Earth. It isn't as simple as TSI at TOA. It is a very dynamic, chaotic, non-linear system and we are nowhere near its full understanding at this point. However, it does look like we've made some progress in putting more emphasis on getting a better picture of the sun's dynamics, and that's a good thing. Then again, you can drink in all the media hype and alarmism if it makes you warm and fuzzy...or scared and outraged...whichever it is that you choose to be. That is indeed your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,370 Posted October 12, 2019 Author Share Posted October 12, 2019 7 hours ago, johnnyAU said: There isn't a actual consensus of scientists on AGW. I can provide many surveys that proves otherwise you are wrong. Can you provide any evidence (survey or polls) that support your position? At last, you are a conspiracist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,370 Posted October 12, 2019 Author Share Posted October 12, 2019 7 hours ago, johnnyAU said: .....The sun is the main driver and always will be, though CO2 does play a role. However, many other natural factors (and their interactions with each other) are involved, including solar, lunar, ocean cycles, cloud cover, cosmic rays and the electromagnetic connection between the sun and Earth. ..... Again, what is your scientific background? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,370 Posted October 12, 2019 Author Share Posted October 12, 2019 7 hours ago, johnnyAU said: Then again, you can drink in all the media hype and alarmism if it makes you warm and fuzzy...or scared and outraged...whichever it is that you choose to be. That is indeed your choice. Regarding "alarmism" or feeling "warm and fuzzy", I don't give a s*** about what happens to humans longer term. I'll be fine until death I don't have progeny. Frankly, I care more about the ecosystem and flora and fauna that are being degraded than I do for human progeny, including yours. In fact, I place more value on the diversity of flora and fauna than people in general. But as someone who contributed to the problem - even if innocently - I feel a moral and ethical responsibility to respond to a reality I - along with every other human - helped to create. So take your "warm and fuzzy" and shove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 6 hours ago, homersapien said: I can provide many surveys that proves otherwise you are wrong Those aren't surveys, they are perusals searches through abstracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 6 hours ago, homersapien said: Regarding "alarmism" or feeling "warm and fuzzy", I don't give a s*** about what happens to humans longer term. I'll be fine until death I don't have progeny. Frankly, I care more about the ecosystem and flora and fauna that are being degraded than I do for human progeny, including yours. In fact, I place more value on the diversity of flora and fauna than people in general. But as someone who contributed to the problem - even if innocently - I feel a moral and ethical responsibility to respond to a reality I - along with every other human - helped to create. So take your "warm and fuzzy" and shove it. Ahh, yes. As it is with all progressives these days. When you have no argument, you resort immediately to virtue signaling and ad hom attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,848 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 15 hours ago, johnnyAU said: Never once have I said that "scientists are actually co-conspirators who are perpetuating a global scientific hoax" BTW. That's just the typical CAGW cult belief that every skeptic is of that opinion. There isn't a actual consensus of scientists on AGW. There is an agreement on the behavior of CO2 with regard to radiative physics, but the degree of its actual impact on global climate remains hotly debated. Papers based on Google searches of abstracts trying to pick out phrases and categorizing them (in most cases not even reading the actual abstract or paper), isn't a real measure of "scientific consensus" on the subject. It is good optics for those with lenses fitted filters of confirmation bias though isn't it? The sun is the main driver and always will be, though CO2 does play a role. However, many other natural factors (and their interactions with each other) are involved, including solar, lunar, ocean cycles, cloud cover, cosmic rays and the electromagnetic connection between the sun and Earth. It isn't as simple as TSI at TOA. It is a very dynamic, chaotic, non-linear system and we are nowhere near its full understanding at this point. However, it does look like we've made some progress in putting more emphasis on getting a better picture of the sun's dynamics, and that's a good thing. Then again, you can drink in all the media hype and alarmism if it makes you warm and fuzzy...or scared and outraged...whichever it is that you choose to be. That is indeed your choice. What action related to climate change would you support, if any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,370 Posted October 12, 2019 Author Share Posted October 12, 2019 6 hours ago, johnnyAU said: Those aren't surveys, they are perusals searches through abstracts. They are surveys/polls conducted scientifically, some with slightly different methodology. The survey with the least percentage of scientists who agree with AGW theory was 91% (Verhegen, 2014) But the central conclusion is the same. Using any rational definition of "consensus" there is a scientific consensus on AGW theory. If you want to delve into the details of any one of these surveys, they are referenced here: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm "Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are: 1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. 2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,370 Posted October 12, 2019 Author Share Posted October 12, 2019 6 hours ago, johnnyAU said: Ahh, yes. As it is with all progressives these days. When you have no argument, you resort immediately to virtue signaling and ad hom attacks. And what do you call this? "Then again, you can drink in all the media hype and alarmism if it makes you warm and fuzzy...or scared and outraged...whichever it is that you choose to be. That is indeed your choice." If you dish it out, expect to get a response, so don't be such a snowflake hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 8 hours ago, TexasTiger said: What action related to climate change would you support, if any? I would always support some funding for research into more efficient and cheaper energy sources, which should be perpetual. I would also support more effort into adapting to changing climates, regardless of hot or cold, rather than ridiculous and dangerous attempts to intervene like stratospheric aerosol injections. Taxing CO2 isn't the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,848 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, johnnyAU said: I would always support some funding for research into more efficient and cheaper energy sources, which should be perpetual. I would also support more effort into adapting to changing climates, regardless of hot or cold, rather than ridiculous and dangerous attempts to intervene like stratospheric aerosol injections. Taxing CO2 isn't the answer. Wind? Solar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, TexasTiger said: Wind? Solar? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,848 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 42 minutes ago, johnnyAU said: No What then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 13 hours ago, TexasTiger said: What then? There's room for improvement in nuclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,848 Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, johnnyAU said: There's room for improvement in nuclear. Sure, but given the inherent risks, what is your opposition to wind and solar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said: Sure, but given the inherent risks, what is your opposition to wind and solar? Upper limits. Not only are they intermittent and unreliable sources, but they require considerable energy to build, use not-so eco-friendly materials in manufacturing (including batteries) and require a good bit of maintenance/replacement costs. They aren't a good solution to long term replacement of fossil fuels. At best they are a boost, not a main source. Even Bill Gates is not on board with wind and solar, and had been pursuing a alternative nuclear solution before the China tariffs took hold. Perhaps he can continue if that avenue ever opens up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,848 Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, johnnyAU said: Upper limits. Not only are they intermittent and unreliable sources, but they require considerable energy to build, use not-so eco-friendly materials in manufacturing (including batteries) and require a good bit of maintenance/replacement costs. They aren't a good solution to long term replacement of fossil fuels. At best they are a boost, not a main source. Even Bill Gates is not on board with wind and solar, and had been pursuing a alternative nuclear solution before the China tariffs took hold. Perhaps he can continue if that avenue ever opens up again. What do you do with the waste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyAU 3,630 Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said: What do you do with the waste? https://terrapower.com/about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,848 Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 14 minutes ago, johnnyAU said: https://terrapower.com/about Sorry, I don’t see where waste is addressed. Did I overlook it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.