37 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Despite that, I often read denialists claiming that gasses that constitute such a small percentage of the atmosphere can't possibly be responsible for the warming of the land and sea.

What the denialists don't understand is that the O₂, N₂ and Ar (total = 99.96%) gases do not absorb much of the infra-red wavelengths outward bound from the Earth.  So the existence of those gases has almost zero effect on the retention of heat from that IR radiation.  One would not make much of an error by assuming the concentration of O₂, N₂ and Ar are zero when calculating the infra-red energy retained by the atmosphere.

 

When the denialists use the percentages of atmospheric gases they use the relative mole fractions (percentage by number of molecules) which of course is about the poorest choice of measurement parameter in regards to effect on heat retention by the atmosphere.

Just now, heybruce said:

I would describe myself as reasonably well informed, educated, and concerned about the future.  I'm not ashamed of it.

Fine. But that's very different from believing yourself to be incapable of error, which is what the self-styled "noble and wise" believe about themselves.

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes, and they were wrong. Both on the lethality, and the various measures which made up their "caution". But as data emerged which clearly demonstrated that, the "consensus" didn't change.

Not really.  Covid is easily transmittable, and the lethality before vaccines was several times that of the common flu.  I'm not aware of any pandemic like that since the Spanish flu.

10 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

You offered the evidence yourself.

Nonsense. To prove it's limited you would have to offer literature outside of whatever bounds you claim I'm confined to. You've offer nothing. That's because you've got nothing except unproveable allegations.. 

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

Fine. But that's very different from believing yourself to be incapable of error, which is what the self-styled "noble and wise" believe about themselves.

Nothing is certain, but it would be stupid to ignore the risks.   I don't know for certain that something terrible will happen to my house, but I have insurance just in case.

 

I don't know for certain what the tipping point for out of control climate change and mass extinction is, but I'm willing to make a serious effort to avoid getting there.

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Fine. But that's very different from believing yourself to be incapable of error, which is what the self-styled "noble and wise" believe about themselves.

 

Nonsense. In the climatoligica community there is plenty of debate and various hypotheses are put forward and rebutted. For instance, there was a claim made that the wandering of the arctic climate due to lower latitudes was due to the loss of sea ice. That was rebutted. Another claim was that temperatures could rise as much as 8 degrees centigrade due to ACC. That also was thoroughly discounted. For someone who accuses others of limited reading, it's clear you know virtually nothing about current climatological research.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Nothing is certain, but it would be stupid to ignore the risks.   I don't know for certain that something terrible will happen to my house, but I have insurance just in case.

 

I don't know for certain what the tipping point for out of control climate change and mass extinction is, but I'm willing to make a serious effort to avoid getting there.

What makes you think there is a "tipping point"?

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes, and they were wrong. Both on the lethality, and the various measures which made up their "caution". But as data emerged which clearly demonstrated that, the "consensus" didn't change.

No you are wrong, you keep making unsubstantiated claims:

 

"Covid-19 overtakes 1918 Spanish flu as deadliest disease in American history"

6 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes, and they were wrong. Both on the lethality, and the various measures which made up their "caution". But as data emerged which clearly demonstrated that, the "consensus" didn't change.

The problem with consensus is whom you ask,

If you ask all the Christians if they believe in God, you will get a 100% consensus.

If you ask all the Climate scientists if they believe in climate change ..............

Cult members always believe their cult leaders.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For instance, there was a claim made that the wandering of the arctic climate due to lower latitudes was due to the loss of sea ice.

If that's an example of current climatological research, I guess I'm better off staying away from it.

11 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Fine. But that's very different from believing yourself to be incapable of error, which is what the self-styled "noble and wise" believe about themselves.

This is typical of the ridiculous kind of character assassination that you offer as evidence. Back it up. The most prominent climatologists who seem incapable of confessing to error are some members of the old guard who keep on getting it wrong and keep on denying they've got it wrong. I remember when it was a popular claim among them that global warming had stopped in 1998. Now that year doesn't even number among the 10 warmest years recorded since then.

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No you are wrong, you keep making unsubstantiated claims:

 

"Covid-19 overtakes 1918 Spanish flu as deadliest disease in American history"

Given that the US population in 1920 was 100 million, and today it is 330 million, that hardly comes as a surprise, does it?

Just now, placeholder said:

This is typical of the ridiculous kind of character assassination that you offer as evidence. Back it up. The most prominent climatologists who seem incapable of confessing to error are some members of the old guard who keep on getting it wrong and keep on denying they've got it wrong. 

Are you now claiming the consensus is no longer a consensus?

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

If that's an example of current climatological research, I guess I'm better off staying away from it.

For someone who claims that science isn't settled, you seem to have a bizarre allergy to instances of research which support that claim.

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

Given that the US population in 1920 was 100 million, and today it is 330 million, that hardly comes as a surprise, does it?

Population adjusted:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/20/fact-check-covid-19-deadlier-than-1918-spanish-flu-seasonal-flu/3378208001/

Just now, placeholder said:

For someone who claims that science isn't settled, you seem to have a bizarre allergy to instances of research which support that claim.

Not really, it was just that I couldn't make  head or tail of the sentence. What is "the wandering of the arctic climate"?

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Are you now claiming the consensus is no longer a consensus?

As I noted earlier, Thomas Kuhn said that a scientific revolution isn't complete until the previous generation of believers dies out. These people constitute a vanishingly small percentage of climatologists and at this point, none of them that I know about are still even doing science.

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

Not really, it was just that I couldn't make  head or tail of the sentence. What is "the wandering of the arctic climate"?

Frigid arctic air moving southwards. The polar vortex issue.

9 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

What makes you think there is a "tipping point"?

The opposite is true. Co2 has less impact at higher levels.

5 minutes ago, bignok said:

The opposite is true. Co2 has less impact at higher levels.

You got a link to that in reference to the present climate change

4 minutes ago, bignok said:

The opposite is true. Co2 has less impact at higher levels.

Practically speaking that's not the case given that there are currently only about 430 parts per million.

 

"Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
Climate change: evidence and causes
No. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise"

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/#:~:text=As the atmospheric concentrations of,surface temperature will still rise.

13 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Given that the US population in 1920 was 100 million, and today it is 330 million, that hardly comes as a surprise, does it?

Stop posting common sense

40 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

What makes you think there is a "tipping point"?

Tipping points in the climate system

"A climate tipping point is where a small amount of extra climate forcing, usually linked to global warming – for example, greenhouse gas forcing – triggers a qualitative change in part of the climate system. Change may already be underway in that sub-system, but it becomes abrupt and/or irreversible beyond the tipping point. This is because tipping points occur when reinforcing (positive) feedbacks within a system take over from stabilising (negative) feedbacks and propel change from one state to another."

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.4058

A post trolling about chocolate has been removed. 

 

An off topic post about temperatures on Mars, Venus and Mercury has been removed as this topic is about:

 

 Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

What makes you think there is a "tipping point"?

What I know about past mass extinctions  https://ourworldindata.org/mass-extinctions, the knowledge that there are vast quantities of methane in permafrost that is warming up, the fact that Venus could be somewhat earth-like if it weren't for the green house effect, stuff like that.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

The problem with consensus is whom you ask,

If you ask all the Christians if they believe in God, you will get a 100% consensus.

If you ask all the Climate scientists if they believe in climate change ..............

Cult members always believe their cult leaders.

On this topic I prefer the consensus of climate scientists to the climate deniers.  I see very few signs of expertise among the deniers.

An offensive post has been reported and removed.

56 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For someone who claims that science isn't settled, you seem to have a bizarre allergy to instances of research which support that claim.

Science is never settled - it's an ongoing process.

Thats the difference between science & dogma.

 

As this undersecretary at the United Nations explains, the UN, WEF etc. partner with search engines like Google to ensure any sceptical views on CC are not seen by the vast majority.  She also says "We own the science" (much as the Spanish Inquisition did back in the day).  See for yourself:

 

 

5 minutes ago, ICU Kid said:

Science is never settled - it's an ongoing process.

Thats the difference between science & dogma.

 

As this undersecretary at the United Nations explains, the UN, WEF etc. partner with search engines like Google to ensure any sceptical views on CC are not seen by the vast majority.  She also says "We own the science" (much as the Spanish Inquisition did back in the day).  See for yourself:

 

 

The thing is, it's settled unless someone comes along with a theory backed by evidence to disprove it. So far none have come along that have withstood scientific challenges.. As I pointed out earlier, Newtonian physics may have been overthrown by Einstein but its predictive power is still good enough to have a spacecraft rendezvous with Pluto.

17 minutes ago, ICU Kid said:

As this undersecretary at the United Nations explains, the UN, WEF etc. partner with search engines like Google to ensure any sceptical views on CC are not seen by the vast majority. 

It just underlines the fact that beneath the dogma of climate science and Covid, lies the same kidnapper's demand: "Do as we say and you won't get hurt."

 

The same people benefit, the same people suffer, and the tactics - censorship, repression, demonisation and threats - are identical. The political line is always: "If you don't agree with us, you are not just wrong, you are evil and dangerous."

 

They are tactics that appeal to little totalitarians everywhere.