Do airplane contrails add to climate change? Yes, and the problem is about to get worse

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Jul 28, 2019.

  1. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    @bringiton

    Lysenko rejected established science (evolutionary theory and Mendelian genetics). His ideas, as far as I know, were confined to Communist countries where the state controlled
    what was acceptable science and what wasn't acceptable science. His ideas did not have to pass a peer review process and weren't influential in the West.. I don't regard economics as a hard science
    like climate science.

    Do you really believe that at least 1 scientist would not be able to determine if temperature data had been manipulated in such a way as to exaggerate global warming? Do you believe that no scientist would report foul play to the press? Temperature data along with any adjustments and statistical analysis
    is available to the public.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hypothesis becomes theory after it passed multiple real world test. AGW has failed to met this criteria and there is no evidence man is warming earth. There is correlation which is not evidence and computer projections which is not science.
     
    AFM likes this.
  3. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What tests would you propose setting up to test the hypothesis to convince you it is a valid theory?
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’ve given you the references. Your choice.
     
  5. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read Eisenhower’s last speech.
     
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So far even the real world test of catastrophic effects of global warming are failing much less test man is warming the planet. The hysteria with climate change is not even hypothesis, it's just hysteria.
     
    Hoosier8 and AFM like this.
  7. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The core theory isn't that the global warming is catatrophic, that is a separate question. Its whether the amount of CO2 we are emitting is the main driver of our recent warming.

    Here are the things that need to be established with climate change and skeptics are usually held up at one of them. If you are hung up at #1, #2, or #5, there is no point debating #6 and #7 since the basic science hasn't been established.
    1: Did we warm somewhat significantly in the past 150 years?
    2: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
    3: Have CO2 levels increased significantly in the last 150 years?
    4: Are humans the main contributor of this CO2 increase?
    5: Is this human caused CO2 the main driver of the recent warming?
    6: What warming can we expect to see in the next 100 and beyond if we don't change?
    7: What impact will this warming have on humans?
     
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Contrails reflect solar radiation like clouds.
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right and right. The hysteria is based around the least likely/worst case computer model RCP8.5 when observed science is on the low end of RCP2.6.
     
    AFM likes this.
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AGW is based on one premise. Man is the driving factor behind global warming. This hypothesis is based on nothing but correlation
     
    AFM likes this.
  11. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I forgot #8: What can we do about global warming to significantly reduce it?

    I want to see if you agree with me on the basics. If you don't even believe that we are warming, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans aren't responsible for the CO2 increase, then we need to debate that.

    1: Did we warm somewhat significantly in the past 150 years?
    2: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
    3: Have CO2 levels increased significantly in the last 150 years?
    4: Are humans the main contributor of this CO2 increase?
     
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earth has warmed and cooled significantly 9 previous times in the Holocene without any increase or decrease in CO2 concentration. And alarmists want everyone to believe that increasing CO2 is completely responsible for all the current warming beginning ~ 1800 ??
     
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing is politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.
     
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And none of the current gcm’s correctly accounts for the behavior of clouds.
     
  15. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thats like saying since radical Muslims (or far-right or mentally ill, etc) weren't responsible for the last three mass shootings, they won't be responsible for the next one. Different warming periods have different drivers just like different mass shootings have different causes.
     
  16. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At this point I don't think big moves are possible. However we can still implement carbon taxes, and give green energy tax breaks to lay the foundation when we need to make big moves. As we start seeing more of the consequences of climate change, global action will become possible.
     
  17. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Speaking of that fraud Michael Mann: Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs

    An important victory in the process of debunking the warmist scare.

    Real science, not the phony “consensus” version, requires open access to data, so that others can see if results are reproducible.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  18. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s not like that at all. There’s an approximate 1,000 year cycle which has nothing to do with CO2.
     
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Politically impossible. Global warming and CO2 increase is beneficial.
     
  20. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1,000 years is nothing and you aren't looking at the other 4.5 billion years. Its like only looking at the last month of stock trends and drawing massive conclusions from it while ignoring the other 100 years of stock trends.

    Also, we didn't have people pumping out CO2 back then like we do today. Its like arguing that since before humans forest fires weren't caused by humans, therefore today human's aren't causing any forest fires.
     
  21. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many countries have already been implementing carbon taxes, gas taxes, tax breaks for green energy, green research, fuel efficiency standards, minimum green energy use regulations, encouraging electric vehicles, etc. Its already being done.
     
  22. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Notice how your 150 year time frame is based on the end of the LIA? Do you think the very beginning of industrialization ended the LIA?
     
  23. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    1-4) are agreed on by nearly every climate scientist and could be considered settled science.
    5) is supported by climate models and is consistent with what we should expect from climate science.
    6) We can expect catastrophic warming. There is no doubt among the vast majority of climate scientists and this is consistent with climate models and theory.
    7) It will require mass migration out of many highly populated cities of the world because the sea level will be rising rapidly. Greenland and Antarctica would
    be unstable and could completely melt down. (this is premised on humans not
    changing but I know that is not likely)
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2019
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The entire Holocene is certainly significant. And CO2 has been as high as 8000 ppm in our natural history.

    Your analogies are meaningless.
     
  25. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To no significant effect on global average temperature. The only effect is economic harm.
     

Share This Page