Anthropogenic Climate Change/IPCC Fraud - Let me speak to you as a scientist for a moment.

while i agree with the op, i would add that the average co2 level during the cretaceous was only orders of magnitudes higher than 2014's if you were using base 2 math or something.

but yea its highly politicized and mostly fake news science.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

The funny thing is that the real scientist I talked to who spent the last part of his career as a bureaucrat at the start of the global warming hysteria confirms exactly what both you and the OP have said...

His agency actually got something like 50 million to see what increased c02 levels would do to plant life etc and growth exploded upwards as high as 1500 ppm which they tested in a very large controlled open field experiment where they pumped in c02 for an entire growing season.

He brought up exactly these same things, especially about the data being s*** heat island effect and etc, and further said straight up THEY KNEW THE DATA WAS CRAP because they had original good data too...

He was actually there at some of those meetings.

But the bureaucrats HAD TO DO SOMETHING or people would have actually expected some of their tax money back and decreasing regulations in response to that whole peace dividend thing!

Less regulation and less money would have meant less bureaucracy!

Many live in the here and now but a simple look over history shows we are entering into another natural cycle.
youtu.be...

Here is an interesting article from November 2, 1922... If I had to bet based on past observations they did not know what the were talking about in 1922 and it appears the forecasting department has not improved at all.. It is so simple to look at past cycles but it appears they can't tax a cycle so here we are today with outlandish claims from both sides of the argument.. www.kopsaotte.com...

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

www.iceagenow.info... Sea levels have started decreasing since 2016..
youtu.be...

There are more planetary cycles that affect our weather here on earth than I was ever aware of..Also some have heard about an increase in volcanic activity as we enter a new ice age...something that I had heard but really did not understand.... there is allot more to the climate change debate than was inputted into the original computer models.. No wonder they have failed miserably

Anyway for those who believe climate change is cyclic this video has it all with graphs, records, and shows how some scientist fiddled with the 1930s temps to make their alarmist predictions based off of an erroneous C02 causes global warming.. in other words worth a watch...youtu.be...

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

How does being a scientist exempt you from disproving Climate Change scientifically?

Moved this response to a more effective place below

a reply to: yorkshirelad

"For someone with a PHD your grammar and sentence structure is very poor. For someone with a PHD your obsession with two aspects of "measurement" (co2 and temperature) is very unscientific.

Business as usual for 'the writer'. Shouldn't that state, 'your grammar and sentence structures are very poor'?

Makes their money 'professionally' by nitpicking anyone else in what amounts to an opinion-editorial website.

Question is, how much money are you getting to nitpick this one?

If I wanted to go to IPCC and read knightsofcydonia's peer reviewed white papers, that's where I would go. Not ATS.

Please take your fake argument somewhere else.

I cannot welcome you here.

Your Friend

Jenkinswasher

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

if all this is known, then why is there such ambiguity with the models as opposed to reality? Why don't we know EXACTLY what will happen when? Is there any chance at all that every factor involved in this process isn't fully accounted for? Is there any chance at all that something new will be discovered and possibly change the thinking on any of this?

My friend,

I think you are expecting too much from the models. We can hardly model a head on vehicle crash to predict "exactly" what parts will break, how they will break, and where the broken parts will end up. It would be nearly impossible to model "exactly" where every little piece of broken windshield glass lands on the ground. We can only approximate at best. We would need to model every little atom and molecule, and measure and understand their current energy states, positions, and their relationships with their neighbors, and the strength of the materials and their bonds, etc.. that type of low level modeling is just not currently feasible.

However, we can model at a much higher level. We can model that the vehicle will indeed crash. We can model the major parts that get destroyed, and the systems that will ultimately malfunction. We can model the major stress points, the strong and weak spots, and the possibility that those spots will break or bend, etc.. We can also model if the occupants of the vehicle will survive or not.

We can do the same for Earth's atmosphere, and man's ceaseless release of CO2 into it (the crash). We can easily model the greenhouse effect, and what would happen if you continuously increase greenhouse gases, and the effects it would have on the climate and local weather, and if the occupants will survive or not... and we did do that, and it's not looking good.

You are asking why we can't know "exactly" what will happen and when, with detailed models. Well, that is what we are working on - improving the models. However we are never going to perfectly reflect reality, ever. When modeling a vehicle crash we have the benefit of actually doing a real crash test and improving our models based on that. We don't quite have that luxury with Earth. We can also measure every inch of the vehicle, but can't measure every inch of Earth, we can only take samples. So even if we did low level model it with perfect accuracy we would likely never know if it is really accurate or not - until it is too late. So we have to do with the higher level models we have now.

Everyone right now is arguing about the low level models and the measurements required to model them, when the high level models have already proven we are headed for disaster. You are asking if there is any chance at all that something new will be discovered from the low level models and possibly change the thinking of any of this... Yes, sure, when you study the results of a vehicle crash model you discover how to make the next crash less destructive. However, there is still a crash.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

"still working on it", sounds a bit different then "the science is settled". I have hope that some who don't believe that we already know everything about this, will find some new information that might change the outcome. Based on the fact that there is no alternative to the root cause of this, means that we have no way of changing anything.

No True Scottsman and Appeal to Authority all over the place in the OP. Also a bunch of "yer stupid."

a reply to: roguetechie

1: Yes, increasing CO2 certainly does help plants grow. That is because plants use water and sunlight to turn CO2 into sugar during photosynthesis. That can be proven in a lab.

However...

2: Increasing CO2 also increases temperature, this can also be proven in a lab. It's call the greenhouse effect.

3: Increasing temperature also increases water evaporation, and that can be proven in a lab as well.

4: Increased water evaporation eventually makes the soil dry. That can be proven in a lab too.

5: If the soil is dry, then plants don't get enough water to use during photosynthesis, which means they can't utilize that extra CO2 in the air, which means they can't grow. This also has been proven in a lab...

You are trying to tell us that a "real scientist" spent 50 million dollars to replicate 1 (which has been known for hundreds of years), and didn't even bother to replicate 2 through 5?

anyone here heard of a "gas blow off"......besides the burning of fossil fuels, you have millions of tons of nat gas being blown into the air unburned, all around the world.

a reply to: network dude

My friend, it seems you missed my point entirely... I thought I made it clear that what they are currently working on, and what is already settled, are two different things. So I don't see why you put them in the same sentence as if they were not.

We already know the crash is going to happen, and is happening now. We know its going to be a disaster. That "science is settled". It can't be denied.

What they are "still working on" are the details of the crash. Those details are debatable, but the crash itself is not. They want to know when things will start to break, and which occupants will fail to survive first, but we already know that it will happen eventually.

It seems like people such as yourself are looking at this backwards. You think that because we don't know the small details we can't possibly know the crash will happen. That is silly.

Assuming that what I read is true, that healthy adult humans produce 100 watts of heat each per hour, discounting children and the unhealthy, that is 5 billion watts of heat per hour from the human population alone, does it do anything to the atmosphere ? What about the animal population, how many watts of heat do they produce ?
Am I whistling into the wind here ?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Actually, what I see is that everyone is saying things like "it's going to crash", just after they said that burning fossil fuels is the main reason for the warming, yet there is no alternative to burning fossil fuels. Does that register? It's like telling us all we are going to drown in water, so don't drink it, yet not drinking it will kill you quicker.

When I ask what we are doing to fix this, I get some pleasantries, but the numbers continue to rise. So I guess my main point is, why even make a production out of it. It's already admitted "it's going to crash".

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Well ... after reading as much as I can find about the climate issue(s), I have come to conclude that the Earth and Solar scientists do not agree.

The Earth scientists look at our atmosphere, and deduce it's composition can affect the amount of heat trapped ... and change the climate that way.

The solar scientists see the sun going into a quieter phase, a minimum ... with less heat output reaching planet Earth.

Actually, they are all correct, it is just that the sun is a lot bigger than the Earth hah ... and the solar guys / gals are not numerous enough to be heard. Yet.

But if it is an arm wrestling contest between the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere ... I will bet on the sun winning in the end.

Sure ... CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat, but it won't be enough to prevent the overall cooling to follow.