Questioning the Climate-Change Narrative

[watsup]

You can pretend it's more complicated than it is to your heart's delight it is self-serving and it doesn't work on me.

I love your comedy. You are hilarious!

 

[Hafnium1979]

You can pretend it's more complicated than it is to your heart's delight it is self-serving and it doesn't work on me.

Was I not clear? I agreed that the basics are reasonably straightforward.

It honestly feels like you don't actually read posts you just respond with an automatic gainsaying of a random half-sentence you see in the post without context or understanding.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That sophisticated science skeptics are not that sophisticated: climate change is not real, earth is flat, masks don’t work, vaccines don’t work, etc, etc...

Dime a dozen. Don’t have time to refute all their points in all their books.

Too bad you didn't get a single one of those right. You need to stop believing who ever you are believing. The are treating you like a mushroom.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That is usually the way that most skeptics online approach the science. They come at it without any real understanding of the basics, reject it outright because it conflicts with their deepest wishes and then they characterize it as seeing that which all the world's experts have somehow missed.

And what understanding do you have of these sciences? Do you realize to be able to grasp these sciences, you need an advanced understanding of physics, chemistry, mathematics, celestial mechanics, and biology? Possible more, but that was just from a moment of consideration.

How many people can claim they understand all those disciplines?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The basics aren't really that complicated, you are correct, but it does require at least a basic understanding of how gases and radiation work. An intro geology class and an intro chemistry class could do you wonders.

Now, the nitty gritty stuff can get quite complex and you won't be up for that until you get further along in your studies.

Here's the basic stuff we do know:

We've known since the 1800's that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. That's incontrovertible. If you take a chemistry class they can show you that in actions.

We know that starting in the middle 19th century that western Europe and the US started mass industrialization and burned a lot of coal

We know that burning coal makes CO2 (you'll learn that in basic intro chemistry!)

We know that it takes a long time to fix carbon in coal naturally but we can burn it very quickly meaning we released a LOT of extra CO2 from our industrial output.

You can learn in geology classes how the CARBON CYCLE works and how it takes a lot of effort and time to get extra CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

There you have it! Pretty much basic things understandable by even a high school kid with minimal science training.

Now there's obviously a LOT more to it than just that but that's a good start for someone with almost no science background.

One of the really cool things is that we can tell, chemically, that a lot of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere since the mid-19th century is from burning fossil fuels! They can actually tell that! It's neat what science can do.

So, like I said, it's never bad not to know something because you can always learn!

Take an intro chem class and an intro geology class ( so you can learn about the history of earth and its climate) and you'll open a really cool area of learning.

Who is denying that?

Now... can you quantify the effects after considering the aerosols positive forcing on ice and negative forcing in the atmosphere? What about the positive an negative responses to CO2?

We don't disagree with all you said, you definitely are not listening to us if you thing we don't understand that.

I suggest you start listening to our position instead of denying it.

We disagree with the quantitative effect that is being used in an alarming way!

 

[CLAX1911]

Was I not clear?

It's very clear you're trying to make something seem more complicated than it is so you can pretend like everyone else that doesn't agree with you is stupid.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Who is denying that?

Clax seems overly antagonistic toward climate studies which, if I recall, he compared to cryptozoology.

Now... can you quantify the effects after considering the aerosols positive forcing on ice and negative forcing in the atmosphere? What about the positive an negative responses to CO2?

What specific aerosols are you pointing to that are positive forcings? Do you mean black soot?

We don't disagree with all you said, you definitely are not listening to us if you thing we don't understand that.

I read Clax's posts just fine.

I suggest you start listening to our position instead of denying it.

It appears you didn't actually read my responses to Clax. That, indeed, at it's base climate science is relatively straightforward. But, there are complexities at the higher levels.

We disagree with the quantitative effect that is being used in an alarming way!

I didn't get that from Clax's comments. I saw nothing but pure denial even of the field itself.

 

[Hafnium1979]

It's very clear you're trying to make something seem more complicated than it is so you can pretend like everyone else that doesn't agree with you is stupid.

I never said any of that. I DO, however, sense in you a lack of scientific education which is NOT stupid. It is perfectly common! The nation is full of people who have specialties outside of the sciences. Perhaps you are interested in business or dance, I don't know. I am merely pointing out that the science behind climate change is easy enough to understand at a basic level, but the details can get very complex. Only someone without any training or experience in science would think otherwise.

Just look at @Lord of Planar's comments about magnitude of forcings. Those are rather complex topics. There's complex interplays of various forcings and feedbacks.

Why you insist on thinking there isn't complexity is beyond me, but it definitely bespeaks a general lack of real scientific background.

 

[Hafnium1979]

And what understanding do you have of these sciences? Do you realize to be able to grasp these sciences, you need an advanced understanding of physics, chemistry, mathematics, celestial mechanics, and biology? Possible more, but that was just from a moment of consideration.

A great deal of it. I understand the basics reasonably well. I have training in the sciences.

What about you? What about Clax?

How many people can claim they understand all those disciplines?

There are those out there. Of course they are easily demonized and negated by those who don't understand the sciences.

 

[CLAX1911]

I never said any of that. I DO, however, sense in you a lack of scientific education

You sense that? Are you psychic?

 

[watsup]

It's very clear you're trying to make something seem more complicated than it is so you can pretend like everyone else that doesn't agree with you is stupid.

A person is only "stupid" if they refuse to study the subject well enough to understand it. In other words, many times "stupidity" is self-inflicted.

 

[longview]

The basics aren't really that complicated, you are correct, but it does require at least a basic understanding of how gases and radiation work. An intro geology class and an intro chemistry class could do you wonders.

Now, the nitty gritty stuff can get quite complex and you won't be up for that until you get further along in your studies.

Here's the basic stuff we do know:

We've known since the 1800's that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. That's incontrovertible. If you take a chemistry class they can show you that in actions.

We know that starting in the middle 19th century that western Europe and the US started mass industrialization and burned a lot of coal

We know that burning coal makes CO2 (you'll learn that in basic intro chemistry!)

We know that it takes a long time to fix carbon in coal naturally but we can burn it very quickly meaning we released a LOT of extra CO2 from our industrial output.

You can learn in geology classes how the CARBON CYCLE works and how it takes a lot of effort and time to get extra CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

There you have it! Pretty much basic things understandable by even a high school kid with minimal science training.

Now there's obviously a LOT more to it than just that but that's a good start for someone with almost no science background.

One of the really cool things is that we can tell, chemically, that a lot of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere since the mid-19th century is from burning fossil fuels! They can actually tell that! It's neat what science can do.

So, like I said, it's never bad not to know something because you can always learn!

Take an intro chem class and an intro geology class ( so you can learn about the history of earth and its climate) and you'll open a really cool area of learning.

No one is arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas! The question is how much warming, beyond the physics based forcing warming, will added CO2 cause?
Based on how the climate responded to pre 1950 warming, the observed data says there is a small amount of unknown warming which might be positive feedback, but even if 100% were positive feedback, the 2XCO2 ECS would only be 1.72C!

 

[watsup]

It's very clear you're trying to make something seem more complicated than it is so you can pretend like everyone else that doesn't agree with you is stupid.

What did he say that was incorrect?

 

[Lord of Planar]

A great deal of it. I understand the basics reasonably well. I have training in the sciences.

What about you? What about Clax?

I understand all of them. Biology is my weakest among them. Very few climatologists acknowledge that plants cool the earth by about 1 W/m^2 at a global average just from the endothermic reaction of photosynthesis. It's obvious that those doing the earth energy balance don't account for this, and claim there is about a 2/3 W/m^2 gain, claiming this is the warming we see. I can understand why Clax would compare it to cryptozoology for reasons like this. Granted, there is a decomposition process too, but the exothermic process is less than the endothermic process.

Can you explain to us why the heat in photosynthesis is ignored by climate scientists?

There are those out there. Of course they are easily demonized and negated by those who don't understand the sciences.

There are very, very few who understand all these disciplines in my viewpoint.

 

[Hafnium1979]

You sense that? Are you psychic?

Observant

 

[CLAX1911]

Observant

I think the word you're looking for is threatened.

 

[watsup]

I think the word you're looking for is threatened.

All the data and research of climate scientists is threatened by a person in a chat forum who hasn’t a clue as to what he is taking about in this regard, namely you? Really?

 

[watsup]

I think the word you're looking for is threatened.

All you have done so far is post insult and ad hom. Do you have any actual disagreement with the science of climate change that he posted?

 

[Hafnium1979]

I think the word you're looking for is threatened.

Lol. You’ll have to up your game to be a threat to much of anyone least of all someone with a basic science education

 

[CLAX1911]

Lol. You’ll have to up your game to be a threat to much of anyone least of all someone with a basic science education

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[CLAX1911]

I didn't get that from Clax's comments. I saw nothing but pure denial even of the field itself.

I don't respect cryptozoology or chiropractic either. Pseudoscience regardless of field is not real science.

 

[ataraxia]

I don't respect cryptozoology or chiropractic either. Pseudoscience regardless of field is not real science.

And what makes you a good judge of which is which?

 

[CLAX1911]

And what makes you a good judge of which is which?

Well with cryptozoology is the study of things like El chupacabra and bigfoot. Not the legend that would be anthropology.

And chiropractic is based on faith healing.

I would say possessing a mind qualifies me to judge.

 

[ataraxia]

Well with cryptozoology is the study of things like El chupacabra and bigfoot. Not the legend that would be anthropology.

And chiropractic is based on faith healing.

I would say possessing a mind qualifies me to judge.

But Bigfoot is not a consensus of scientists working in that field.

You are saying extensive formal training and experience in a specialized field and consensus by those working in that field can be trumped by a layperson’s common sense?

 

[CLAX1911]

But Bigfoot is not a consensus of scientists working in that field.

Who cares?

You are saying extensive formal training and experience in a specialized field and consensus by those working in that field can be trumped by a layperson’s common sense?

Show me a list of every scientist working in that field and that they agree in lock step with the alarmist propaganda.

If not you can't claim consensus.