Why Science Accepts Anthropogenic Global Warming and Tells Us We Need to Act

On-topic posts are about 1 in 100 around here. I was just wondering what made you decide to post that here. I can't say I care that much. I've been miles off topic myself.

Trump's comments have always been simplistic, even when they were intelligible. These days, they've become simplistic AND unintellligible. I don't know how many voters he's gonna pull in with that sort of tactic. I'd thought it was "Keep It Simple, Stupid" not "Keep It Simple & Stupid"
Of course it's the former, fwiw.

I'm telling you, that which you've observed on Trump's method has been lethal to his opponents. But the reason for his success hasn't been understood. So now you know!

And fwiw, this has survived long enough on the forum for everybody else to know now!

It won't be reflected back until tomorrow most likely, if at all.
 
The Earth is 58F (33.2C) degrees warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. CO2 is solely responsible for one-third of that warming and we have now increased it's level in Earth's atmosphere by 50%.
You do not see convincing documentation of such from you.
I learned long ago your agenda discounts you objective honesty.
 
You do not see convincing documentation of such from you.
GOOGLE AI
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth's surface by trapping the Sun's heat in the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be about -18°C (-0.4°F), but the greenhouse effect raises it to about 15°C (59°F) on average. This process allows life on Earth to exist.
Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and some artificial chemicals, absorb and re-radiate some of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's atmosphere. This energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface is sometimes called “back radiation” and is equivalent to 100% of the incoming solar energy.
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, have disrupted the Earth's energy balance by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to the IPCC's 2007 report, Earth's average surface temperatures have risen about 0.74°C (1.33°F) during the past 100 years, and most of that increase is likely due to human activities.






I learned long ago your agenda discounts you objective honesty.
And what might you believe my agenda to be?
 
GOOGLE AI
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth's surface by trapping the Sun's heat in the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be about -18°C (-0.4°F), but the greenhouse effect raises it to about 15°C (59°F) on average. This process allows life on Earth to exist.
Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and some artificial chemicals, absorb and re-radiate some of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's atmosphere. This energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface is sometimes called “back radiation” and is equivalent to 100% of the incoming solar energy.
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, have disrupted the Earth's energy balance by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to the IPCC's 2007 report, Earth's average surface temperatures have risen about 0.74°C (1.33°F) during the past 100 years, and most of that increase is likely due to human activities.







And what might you believe my agenda to be?
Back in #32;
" Your interest and agenda is to used falsified "science" as a political tool to advance further marxism-socialism towards global tyranny and destroy free enterprise and capitalism.

Repeat. If you really believed this crap you would personally stop emitting any CO2.

You are a phony and charlatan. "

The purple highlight above in the quote of your posts shows just one point of concern. "likely" is far from a certainty!

BTW, you are still here creating the "problem and crisis" you shill for. Not much credibility there on your part.
If everyone who thinks human caused CO2 is the major to sole cause of global warming "crisis" were to do their part and stop emitting CO2, the "crisis" would go away. ;)
 
Back in #32;
" Your interest and agenda is to used falsified "science" as a political tool to advance further marxism-socialism towards global tyranny and destroy free enterprise and capitalism.
#32 is your post. Quoting yourself as a reference just doesn't work whizzo. EMH does it. Don't do what EMH does.
Repeat. If you really believed this crap you would personally stop emitting any CO2.
This was the post for which I called you an idiot. I'm afraid nothing has changed.
You are a phony and charlatan. "
Why? Do you think I am failing to do something I have urged you or others here to do?
he purple highlight above in the quote of your posts shows just one point of concern. "likely" is far from a certainty!
Surely you have seen me note "there is no such thing as a proof in the natural sciences". I have said that dozens of times here because people who really don't know even basic science are constantly demanding proof. Like you just did.
BTW, you are still here creating the "problem and crisis" you shill for. Not much credibility there on your part.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.
If everyone who thinks human caused CO2 is the major to sole cause of global warming "crisis" were to do their part and stop emitting CO2, the "crisis" would go away. ;)
If EVERYONE did what those who are concerned about CO2 emissions do, the crisis would be in a much more manageable state. No matter what we do now, we still have 175 years of CO2 emissions to deal with.
 
We do need to act.

We need to get a clue.

We need an honest DOJ and FBI to prosecute the Co2 FRAUD.

The Co2 FRAUD is the enemy of America and the actual environment.
 
We do need to act.

We need to get a clue.

We need an honest DOJ and FBI to prosecute the Co2 FRAUD.

The Co2 FRAUD is the enemy of America and the actual environment.
You think the Earth's environment will be improved with increased combustion of fossil fuels?
 
You think the Earth's environment will be improved with increased combustion of fossil fuels?

We were doing just fine with combustion. Since Co2 does nothing, why not continue. The subsidized EV scam is a disaster for the environment. Rare Earth mining, dealing with the Taliban etc...
 
If the Earth had no atmosphere, the planet's average temperature would be 58F (32C) cooler. Adding back just the oxygen and nitrogen would have almost NO effect on the temperature. That 58F of warming is due almost ENTIRELY to the greenhouse effect acting on two components of our atmosphere. About two-thirds is due to water vapor and one-third to carbon dioxide (CO2). The other components having greenhouse effects are methane, nitrous oxide, chloro- and hydrofluorocarbons.

The Earth began warming with the advent of the Industrial Revolution when the use of steam engines and then internal combustion engines grew rapidly, all fueled with hydrocarbon fossil fuels. The Earth is now warming at a historically extreme rate; twenty five times as rapidly as the Earth moved from glacial to interglacial states over the last 3 million years. That warming has been studied extensively for decades by scientists all over the planet. Their near-universal conclusion is that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 emitted by humans burning fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas) for energy and transportation.

Up until the invention of the steam engine, CO2 in our atmosphere stayed in the range of 280 - 300 ppm for almost 3 million years. It is now just breaching 420 ppm, a 50% increase in the gas responsible for one-third of all greenhouse warming. That warming is reinforced by positive feedback from increased humidity in the Earth's atmosphere; water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas but as a precipitable component of the atmosphere, changes only in response to temperature changes brought about by other agents. Atmospheric CO2 levels are also increased by deforestation and the thawing of frozen tundra.

The warming has numerous effects, many of which are harmful. Aside from its impact on all life forms via more frequent and more intense heat waves, we are experiencing sea level rise and increased ice melt. The energy that drives weather comes from the sun via the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. As global warming increases the energy available for weather, the average intensity of weather will increase. Increased temperatures are causing glaciers and snowpack to disappear. That decreases the Earth's albedo, decreasing the amount of solar radiation reflected back to space and providing more positive feedback. Increased meltwater from the poles is reducing the density of water there and thus the drive for the overturning currents responsible for the basis of almost the entire marine food chain as well as the temperate climate of Europe

Currently, thirty percent of human CO2 emissions are absorbed by the world's oceans. CO2 in aqueous solution produces carbonic acid which reduces the oceans pH (makes it more acidic). That change affects numerous biochemical reactions utilized by marine life, in particular the ability to fix carbonates into shells, exoskeletons and corals. The loss of corals will expose thousands of miles of coastlines to higher wave energies causing increased erosion and coastal flooding.

So, while some argue that added CO2 will increase agricultural production in some locales and that warming will be welcome by some residents in high latitude settings, the balance of warming effects are and will continue to be overwhelmingly negative.

TOPICS TO EXPLORE

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Source of the Increased CO2?

How Do We Know that CO2 is the Cause of the Warming?

How Do We Know that Warming Will be Harmful?

What Are Tipping Points and Have We Crossed Any?

References





The Moon has no atmosphere, receives the same amount of Sunlight as Earth and has a sunside surface temperature of 250F

Maybe Earth atmosphere lowers the temperature by 200F?
 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Greg
Climate “scientists” are looking at collecting their share of $3 Trillion annually

Ka-Ching!

“If there’s a steady paycheck in it, I believe it”

 
I certainly wouldn't mind hearing another voice.
Then I'll respectfully provide one. It was a classic "stopped reading right there," when you started off with "Why science accepts . . . " I'll explain why those three little words managed to be packed with such a large amount of illogic.

Science is not a cognitive being, as Oddball stated. If that is a metaphor, fine, but it would do you well to say so to avoid sounding as if you treat science like a god of a primitive culture. If science metaphorically accepted something, the acceptance could never be final. Not if it is science metaphorically accepting. Nothing should be accepted as the final word, except that nothing is the final word.

Accepting any proposition as definite is the polar opposte of science, and I don't mean that metaphorically. I mean it by this definition" searches DuckDuckgo

1723258061705.png

Under that definition, "science" is a system, and it does not at all include "acceptance." Studies of climate are never unbiased, which degrades what should be a robust scientific enquiry. Studies of the climate rarely include unbiased observations and almost never experimentation.

Predictions of man-caused environmental disasters are educated guesses at most. Because the "education" in that case is so fraught with bias, they might more fairly be called "mis-educated guesses."

That's my opinion. Thank you for asking me to voice it, sincerely.
 
GOOGLE AI
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth's surface by trapping the Sun's heat in the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be about -18°C (-0.4°F), but the greenhouse effect raises it to about 15°C (59°F) on average. This process allows life on Earth to exist.
Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and some artificial chemicals, absorb and re-radiate some of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's atmosphere. This energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface is sometimes called “back radiation” and is equivalent to 100% of the incoming solar energy.
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, have disrupted the Earth's energy balance by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to the IPCC's 2007 report, Earth's average surface temperatures have risen about 0.74°C (1.33°F) during the past 100 years, and most of that increase is likely due to human activities.







And what might you believe my agenda to be?
Why do they have high Carbon dioxide levels in glasshouses to grow PLANTS......just wondering!!!

Greg
 
But notice, it's never about China, it's ALWAYS the U$A who has to pay the freight. It's as if this is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme

co2-emissions-per-country-chart.jpg
 
Last edited:
Then I'll respectfully provide one. It was a classic "stopped reading right there," when you started off with "Why science accepts . . . " I'll explain why those three little words managed to be packed with such a large amount of illogic.

Science is not a cognitive being, as Oddball stated. If that is a metaphor, fine, but it would do you well to say so to avoid sounding as if you treat science like a god of a primitive culture. If science metaphorically accepted something, the acceptance could never be final. Not if it is science metaphorically accepting. Nothing should be accepted as the final word, except that nothing is the final word.

Accepting any proposition as definite is the polar opposte of science, and I don't mean that metaphorically. I mean it by this definition" searches DuckDuckgo

View attachment 993061
Under that definition, "science" is a system, and it does not at all include "acceptance." Studies of climate are never unbiased, which degrades what should be a robust scientific enquiry. Studies of the climate rarely include unbiased observations and almost never experimentation.

Predictions of man-caused environmental disasters are educated guesses at most. Because the "education" in that case is so fraught with bias, they might more fairly be called "mis-educated guesses."

That's my opinion. Thank you for asking me to voice it, sincerely.



The practice of ACTUAL SCIENCE


starts with a THEORY....

The THEORY is that increasing atmospheric Co2 warms the atmosphere....


and then is TESTED with DATA...

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temperature - satellites and balloons...

What did the ACTUAL DATA say....?




", satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."


For more than 3 decades of rising Co2, satellites and ballloons showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE in highly correlated fashion....



THEORY REJECTED



What actually happened?

the atmospheric temp data was FUDGED instead....
 
The practice of ACTUAL SCIENCE


starts with a THEORY....

The THEORY is that increasing atmospheric Co2 warms the atmosphere....


and then is TESTED with DATA...

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temperature - satellites and balloons...

What did the ACTUAL DATA say....?




", satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."


For more than 3 decades of rising Co2, satellites and ballloons showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE in highly correlated fashion....



THEORY REJECTED



What actually happened?

the atmospheric temp data was FUDGED instead....
Did you actually read the entire article?
 
I do. I also feel free to urge you to act.
We’re all waiting for you to either: a) call for a ban on imports from China, or b) chain yourself to the Chinese Embassy in protest
 
Back
Top Bottom