A Catastrophic New Climate Report

[homersapien 11,393]

27 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

All you'll ever have is appeal to consensus and unverifiable claims. 

Well, there is all that research that's been going on for decades.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well, there is all that research that's been going on for decades.

On each side...🙄

[Leftfield 2,617]

4 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

On each side...🙄

Which you fail to cite.

[homersapien 11,393]

6 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

On each side...🙄

As far as science is concerned, there is no such thing as "each side", which implies an inherent prior prejudice toward conducting a research project.

All of the research is designed to examine the same question.  The only "side" relates to the results, which either support or don't support the theory.  By far, most of the research efforts support the theory, which is exactly why there is scientific consensus.

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,617]

56 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

All you'll ever have is appeal to consensus and unverifiable claims. 

To switch gears a bit, to what do you attribute the acidification of the oceans?

[johnnyAU 3,634]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

All of the research is designed to examine the same question.  The only "side" relates to the results, which either support or don't support the theory.  By far, most of the research efforts support the theory, which is exactly why there is scientific consensus.

LOL. The "sides" referenced, are anthropogenic vs natural. The funded research efforts, like the formation of the IPCC itself, were designed specifically to study possible anthropogenic influences and ONLY possible anthropogenic influences not natural variation. The number of research "efforts" do not determine cause. Actual scientific proof that CO2 drives the global climate does not now, nor will it ever exist. 

[Leftfield 2,617]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Actual scientific proof that CO2 drives the global climate does not now, nor will it ever exist. 

This sentence is all that is needed. It does not matter the evidence that is presented, you won't believe it. You've already pre-determined that it's impossible that CO2 is a major culprit. The average temperatures could jump five degrees and you wouldn't accept it. I don't understand why you even debate it. Just say you don't believe it, never will, and move on.

Since that is settled, would you care to address ocean acidification?

[johnnyAU 3,634]

10 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The average temperatures could jump five degrees and you wouldn't accept it

Of course I would accept the data that average temps would have made the jump, but if no proof of the cause exists, then no proof of the cause exists.  Until that proof does exist, the cause should be under investigation...while figuring out how to cope with it. And by coping, I mean making sure we have safe, reliable and available energy resources.

The same would be true if the temps dropped 5 degrees. Believe and accept or else you are a heretic...blasphemer...denier right?

Yes, the CO2 absorbed by the oceans is contributing to the seawater to become slightly less alkaline and slightly more neutral. They are nowhere close to becoming acidic. 

[homersapien 11,393]

29 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Of course I would accept the data that average temps would have made the jump, but if no proof of the cause exists, then no proof of the cause exists.  Until that proof does exist, the cause should be under investigation...while figuring out how to cope with it. And by coping, I mean making sure we have safe, reliable and available energy resources.

The same would be true if the temps dropped 5 degrees. Believe and accept or else you are a heretic...blasphemer...denier right?

Yes, the CO2 absorbed by the oceans is contributing to the seawater to become slightly less alkaline and slightly more neutral. They are nowhere close to becoming acidic. 

Slightly?  You call a 30% reduction in pH (to date) "slight"? 

(BTW, that's called acidification. It's caused by CO2 creating carbonic acid.  No one has claimed the ocean pH was lower than 7.)

But I like how you are cherry picking the effects of excess CO2: While there's enough CO2 in the atmosphere to effect a  30% reduction in ocean pH,  there's not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to produce a greenhouse effect. 

Guess you've never snorkeled on a coral reef, huh? 

Edited August 15, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

43 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Of course I would accept the data that average temps would have made the jump, but if no proof of the cause exists, then no proof of the cause exists. 

 

I suggest you google "research on greenhouse effect".  You will get many pages listing such research.

No reasonable person would claim there's "no proof" that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric greenhouse gases is causing global warming. The time for discovering this is long past.  It's time now to start doing something about it.  As the OP said, the crisis is now changing in "political time".

Still waiting on your theory of why the average global temperature is increasing.  (Be sure to include your thoughts on why the world's scientific community has overlooked it.)

Edited August 15, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

13 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

LOL. The "sides" referenced, are anthropogenic vs natural. The funded research efforts, like the formation of the IPCC itself, were designed specifically to study possible anthropogenic influences and ONLY possible anthropogenic influences not natural variation. The number of research "efforts" do not determine cause. Actual scientific proof that CO2 drives the global climate does not now, nor will it ever exist. 

Yep.  An engineer.

[Leftfield 2,617]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Of course I would accept the data that average temps would have made the jump, but if no proof of the cause exists, then no proof of the cause exists.  Until that proof does exist, the cause should be under investigation...

So there is no one out there, at all, that is investigating the cause? Surely there are some skeptical organizations or philanthropists that would be willing to fund research into this. Or perhaps they already have? You told us there were scientists who disagreed with the wider community and have been silenced or marginalized, even though you haven't told us about their findings or where we can find them. Certainly those organizations would be helping to get their message out.

It boils down to the fact that you will not believe climate scientists under any circumstances, because you believe they are all in-the-tank to enrich themselves, fund their own research, or avoid persecution. However, even though you admit the global temperature is increasing more rapidly than it should, you offer no alternate theories as to why. You also have to downplay the extent of ocean acidification (pardon me - becoming less alkaline) to avoid having to admit it is a problem. As an engineer, do these sound like reasoned, logical arguments to you?

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

Thanks for a good discussion. 
 

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification

In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. This might not sound like much, but the pH scale is logarithmic, so this change represents

approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.

https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/co2-reservoir/

Conclusive results relating to the feedback effects between climate and acidification are thus not yet available. This is also the case for the impact of ocean warming. There are many indications for significant feedback effects here, but too little solid knowledge to draw any robust quantitative conclusions. We will have to carry out focussed scientific studies to see what impact global change will have on the natural carbon cycle in the ocean. It would be naïve to assume that this is insignificant and irrelevant for the future­climate of our planet. To the contrary, our limited knowledge of the relationships should motivate us to study the ocean even more intensely and to develop new methods of 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

On 8/14/2021 at 7:41 PM, johnnyAU said:

LOL. The "sides" referenced, are anthropogenic vs natural. The funded research efforts, like the formation of the IPCC itself, were designed specifically to study possible anthropogenic influences and ONLY possible anthropogenic influences not natural variation. The number of research "efforts" do not determine cause. Actual scientific proof that CO2 drives the global climate does not now, nor will it ever exist. 

In other words, it's all just a hoax.

Why are you so reluctant to simply say that?