Global warming is NOT a science

[Philosophy Explorer]

Yes WTF, I'm sure I've posted this before. I'm now expressing myself differently while updating.

Nor'easter #3 is due to hit on Monday - Tuesday (which was originally forecasted for Friday - Saturday). The spaghetti models the forecasters rely on varies from channel to channel so the weather forecasts vary from channel to channel and from day to day. Science? Ha!

Weather forecasting is still unreliable. What makes me sadly laugh is that people will rely on them while avoid riding in driverless cars, which are far more reliable in terms of projected traffic fatalities.

Since global warming is far more complicated than weather forecasting, I don't see any legitimacy to it at all.
Even if the global temperature was stabilized to some desired level, what happens when the sea level rises anyway. And can we depend on scientists to adjust the sea level to some satisfactory level? What if they overshoot the mark?

Your turn.

PhilX

[henry quirk]

The climate changes...this is obvious...but, is human industry having any appreciable effect on climate?

Probably not.

Certainly, whatever effect human industry has on climate isn't enough to redirect, or shutdown, the whole of human industry.

And damned straight whatever effect human industry has on climate is no justification for turning over power to technocrats, communitarians, and 'snowflakes'. But, that seems to be what a sizable number of fokks wanna do, based on sketchy conclusions drawn from sketchy information based on sketchy investigation.

[wtf]

Yes WTF, I'm sure I've posted this before. I'm now expressing myself differently while updating.

Me? What do I care? I'm sure I've never expressed an opinion on climate science here or anywhere else.

Oh ... you mean you posted this on some other forum. I wouldn't have seen it, because I don't read posts on climate science either.

(Pedant in the back of the room says): Oh yeah? Then why'd you read THIS one?

Answer: Phil X, I read all your stuff. Old habits die hard.

[Greta]

Of course humans have altered the climate. If you alter the atmosphere then you alter climate.

Carbon appears in various guises. Much of it is locked away in life forms or deep in the ground. Now more large life forms are dying, and large organisms are especially effective carbon stores and, famously, carbon that was locked underground is not being released into the air in the form of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

What we need to remember is it's easy for any phenomenon with global reach - and humans are that - to alter the climate. They are not altering the whole Earth - which is mostly core and mantle - only the surface and thin atmospheric layer. It doesn't much matter to most of the planet beneath but it makes a big difference to organisms on the surface.

The very long time periods for things to happen is the cause of contention, but the issue is just chemistry and physics in action. This allows fossil fuel companies, worried about their infrastructure being rendered obsolete, to foster doubt on the science in the media, just as was done by tobacco companies for decades. It's an old trick when modern finding threaten old profits.

More carbon in the atmosphere means higher temperatures which means longer droughts, stronger storms and hotter and longer heat waves.

[Science Fan]

PE: You have taken out a well-worn page straight from the science-deniers' handbook. It is simply false to state that it is easier to predict weather than climate. Climate involves a long-term average, while weather varies, not just from day to day, but from hour to hour. While I have no idea what the actual temperature will be in the Sahara Desert on July 30, 2018, I can still be fairly certain that it will be warmer there than in Fairbanks, Alaska, on July 30, 2018.

[Science Fan]

The science behind climate change is actually fairly straightforward in its basics, and no science-denier has yet been able to refute a single aspect of it. Here's the basic breakdown: 1. Greenhouse gases absorb electromagnetic radiation. How do we know this occurs? Because we have direct laboratory experiments verifying that this happens. No science-denier has yet shown that molecules of carbon dioxide do not absorb radiation in any laboratory experiment, ever. 2. There is an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activity. How do we know that? By direct sampling measurements. The isotopes show that the increased carbon in the atmosphere is due to people, and not naturally occurring. No science-denier has refuted this evidence. 3. The increase in greenhouse gases is absorbing radiation. How do we know that? From direct satellite measurements that show the radiation leaving the planet is missing the wavelengths that we would expect the greenhouse gases to absorb. 4. The increased absorption is significant. How do we know that? We can calculate it based on the data. I can't recall what the increased energy amounts to each day, but it is a large number of Hiroshima-sized atom bombs going off.

No science-denier disputes these findings. What they claim instead is that there is some unknown cause responsible for the planet heating up, and that whatever this cause is, it will soon mysteriously start cooling the planet down, so no need to worry, folks. Yep, science-deniers are actually that bizarre.

[attofishpi]

Of course humans have altered the climate. If you alter the atmosphere then you alter climate.

Carbon appears in various guises. Much of it is locked away in life forms or deep in the ground. Now more large life forms are dying, and large organisms are especially effective carbon stores and, famously, carbon that was locked underground is not being released into the air in the form of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

What we need to remember is it's easy for any phenomenon with global reach - and humans are that - to alter the climate. They are not altering the whole Earth - which is mostly core and mantle - only the surface and thin atmospheric layer. It doesn't much matter to most of the planet beneath but it makes a big difference to organisms on the surface.

The very long time periods for things to happen is the cause of contention, but the issue is just chemistry and physics in action. This allows fossil fuel companies, worried about their infrastructure being rendered obsolete, to foster doubt on the science in the media, just as was done by tobacco companies for decades. It's an old trick when modern finding threaten old profits.

More carbon in the atmosphere means higher temperatures which means longer droughts, stronger storms and hotter and longer heat waves.

I agree with everything you have said Greta. I think people are rather daft if they think that releasing millions perhaps billions of years worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere within a couple of hundred of years is not going to affect the climate.
In addition, since you mentioned the mantle,
I would like to point out that a warmer climate, warmer seas could also cause a very slight expansion in the Earth's crust and therefore, it is plausible that this will trigger more earthquakes, volcano activity etc..
To flip things, global warming I think will cause an ice age. As the salinity of the seas reduces, the thermohaline circulation slows, (WIKI:- freshwater decreases ocean water salinity, and through this process prevents colder waters sinking. This mechanism possibly caused the cold ocean surface temperature anomaly currently observed near Greenland (Cold blob (North Atlantic)).
The British Isles and Europe are only able to stay 'warmish' during winter due to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) - as more fresh water pumps into the sea - basically screwing this. the ice age shall begin...
But the Earth doesn't give a shit about us...it's been fluctuating to these extremes for over a billion years, it's us that should give a shit about us.

[RustyBert]

Yes WTF, I'm sure I've posted this before. I'm now expressing myself differently while updating.

Nor'easter #3 is due to hit on Monday - Tuesday (which was originally forecasted for Friday - Saturday). The spaghetti models the forecasters rely on varies from channel to channel so the weather forecasts vary from channel to channel and from day to day. Science? Ha!

Weather forecasting is still unreliable. What makes me sadly laugh is that people will rely on them while avoid riding in driverless cars, which are far more reliable in terms of projected traffic fatalities.

Since global warming is far more complicated than weather forecasting, I don't see any legitimacy to it at all.
Even if the global temperature was stabilized to some desired level, what happens when the sea level rises anyway. And can we depend on scientists to adjust the sea level to some satisfactory level? What if they overshoot the mark?

Your turn.

PhilX

Hey if you're anti-science that's fine. Just remember to not use electricity, a car, a plane, the internet, any type of technology for that matter. Have fun in your cave. Anything short of that is just hypocrisy on your part.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Yes WTF, I'm sure I've posted this before. I'm now expressing myself differently while updating.

Nor'easter #3 is due to hit on Monday - Tuesday (which was originally forecasted for Friday - Saturday). The spaghetti models the forecasters rely on varies from channel to channel so the weather forecasts vary from channel to channel and from day to day. Science? Ha!

Weather forecasting is still unreliable. What makes me sadly laugh is that people will rely on them while avoid riding in driverless cars, which are far more reliable in terms of projected traffic fatalities.

Since global warming is far more complicated than weather forecasting, I don't see any legitimacy to it at all.
Even if the global temperature was stabilized to some desired level, what happens when the sea level rises anyway. And can we depend on scientists to adjust the sea level to some satisfactory level? What if they overshoot the mark?

Your turn.

PhilX

Hey if you're anti-science that's fine. Just remember to not use electricity, a car, a plane, the internet, any type of technology for that matter. Have fun in your cave. Anything short of that is just hypocrisy on your part.

That's a mighty big if.

PhilX

[Atla]

It's unprecedented, complex, chaotic, not fully understood, with feedback loops left and right, yeah so? That doesn't mean it's not happening, even children can understand that. And it needs to be researched.

Actually global warming seems to be happening even faster than expected. And now we also seem to be getting into a methane relase positive feedback loop.

Where I live it's already noticably warmer on average, especially during the summers. And the weather has become more chaotic, warmer and colder are rapidly alternating like every 1-2 weeks. It's because the climate has already changed and cold air from the pole and hot air from the south can now easily travel farther.

[Philosophy Explorer]

It's unprecedented, complex, chaotic, not fully understood, with feedback loops left and right, yeah so? That doesn't mean it's not happening, even children can understand that. And it needs to be researched.

Actually global warming seems to be happening even faster than expected. And now we also seem to be getting into a methane relase positive feedback loop.

Where I live it's already noticably warmer on average, especially during the summers. And the weather has become more chaotic, warmer and colder are rapidly alternating like every 1-2 weeks. It's because the climate has already changed and cold air from the pole and hot air from the south can now easily travel farther.

One of the questions in this is how big a sample do we need to be sure?

PhilX

[Atla]

One of the questions in this is how big a sample do we need to be sure?

PhilX

At the present moment, humanity only has access to one Earth-like, overheating planet. So the sample size is 1, we will have to make do with that.

[Philosophy Explorer]

One of the questions in this is how big a sample do we need to be sure?

PhilX

At the present moment, humanity only has access to one Earth-like, overheating planet. So the sample size is 1, we will have to make do with that.

Doesn't sound very reassuring.

PhilX

[Greta]

One of the questions in this is how big a sample do we need to be sure?

PhilX

At the present moment, humanity only has access to one Earth-like, overheating planet. So the sample size is 1, we will have to make do with that.

Doesn't sound very reassuring.

How big a sample do you need vs how much time we have to assess the details.

[Greta]

I would like to point out that a warmer climate, warmer seas could also cause a very slight expansion in the Earth's crust and therefore, it is plausible that this will trigger more earthquakes, volcano activity etc..
To flip things, global warming I think will cause an ice age. As the salinity of the seas reduces, the thermohaline circulation slows, (WIKI:- freshwater decreases ocean water salinity, and through this process prevents colder waters sinking. This mechanism possibly caused the cold ocean surface temperature anomaly currently observed near Greenland (Cold blob (North Atlantic)).
The British Isles and Europe are only able to stay 'warmish' during winter due to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) - as more fresh water pumps into the sea - basically screwing this. the ice age shall begin...
But the Earth doesn't give a shit about us...it's been fluctuating to these extremes for over a billion years, it's us that should give a shit about us.

Interesting re: tectonics. It makes sense. I feel sorry for Japan - increased intensity of typhoons, sea level rise, possible increase in earthquakes and stuck between an unsettled N Korea and expansionist China.

Yes, I heard that the climate could toggle back into an ice age. Time will tell on that one; and it also depends in the longer term future whether AI can work out how to positively influence climate.

The Earth is rather odd in that most of its energy is concentrated in its core while most of its complexity lies on the surface. So how important are humans, or the biosphere for that matter, to the Earth? Given that we ARE each tiny portions of the Earth, the feelings of denizens of the biosphere are logically all that the Earth feels. So the Earth must logically does "give a shit" about us insofar as it cares about anything.

However, planets have almost no control over themselves. So, over the aeons, the Earth rocks back and forth between heat and cold under the influence of various physical thresholds - as do simple and immature organisms, or pendulums for that matter.