Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[wayneL]

Learn what evidence is, and get yourself a decent dictionary, because what you post is mostly poorly founded, diversionary, off-topic rubbish.

Ad hom is a logical fallacy bruh.

Again, I urge you to look in the mirror.

Regards evidence, please note Mann v Ball.

 

[IFocus]

As for the CO2 thing, measurement, properties and relationships concerning gases is a known even if some argue other wise it is a known.

The rapid increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is also a known, currently rising at over (I believe) 2% a year (at an accelerating rate?).

Basic physics when applied to gases (denied by some one here ) states something will change.

At the current rate of CO2 increase the very least you would consider (logic anyone or if you were truely a conservative wanting the good old days) is doing some thing about burning fossil fuels at a ever increasing rate (which is totally achievable).

So why are so many against the above, obvious, in your face, straight forward, not hard and certainly not complex?

Ideological dogma is my take on it.

 

[wayneL]

Hey @IFocus

Still waiting for you to explain these basic physics. I would like to know what it is that claim is being denied

 

[bi-polar]

Well my point here is that the physics is not simple. It is extraordinarily complex and chaotic.

Your driving pattern may be chaotic . Your road-distance to where you are driving is not. You deny the 2nd bit.

 

[wayneL]

Your driving pattern may be chaotic . Your road-distance to where you are driving is not. You deny the 2nd bit.

That is not a valid analogy in any way whatsoever.

 

[Klogg]

As for the CO2 thing, measurement, properties and relationships concerning gases is a known even if some argue other wise it is a known.

The rapid increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is also a known, currently rising at over (I believe) 2% a year (at an accelerating rate?).

Basic physics when applied to gases (denied by some one here ) states something will change.

At the current rate of CO2 increase the very least you would consider (logic anyone or if you were truely a conservative wanting the good old days) is doing some thing about burning fossil fuels at a ever increasing rate (which is totally achievable).

So why are so many against the above, obvious, in your face, straight forward, not hard and certainly not complex?

Ideological dogma is my take on it.

Can you please walk me through this:
"Basic physics when applied to gases (denied by some one here ) states something will change."

Which laws of physics?

(I agree with you, but would like to know your understanding of it)

 

[sptrawler]

In my day we waz better at skool all the boyz spent there time smoking, drinking and trying to bonk the girls that's when they weren't razing the teaches........and look at how good we ended up

I bet you can work out when you are being ripped off af the checkout. Most of the kids today can't.

 

[bi-polar]

any way whatsoever.

Please explain. Vibration of CO2 by radiation is a fixed function . The resultant heat variations cause chaotic complex weather .
Distance is fixed. Some random people have chaotic driving.

 

[bi-polar]

Some random people .

Trump noted America had renovated the arsenal and acquired new nuclear capability, and the rest of the military was “all brand new”. “We all hope, and Scott hopes, we all pray that we never have to use nuclear,” Trump intoned. This will warm the globe and give kids another issue to discuss.

 

[qldfrog]

So

Please explain. Vibration of CO2 by radiation is a fixed function . The resultant heat variations cause chaotic complex weather .
Distance is fixed. Some random people have chaotic driving.

Very simple with co2 level more than 15 times higher in the ancient past with an eden earth, twice the current level when earth had a similar weather as we have, how can the current increase alone explain the changes.that is very simple.of course, greenhouse effect of gas exists, but real scientists make and analyse experiments.we do not have spare pkanets to scale and test with, but we have had this planet data for longuer than 40000 years, we also have had a small mini ice age in recent history, the seine frozen in Paris during Napoleon wars etc
Denial of experimental data to achieve a belief is not science, and if in 50y, we discover that co2 or methane are playing a very small role but something else is the main player,how do you think your kids will judge you.the science is NOT settle on global warming, but it will not be as it is now impossible to even suggest any other cause that the god co2
And we'd better pray that co2 is not involved as the main reason , as anyone understanding the world knows that this will carry on going up even if the west stopped existing

 

[Knobby22]

Well offer your alternate theory.

 

[wayneL]

Please explain. Vibration of CO2 by radiation is a fixed function . The resultant heat variations cause chaotic complex weather .
Distance is fixed. Some random people have chaotic driving.

The radiative forcing is also logarithmic however, as you should know. What we don't know is the effect or lack thereof of all other forcings in a chaotic interplay with each other.

There is no deterministically calculated average earth temp per ppm of co2, never has been, never can be.

 

[bi-polar]

That's clarified things . Slowly we inch......

 

[rederob]

The radiative forcing is also logarithmic however, as you should know. What we don't know is the effect or lack thereof of all other forcings in a chaotic interplay with each other.

There is no deterministically calculated average earth temp per ppm of co2, never has been, never can be.

These are the continued obfuscations of climate science deniers.
Sow the seeds of doubt and propose that because some things cannot be precisely known, we cannot work out the consequences.
What we do not know is how the climate will change in the lower troposphere such that it will affect forcing: specifically, the albedo of clouds.
So poorly informed is wayneL, after so many years of posting his rubbish, that he writes in one sentence that forcing is logarithmic while in the next he suggests we need to know how to calculate the "average earth temp per ppm of co2."
WayneL's conceptual skills are such that he keeps confusing deterministic science with probabilistic science, as was reinforced with his earlier discounting of @bi-polar 's correct analogy.
What you do not see is wayneL presenting his evidence. He keeps throwing mud and hopes some will stick.

 

[bi-polar]

The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

No-one knows how much ice exists or how high the sea-level is. But ice-breaker ship-voyages and sea-front beach repairs can be costed.

 

[rederob]

Very simple with co2 level more than 15 times higher in the ancient past with an eden earth, twice the current level when earth had a similar weather as we have, how can the current increase alone explain the changes.that is very simple.of course, greenhouse effect of gas exists, but real scientists make and analyse experiments.we do not have spare pkanets to scale and test with, but we have had this planet data for longuer than 40000 years, we also have had a small mini ice age in recent history, the seine frozen in Paris during Napoleon wars etc
Denial of experimental data to achieve a belief is not science, and if in 50y, we discover that co2 or methane are playing a very small role but something else is the main player,how do you think your kids will judge you.the science is NOT settle on global warming, but it will not be as it is now impossible to even suggest any other cause that the god co2
And we'd better pray that co2 is not involved as the main reason , as anyone understanding the world knows that this will carry on going up even if the west stopped existing

Utter pseudoscience, and symptomatic of the rubbish that gets swallowed by denialists as some type of gospel.
The physics which lead to our planet warming or cooling are understood. Claims to the contrary are from the denialists who have no idea, or do not want to.
If our planet retains more heat than it receives, then it will warm - basic physics!
The greenhouse effect and albedo are married with irradiance to determine whether cooling or warming will prevail. To keep saying that these principles are not understood is pure fantasy.
The reason CO2 is so often mentioned is because it is that gas which has in the past been correlated with changes in temperature. And it is that gas which is prevalent today as a driver of radiative forcing. Except today it's because humans have increased its share, not natural phenomena.
Stop peddling your rubbish and, instead, post stuff which is coherent so it's at least possible to see if any of your ideas might be worth another take.

 

[wayneL]

These are the continued obfuscations of climate science deniers.
Sow the seeds of doubt and propose that because some things cannot be precisely known, we cannot work out the consequences.
What we do not know is how the climate will change in the lower troposphere such that it will affect forcing: specifically, the albedo of clouds.
So poorly informed is wayneL, after so many years of posting his rubbish, that he writes in one sentence that forcing is logarithmic while in the next he suggests we need to know how to calculate the "average earth temp per ppm of co2."
WayneL's conceptual skills are such that he keeps confusing deterministic science with probabilistic science, as was reinforced with his earlier discounting of @bi-polar 's correct analogy.
What you do not see is wayneL presenting his evidence. He keeps throwing mud and hopes some will stick.

I'm going to refrain from duplicating your puerile penchant for ad hom, but your argumentative logic here is way dodgy mate.

It's also interesting you accusing me of throwing mud.

 

[qldfrog]

Well offer your alternate theory.

I think we should consider properly the effect of heat released by human activities
That is one part: so all oil coal wood burnt but also nuclear and geothermal
They just add up to warming the atmosphere first, around 2c since industrial age from own computation
Then effect of urbanisation
Huge amount of land going from forest or paddocks to roof or black road, polution dirtying snow ice, and with higher temp and melting, dirtier snow ice ...
All this based on a very simple concept
Earth is an insulated ball in space aka vacuum whose temperature has reached an equilibrium
Sun in, thermal radiation out, a bit of inner core heat and average forest fires,greenhouse effect of h2o..and a bit of co2
So here we are equilibrium
Then you light a fire/burn energy in that closed system
Do not need to have a Nobel to understand it will warm up you room
So co2 is not a cause but an effect, but no one wants to admit the unpleasant truth, as this means nuclear is not an option, capture of co2 useless and we should reduce population and only use energy borrowed from the sustainable system
Aka wind water a bit of solar..not too much as if we cover the planet black, of course we will get warmer
My belief is basically we are too numerous but this is the taboo subject as the number increases are not from white male middle aged westerners...
And then you see this anti science movement preventing any real research or clear thinking
Do not publish anything which could contradict the dogma
This is sad
As for the fight against co2, after working years in China, i keep lol
These climate activists have really NO IDEA of the world we are living in now
Maybe the muppet swedish girl "ambassador" of climate change movement could have a nice eye opening trip to China, she can fly there no pb
But then she would commit suicide, and i can not wish that
You should all pray that i am right as co2 will not decrease ever unless population collapses
The sad bit is that even if i am right, GW will continue, and get worse
So live with it and start remediation or drop a few strategic nukes
One light: china population growth is over.thanks the 1 child policy...

 

[wayneL]

Here is what your analogy proposes guys. Let's pick a point in the future. Your claim is that you lot can predict the precise climate at that point, even if there is a degree of randomness on the way. This, despite the failure of models thus far? I am amused.

 

[bi-polar]

Dead right, frog. One effect is the greenhouse effect.