Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

Like hiring people to build stables for unicorns? We could go around and just break windows and then hire people to make the new glass and install them. Just think how great that would make the economy.

 

That treats the subject as it needs to be treated. We might also all cut down trees so we can restore the forests with new trees too.

All I am tired of is taking a beating for what the Sun is doing.

 

That's not true at all. It's not just physical processes sans those sourced from anthroprogenic behaviors can't explain the warming. Scientists have actually quantified the radiative forcing of anthroprogenic elements based on laboratory and theoretical (quantum mechanics and thermodynamics) and the amount is a pretty good match with that which is required to explain the heat uptake of the geosphere.

 

(Me: "100ppm/yr?")

(Me:"That's like "my car averaged 42mph/yr." LOL!!!! Meaningless gibberish.")

So following industrialization which began over 100 years ago, at a rate of increase of 2ppm/yr. for 100 years we would be at 200ppm after 100 years. And while I don't accept your say-so with no citations, your claim mean a constant rate of increase of 2ppm/year, but the rate of increase has, itself, increased in the last, what.... , 20 years or so. And consequently we are not at 200ppm now but over 400ppm. Hence I don't see any value nor any accuracy in your neat little formula.

 

Again, no citations. And I don't accept your say-so or drluggit's.

 

I never said the 2 ppm/yr growth rate was constant. In fact, I specifically said it wasn't. Also, CO2 concentrations were 280 ppm prior to the industrial revolution and it is 410 ppm now. That is an increase of 130 ppm. The net anthroprogenic flux has increased from 0 ppm/yr to 2 ppm/yr. This happened over a long period of time. This is all spelled out in post #424 so I'm not sure where this incredulity is coming from.

 

IPCC AR4 Chapter 7.3 - Carbon Cycle and the Climate System

 

drluggit is correct. If you knew anything about the subject or had some research skills, you could go and look it up yourself and if you find a counter argument, present it in a meaningful and an academic way and spur some real debate. Instead, you came to the party with "Again, no citations".

We are not here to spoon feed you. That is your Mother's job and I am pretty sure she is not here either.

Well done. Thanks for the interesting discussion. I didn't take part, it was just great to "listen in" on.

 

I'm really sorry you feel like you're taking a beating. I hope that feeling isn't because of anything I've said. If it is then I'm truly sorry. I just want people to know the truth.

And getting back on topic...we know the warming from 1960 isn't because of the Sun because total solar irradiation has declined. So all other things being equally the Earth should have cooled if the Sun were the only factor modulating the climate.

 

Its still nothing more than a best guess as you yourself posted.

 

I'm not the one who needs to provide it?

Damned if I know.

 

Well you are quite the crackerjack.

While you relieved the intensely hot sun of any blame, I suppose you want to put the blame on man. Well after being told man does not control climate, that leaves us at logger heads.

 

Well, that's true. The conclusion is based on less than perfect knowledge. However, that is pretty much true of all conclusions in all fields of science. Nearly all conclusions come with a best guess and a quantification of the confidence that the reality will be within a certain margin of that best guess.

I don't want the takeaway here to be that "best guess" means low confidence. That's not at all what I mean. For example, the best guess is that humans are responsible for 100% of the warming from 1950, but the reality is that it could "only" be 95%, or 90%, etc. But the further we deviate from the best guess the less likely that reality will be. In fact, the IPCC officially quantifies this as there being only a 5% chance that our contribution is < 50% with the probabilities exponentially falling off from there. Yes, it's possible that there is a alternative and as yet unknown explanation, but it is extremely unlikely. And FWIW, the scientific consensus feels like this official statement is way too conservative and that the IPCC may have taken this conservative stance because of political motivations. It's likely AR6 will move to a 3σ confidence (99.7%) for the statement of human responsibility with the terminology "virtually certain". That last part is just my opinion though so take it for what its worth.

 

I don't pretend like the Sun has no effect and neither do scientists. In fact, scientists fully subscribe to the idea that it is the net effect of solar radiation, greenhouse gases, and aerosols that best explain climate changes both past and present. Each one puts its own modulating pressure on the climate. Man does not "control" the climate because we do not dictate solar radiation, natural GHG fluxes, nor natural aerosol fluxes. They only thing we dictate is anthroprogenic fluxes of GHGs and aerosols. That severely limits our ability to dictate the evolution of the climate. However, we are 100% in "control" of our behaviors so we can absolutely reduce our influence on the climate. There is a big difference between influence and control. We are at logger heads because you refuse to accept this reality.

 

Cultural-marxism and Alikyism requires that everything to be politicized to divide society.

 

Cut to the chase.

How many trees can be planted and where to prevent your catastrophe?

 

I am too damned learned in science and climate to be talked to that way. And I am trying to be kind.

I can use science says jibber jabber to and work to refute all of that.

So as I said already, cut to the chase. How can you use plants to solve the entire problem?

If man gets the blame, man gets the control.

 

I'm sure the record breaking heat wave this summer didn't affect you one bit.

 

Well, I can't, but I can certainly cite the studies that demonstrated this. Of course, so could you.

 

Well I would have used trees as an example as they are a renewable raw material which we use to create value.

 

So we can measure the isotopes of the CO2 found in the atmosphere and the additional CO2 which has been added over the past ~60 years is nearly all of the type of the CO2 which results from fossil fuel combustion.

I can only find detailed measurements of the CO2 concentration starting at around 1960 (scientists appear to rely on proxies before that point), when it was about 315. So, if you take that as a rough starting point, humans are probably responsible for about 25% of the current amount of CO2 concentration - but they are responsible for nearly 100% of the additional CO2 concentration that has been added over the past century.

 

Why would it?

 

Because then you would see proof of climate change.

 

Planting Trees is not sufficient to prevent the catastrophe. We also have to limit CO2 production and pursue other methods of sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.