Global Warming

The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... Good Lord Almighty that's funny ...

Welcome to the USMB ... thank you for signing up ... we need folk like you around here ... enjoyed the movie too, though I understand why some don't like it ... I thought it was delightful and a refreshing take on death ... wouldn't it be nice if we could do that ... but this was before my mother passed, so maybe not such a good idea ...

=====

How many new reserves will we discover in 30-40 years?

Do you mean "easy and cheap to extract" oil? ... that's all been found, and we've been pumping it as fast as we can for the entire 20th Century ... Spindletop has gone dry as far as I know ... the natural gas that came up with the oil was so worthless we simply vented it and set it afire ...

There's more reserves deeper down, that's true ... and we'll discover them, it's not hard ... the expensive part is drilling down that far and pumping it up ... 300 million years of plate tectonics can drive oil pockets deep into the Earth ...

Using simple supply and demand ... when we have increasing demand, and decreasing supply, prices go up ... the better question is when will we run out of cheap fossil fuels and have to start burning not-so-cheap fossil fuels ... when will we start burning this-shit-is-getting-expense fossil fuels? ...

When will fossil fuels be too expensive to just burn, and everything else we make from fossil fuels get to be damned expensive? ...

CONSERVATION ... I know it's a filthy word on both sides of the debate ... so sue me ...
 
WATCHTOWER.ORG is a Jehovah Witness publication...

I think I am seeing the link (or lack there of) to critical thinking skills.

I wasnt aware that Gretta was a JW.

Me neither. I was referring to the scientific evidence, such as that from the IPCC, for global warming which she had reference to.

You have our website wrong - it is:

www.jw.org

I think you are having trouble reading the URL's of the links I posted.
 
... I never posted global warming in earth's main problem ...

Yes ... you did ... post #57 ... you very explicitly said loss of biodiversity these past 100 years will be caused by global warming over the next 100 years ...

You posted a list of 37 things caused by climate change, now you're saying you didn't post that ... see how foolish you sound? ...

... or are you just apeing a teen-age little girl? ...

You misrepresented what I posted- which was and is correct. Try reading my post more carefully. If you check out our website you will find global warming is NOT the primary problem mankind and our planet are facing. See my thread on the ways man is ruining the earth.

Just because global warming is a real threat does not mean it is the primary threat. See our article on greening the Amazon forest here:


"LDURING the 1990’s, the world annually lost millions of acres of natural forests, reported the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. In Brazil’s Amazon region alone, whirring chain saws and crackling fires have already turned a tract of rain forest larger than Germany into a mere pasture. Instead of a seamless landscape of treetops, the forest canopy is now broken by stretches of cracked clay thinly covered with weeds and exposed stumps baking under the sun.

Although this ongoing forest destruction is disturbing, there are glimmers of hope. One promising program has already yielded some results. It is called agroforestry, and one source describes it as “a system in which cultivation of trees is combined with field crops or pasture in an ecologically . . . sustainable manner.” How does agroforestry work? What has it accomplished? What prospects might it hold for the future? To find out, Awake! visited the National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA) in Manaus, the capital of Brazil’s Amazonas State"

Note that while our article notes the problem of deforestation, it also notes solutions being implemented. See the article for details. Notice that we do not say global warming is the primary cause of deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. Instead, we note:

"Granted, small farmers are not the main cause of the Amazon’s forest destruction. Large cattle ranches, big agribusinesses, mining and logging industries, and hydroelectric dam construction projects have done most of the damage. Even so, the influx of small farmers and the slash-and-burn method of farming that they practice have contributed to forest destruction."

So, what solutions does the article report on? See the article!
 
The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... Good Lord Almighty that's funny ...

Welcome to the USMB ... thank you for signing up ... we need folk like you around here ... enjoyed the movie too, though I understand why some don't like it ... I thought it was delightful and a refreshing take on death ... wouldn't it be nice if we could do that ... but this was before my mother passed, so maybe not such a good idea ...

=====

How many new reserves will we discover in 30-40 years?

Do you mean "easy and cheap to extract" oil? ... that's all been found, and we've been pumping it as fast as we can for the entire 20th Century ... Spindletop has gone dry as far as I know ... the natural gas that came up with the oil was so worthless we simply vented it and set it afire ...

There's more reserves deeper down, that's true ... and we'll discover them, it's not hard ... the expensive part is drilling down that far and pumping it up ... 300 million years of plate tectonics can drive oil pockets deep into the Earth ...

Using simple supply and demand ... when we have increasing demand, and decreasing supply, prices go up ... the better question is when will we run out of cheap fossil fuels and have to start burning not-so-cheap fossil fuels ... when will we start burning this-shit-is-getting-expense fossil fuels? ...

When will fossil fuels be too expensive to just burn, and everything else we make from fossil fuels get to be damned expensive? ...
zeal
CONSERVATION ... I know it's a filthy word on both sides of the debate ... so sue me ...

We agree conservation is very important. As in the above article on the Amazon rainforest. LIkewise the following article on saving species from extinction in New Zealand here:

"Already many species have been completely lost: birds, more than 40; frogs, 3; bats, 1; and lizards, at least 3—as well as numerous insect species. More than half the 5,819 native plants and animals of New Zealand are classified as at risk, making the country’s wildlife among the most threatened on the planet....

One of the restored islands is Tiritiri Matangi, off the coast of Auckland’s Whangaparaoa Peninsula. Cleared of rats in 1993 and replanted with some 280,000 native trees, the area is now a controlled open sanctuary where visitors can listen to and see native bird species that have been reintroduced, including the rare saddleback, takahe, kokako, rifleman, and stitchbird. Thriving in a predator-free environment, these beautiful creatures often allow visitors to enjoy a close-up view.

In 2003, sub-Antarctic Campbell Island was declared rat free after a two-year program of eradication. Since then, native flora are recovering and seabirds are returning. Even the Campbell Island teal—a rare species of duck—has been reintroduced.....

These examples show what can be done to restore threatened species and address the shortsighted environmental mistakes of the past. Lovers of the natural world everywhere can especially look forward to the Bible’s promise that Jehovah God, “the Maker of heaven and earth,” will put an end to the harmful practices that threaten the natural world, including its wildlife.—Psalm 115:15; Revelation 21:5."

Notice the article does not mention global warming. This is because we realize that although global warming is real and is a threat - there are more serious ways man is ruining the earth.
 
Wow. Of course, that means your functionally out of peanuts quite some time prior. When it costs a few thousands dollars to locate and extract each barrel of oil, no one is going to be burning it in their 400 hp V-8s to haul 2 tons of Detroit iron around the countryside.

Exactly!

Like I said, scarcity leads to higher prices, which leads to conservation, substitution, and innovation.
 
The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... Good Lord Almighty that's funny ...

Welcome to the USMB ... thank you for signing up ... we need folk like you around here ... enjoyed the movie too, though I understand why some don't like it ... I thought it was delightful and a refreshing take on death ... wouldn't it be nice if we could do that ... but this was before my mother passed, so maybe not such a good idea ...

=====

How many new reserves will we discover in 30-40 years?

Do you mean "easy and cheap to extract" oil? ... that's all been found, and we've been pumping it as fast as we can for the entire 20th Century ... Spindletop has gone dry as far as I know ... the natural gas that came up with the oil was so worthless we simply vented it and set it afire ...

There's more reserves deeper down, that's true ... and we'll discover them, it's not hard ... the expensive part is drilling down that far and pumping it up ... 300 million years of plate tectonics can drive oil pockets deep into the Earth ...

Using simple supply and demand ... when we have increasing demand, and decreasing supply, prices go up ... the better question is when will we run out of cheap fossil fuels and have to start burning not-so-cheap fossil fuels ... when will we start burning this-shit-is-getting-expense fossil fuels? ...

When will fossil fuels be too expensive to just burn, and everything else we make from fossil fuels get to be damned expensive? ...

CONSERVATION ... I know it's a filthy word on both sides of the debate ... so sue me ...


Thanks.

Of course it's not oil per se that we want. It's the energy that comes form oil that we want. And there are lots of other ways to get energy.

We used to use whale oil. But we stopped, and switched to better things.
 
The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.[/QUOTE]

sOME THINGS JUST NEED REPEATING--

The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.[/QUOTE]

sOME THINGS JUST NEED REPEATING-

The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.[/QUOTE]

uNTIL IT IS HEARD :)-
 
Does anyone here know what chemicals humans get out of a barrel of oil?

just curious
:)-


Barrel - Copy.png
 
Last edited:
The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.

sOME THINGS JUST NEED REPEATING--

The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.[/QUOTE]

sOME THINGS JUST NEED REPEATING-

The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. It ended because something better came along.[/QUOTE]

uNTIL IT IS HEARD :)-
[/QUOTE]

Or you could answer the question.....why won't any new reserves be discovered?
 
We used to use whale oil. But we stopped, and switched to better things.

Whales is what got us into this mess ... it always surprises me to think the largest animal to have ever lived on Earth ... the Blue Whale ... consumes the very smallest ... phytoplankton ... and extremely large amounts of phytoplankton I must say ... just a reminder, phytoplankton are at the base of the food chain, it's these guys who convert CO2 into food ... so as soon as the whaling ban went into effect, and whale numbers increased, this is when all our CO2 problems began ... so whales are the problem ...

NUKE THE WHALES !!! ...
 
It is irrelevant whether we find a postponement, the fact is fossil fuels are finite. Having said that; while I pray to God that He helps lead us to an ultimate solution there is no guaranty that we will comply with His wishes.

It is After all "the" one gift He gave us, the gift to choose.

Trump was a poorly choice in my view of things

:)-
 
Yeah ... crude oil is useful stuff ... plastics and fertilizer ... where would we be without those? ... seems a shame to be foolishly burning it ...
It is inevitable. If you are near or under the age of 65 today, you will see this unfold in Realtime.

Not sure if I will still be here.

:)-
 
... just a reminder, phytoplankton are at the base of the food chain, it's these guys who convert CO2 into food ... so as soon as the whaling ban went into effect, and whale numbers increased, this is when all our CO2 problems began ... so whales are the problem ...

Animals including humans breath "in" oxygen 02 and exhale CO2
.,,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,..Plants breath "in" CO2 and exhale 02
food for thought
the cycle of life
:)-
 
Does anyone here know what chemicals humans get out of a barrel of oil?

just curious
:)-


View attachment 347753


We can actually manufacture oil from garbage. The process is called "thermal depolymerization."

This 2003 article from Discover magazine is called "Anything to Oil."

The biggest flaw with the article is the price that was stated. They said it could be done for $15 per barrel. That turned out to be way, way wrong. It can be done, it just costs a lot more. I'm not sure what the current cost it. If the long term price of oil ever becomes high enough, this process could become profitable.

 
Not this bullshit again.

Can you respond with respectful language?
Can you talk about something real that's not just a theory?
God said "Be fruitful and multiply."
He made this Earth, and it's capable of "sustaining" a lot more people.
You're just buying into the UN Agenda 21 mantra.

Oh, you are so confused. Science is established on facts. Scientific theory is a collection of facts.

Even so, global warming is a fact, not a theory. I will explain some of the basic science

1) It is a fact that the Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be if it had no atmosphere.

2) Greenhouse gasses like CO2 absorb electromagnetic radiation in the infrared band. This frequency band is the range of frequencies that we experience as radiant heat.

3) The chemistry of combustion requires that CO2 is produced when carbon based fuels are burned, a process also known as rapid oxidation. Oxygen combines with the carbon in the fuel to produce CO2.

4) The isotope of oxygen in fossil fuels is distinguishable from that of fuels such as wood by a process known as carbon dating.

5) In 1958, Keeling began recording the mixing ratio of atmospheric CO2. Since then, CO2 content has continued to increase. The magnitude of this long term trend is comparable to and exceeds that of the seasonal variability.

6) The global mean temperature of the Earth has been documented since people have been interested in weather which affects our daily lives and the agriculture that we depend on.

7) There are a handful of factors that affect the global mean air and sea surface temperature. These include orbital mechanics, heat exchange with the oceans, GHG content, solar energy (TSI), as well as aerosols from volcanic eruptions and man made pollution.

a) Orbital mechanics affect global temperatures on the scale of the ice ages and are the cause of periods of glaciation. Orbital mechanics is not the cause of global warming.

b) Volcanic eruptions and man made pollutants are short lived, with volcanic eruptions affecting temperatures over a few years. The affect of man made pollutants is well known and has declined as a result of environmental policies.

c) The IR absorptive processes of the GHGs are governed by quantum mechanics and is well understood.

d) The GHG of water vapor is directly proportional to temperature. The process of evaporation and precipitation follows the fundamental gas law of PV=nRT which we experience as weather. Water vapor is not an independent cause of GMT.

e) Methane content and changes is insufficient to cause AWG.

f) CO2 is the single demonstrated cause of the long term trend of global warming.

g) The affect of solar irradiance can also be shown by plotting temperature against TSI. TSI is proven as not the cause of the temperature variability.

h) Heat exchange with the oceans is also a well known cause of atmospheric temperature change. The cyclical ocean temperature events known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO, Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation, El Nino and La Nina are well known. These cycles are apparent in the decadal long ups and downs of the global mean air and sea surface temperature record. The short of it is that when taken together, CO2 is the clear cause of the long term increase, PDO strongly affects the cyclical variations, and changes in TSI are insignificant.

8) There area couple of methods for connecting the various factors of any system.

The most definitive is to apply 400 years of hard mathematic scientific laws to show how the empirical measurements fit together to produce the affect of global warming. If you have a team of PhDs and a super-computer, this is the way to go.

Another method is basic statistical data analysis techniques. Specifically, a multi-variate regression is a realistic approach for most. Excel and Open Office have data analysis packages. There are websites that will do regression. There are a number of data analysis packages on the market, including the open source software R,

The results of of a multi variate regression is

Anom = -122.7+0.00944*CO2+0.0804*PDO+.08793*TSI

The likelihood of this result being random chance is 7.466e-15. This is a probability of 1 in 133,940,530,404,500. This is one in 134 trillion. In practical terms, this is a guarantee that these factors, CO2 and PDO, are drivers of the global mean air and sea surface temperature.

GMT can be estimated to a good degree of accuracy by plugging in the empirical data for the three factors. Monthly data is the most definitive though yearly averages work well enough. And this technique is obtainable for those of us who don't have a PhD in physics.

9) Correlation alone doesn't prove causality, correlation is required for causality and lack of correlation does prove no causality. Combined with the centuries of well established science, AGW is a fact from adding up thousands of smaller facts.

Causality requires correlation. The variable TSI is included for this reason. TSI is demonstrated as not being causal. It is in general, obviously. But, during this current period of global warming, any affects due to changes in solar irradiation is swamped by the affects of CO2 and ocean heat exchange. Again, in practical terms, this is a guarantee, of 134 trillion to one, that CO2 and PDO are drivers of the GMT.

While correlation alone doesn't prove causality, the combination of the known physical laws along with correlation does prove causality. The multivariate linear regression result is supported by the basic science.

The short of it is this, basic science make it clear that global warming is expected by an increase in CO2. And, empirical data makes it clear that CO2 is affecting the planet as expected. The empirical data also makes it clear that it isn't something else.

Global warming is a theory like rain comes from clouds is a theory. You are welcome to do the basic science yourself.

Data and Tools

TSI - Total Solar Irradiance
SORCE » Total Solar Irradiance Data
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

Anom - Global Mean Temperature Anomaly
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

R - The R Project for Statistical Computing
.r-project.org/

Apache OpenOffice

Linear and Multiple Regression Online
Regression Tools - Online Linear Regression
Regression Tools - Online Multiple Linear Regression
 
You aren't posting any evidence just cut and paste bullshit from paid government workers keeping their jobs.


You mean this evidence?

Not this bullshit again.

Can you respond with respectful language?
Can you talk about something real that's not just a theory?
God said "Be fruitful and multiply."
He made this Earth, and it's capable of "sustaining" a lot more people.
You're just buying into the UN Agenda 21 mantra.

Oh, you are so confused. Science is established on facts. Scientific theory is a collection of facts.

Even so, global warming is a fact, not a theory. I will explain some of the basic science

1) It is a fact that the Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be if it had no atmosphere.

2) Greenhouse gasses like CO2 absorb electromagnetic radiation in the infrared band. This frequency band is the range of frequencies that we experience as radiant heat.

3) The chemistry of combustion requires that CO2 is produced when carbon based fuels are burned, a process also known as rapid oxidation. Oxygen combines with the carbon in the fuel to produce CO2.

4) The isotope of oxygen in fossil fuels is distinguishable from that of fuels such as wood by a process known as carbon dating.

5) In 1958, Keeling began recording the mixing ratio of atmospheric CO2. Since then, CO2 content has continued to increase. The magnitude of this long term trend is comparable to and exceeds that of the seasonal variability.

6) The global mean temperature of the Earth has been documented since people have been interested in weather which affects our daily lives and the agriculture that we depend on.

7) There are a handful of factors that affect the global mean air and sea surface temperature. These include orbital mechanics, heat exchange with the oceans, GHG content, solar energy (TSI), as well as aerosols from volcanic eruptions and man made pollution.

a) Orbital mechanics affect global temperatures on the scale of the ice ages and are the cause of periods of glaciation. Orbital mechanics is not the cause of global warming.

b) Volcanic eruptions and man made pollutants are short lived, with volcanic eruptions affecting temperatures over a few years. The affect of man made pollutants is well known and has declined as a result of environmental policies.

c) The IR absorptive processes of the GHGs are governed by quantum mechanics and is well understood.

d) The GHG of water vapor is directly proportional to temperature. The process of evaporation and precipitation follows the fundamental gas law of PV=nRT which we experience as weather. Water vapor is not an independent cause of GMT.

e) Methane content and changes is insufficient to cause AWG.

f) CO2 is the single demonstrated cause of the long term trend of global warming.

g) The affect of solar irradiance can also be shown by plotting temperature against TSI. TSI is proven as not the cause of the temperature variability.

h) Heat exchange with the oceans is also a well known cause of atmospheric temperature change. The cyclical ocean temperature events known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO, Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation, El Nino and La Nina are well known. These cycles are apparent in the decadal long ups and downs of the global mean air and sea surface temperature record. The short of it is that when taken together, CO2 is the clear cause of the long term increase, PDO strongly affects the cyclical variations, and changes in TSI are insignificant.

8) There area couple of methods for connecting the various factors of any system.

The most definitive is to apply 400 years of hard mathematic scientific laws to show how the empirical measurements fit together to produce the affect of global warming. If you have a team of PhDs and a super-computer, this is the way to go.

Another method is basic statistical data analysis techniques. Specifically, a multi-variate regression is a realistic approach for most. Excel and Open Office have data analysis packages. There are websites that will do regression. There are a number of data analysis packages on the market, including the open source software R,

The results of of a multi variate regression is

Anom = -122.7+0.00944*CO2+0.0804*PDO+.08793*TSI

The likelihood of this result being random chance is 7.466e-15. This is a probability of 1 in 133,940,530,404,500. This is one in 134 trillion. In practical terms, this is a guarantee that these factors, CO2 and PDO, are drivers of the global mean air and sea surface temperature.

GMT can be estimated to a good degree of accuracy by plugging in the empirical data for the three factors. Monthly data is the most definitive though yearly averages work well enough. And this technique is obtainable for those of us who don't have a PhD in physics.

9) Correlation alone doesn't prove causality, correlation is required for causality and lack of correlation does prove no causality. Combined with the centuries of well established science, AGW is a fact from adding up thousands of smaller facts.

Causality requires correlation. The variable TSI is included for this reason. TSI is demonstrated as not being causal. It is in general, obviously. But, during this current period of global warming, any affects due to changes in solar irradiation is swamped by the affects of CO2 and ocean heat exchange. Again, in practical terms, this is a guarantee, of 134 trillion to one, that CO2 and PDO are drivers of the GMT.

While correlation alone doesn't prove causality, the combination of the known physical laws along with correlation does prove causality. The multivariate linear regression result is supported by the basic science.

The short of it is this, basic science make it clear that global warming is expected by an increase in CO2. And, empirical data makes it clear that CO2 is affecting the planet as expected. The empirical data also makes it clear that it isn't something else.

Global warming is a theory like rain comes from clouds is a theory. You are welcome to do the basic science yourself.

Data and Tools

TSI - Total Solar Irradiance
SORCE » Total Solar Irradiance Data
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

Anom - Global Mean Temperature Anomaly
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

R - The R Project for Statistical Computing
.r-project.org/

Apache OpenOffice

Linear and Multiple Regression Online
Regression Tools - Online Linear Regression
Regression Tools - Online Multiple Linear Regression
 
From Post one quotes:

"I'll let you all study this entire 2008 article - I will simply start with this introduction:"

No link, thus useless.

=======

"Is Planet Earth Under Threat?

GLOBAL WARMING has been described as the greatest threat facing humanity. What worries researchers, says the journal Science, “is the prospect that we’ve started a slow-moving but relentless avalanche of change.” Skeptics question this assertion. True, many agree that the earth is warming, but they are uncertain of both the causes and the consequences. Human activities may be a factor, they say, but not necessarily the primary one. Why the disagreement?

For one thing, the physical processes that underlie global climate systems are complex and not fully understood. In addition, interest groups tend to put their own spin on the scientific data, such as that used to show why temperatures are rising."

So, what do you all think - is it hard to find the truth amidst the "spins" of various interest groups? There are so many factors, but I hope to concentrate on two points for starters:"

===

A spin of its own that completely leaves out the history of the Holocene, to make this rootless statement.

Hardly anyone dispute the warming, but only skeptics seem to look at the big picture (Last 10,000 years) while warmist/Alarmists look at the small picture (the last 100 or just the last 41 years) which is why warmist'alarmists are frequently illogical, since they ignore past climates to wail over a short slice of the recent past.

Warmists/alarmists put most of their argument over a single trace gas, that has at best a very small heat budget effect. That is why they fail, they leave out too many possible warming factors.

They run their belief system over a bunch of unverifiable emission/temperature modeling scenarios that run to year 2050, 2100 and 3100.

Not going to bother with a manipulated Childs numerous unsupported drivel.

You asked question that well known answers abounds in the literature, what is your motivation for doing it?

"1. Either extinctions are occurring or they are not occurring.

2. Either sea level is rising, or it isn't rising. The lives of people living on low elevation islands is a reason this is important."

Then you write this:

"Feel free to post evidence. I will start with the more current speech by Greta Thunberg - first a written transcript here:"

Skeptics commonly use real evidence, while warmist/alarmist use mostly climate models.

You seem smitten over a girl who doesn't show understanding over a topic she babbles over, it is why I don't give a shit what she thinks anymore, as she has been repeatedly exposed as a liar, hypocrite and a galoot!

What are you really after?


" For one thing, the physical processes that underlie global climate systems are complex and not fully understood. "

Well, actually, science is really smart. It deals with very complex things. The science of global warming really isn't that complex. Turbulent water flow is pipes is complex. Still, if I leave the water running with the drain closed, the sink will fill up and run all over the floor. I don't need to use the equations that underlie turbulent flow to know that the sink will overflow.

This is your leading point, that "the processes are complex".

Then you make error after error because the science is complex for you. Scientists, on the other hand, spend at least 8-10 years studying all of the science that has been developed over 600+ years, since Newton first developed Newtonian mechanics and calculus. And there are a lot of scientists working on the problem.

And the proof of global warming is proven from that. The climate models that have been developed aren't to prove global warming and climate change.

So, now you neither understand the basic science that proved global warming and do not understand what climate models are.

They have been developed to get some range of temperatures that we might expect if we continue to use fossil fuels at the rate that we are currently using them. And the BIG PICTURE is that the global mean temperature is increasing at a rate faster than ever in the last 10,000 years. (Uh, yes, science is well aware of the last 10,000 years.

So, now you have demonstrated that you don't understand the basic science, don't understand what a climate model is, don't understand what science has examined.

If you would like to discuss actual science, I will happily explain some of it to you. We can discuss the chemistry, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, the history of scientific discovery, what a science and engineering education consists of, the empirical data of global warming and the mathematics of science including calculus and statistics.

Someone with a PhD in the an applicable science might be able to call themselves a "skeptic". If you don't have a PhD, you are a denier. At this point, the science is clear. There aren't any skeptics left, only deniers.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top