What if climate change is no hoax?

I am called a denier though I am specific about climate change. And who can deny climate change.

I grew wary of the models due to politics. Science did not alarm me, politicians tried hard to scare me out of my mind. They failed. Some are angry it did not work. And call me a denier. What a stupid thing to say about people.

It will be interesting to read what some state about your objective scientific analysis that I stand behind you as well.

 

You use climate change as though it is a threat. We have long accommodated climate change. We will continue to accommodate climate change. We have no choice.

 

Can you prove that?

You cannot simply argue against zealots

The globe is warming and climate is changing
There may be debates about how much, why, and the consequences

I do not agree it is a circular argument. Please prove it

Again you intentionally frame your argument against zealots... zealots almost always overstate and mis state reality

Please quote where a scientist does this

Apparently not
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-of-global-warming.294362/

I am not familiar with either of these arguments. Please quote a scientist that proposes them

Again i am unfamiliar with a scientist that rejects mathematics. Please quote a scientist that does so

As you know, such measurements can be taken by satellites... whose accuracy can be confirmed by ground based measurement

Omg, you are going deep in the weeds
In fact, it is the case that every scientific theory needs confirmation by multiple scientists. If only one scientist took all measurements, no one would trust this single persons report

I doubt that you could find any scientist that would agree with your methodology

You have morphed the argument from alleging that agw is a hoax... to argument that all science is a hoax

I think that you have adequately explained your views such that a doubt that even reasonable climate change skeptics would take your arguments seriously

 

AGW zealots love throwing around that "denier" label. It simply shows the rest of us how fundamentalist they are in their religious dogma. You are correct that climates do change; that's been observed across the Earth. These AGW zealots like to speak of a singular "global climate", of which there is no such thing. There are many climates at any given time. Climate is a localized term, not a global one, since weather is a localized term, and climate is simply "weather over a long period of time".

Very true. Politics (and the scare tactics involved with it) is what initially alarmed me as well, but I have since learned more about logic and science (areas which I didn't have much knowledge in before that point), so now I regularly present those three grounds on which I reject "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever circularly defined term AGW zealots wish to use.

I have yet to receive a meaningful response to that particular three part argument, no matter where (online or offline) I have presented that argument. Most responses amount to "you just don't understand how science works" or "that's absurd" or something along those lines. They don't directly address any of the assertions being made.

My argument didn't used to have the satellite bit in it, but I have since added it to the argument because of the typical response to my land based thermometer bit of "but, but satellites!!".

 

We also read of the Popper argument of falsification. But I would imagine that Popper would not be a fan of being accused of warming a planets climate.

 

Yup, what ARDY is doing, essentially, is taking Pascal's original argument (aka "Pascal's Wager"), which was an argument for becoming a Christian in order to prevent eternal damnation in hell, and is simply applying it to his own religion instead (ie, that we should all become 'warmizombies' in order to prevent [insert catastrophic event here] from happening). I think you can see why this line of thinking is rather weak, and is actually logically fallacious... Maybe NOTHING will result from "doing nothing"?? Attempting to justify one's religious beliefs beyond leaving it as an argument of faith will lead to logical fallacies such as this...

 

I created a topic that is active called The New Curry Corner. We have higher quality arguments there but still have some tire kickers blaming man for the nail in the road creating the flat tire. By blaming man, I mean drivers of the car who had no way to place the nail causing the flat tire.

I feel very put on by alarmists who talk at me and not with me and pretend i hold the keys to a cooler earth.

Ardy has gone from talking with you to talking AT you. His rebuttals end up being personal.

 

Yup, Karl Popper's philosophy concerning science is correct. Science is best defined as "a set of falsifiable theories".

Pro-AGW types like to re-define science into being numerous things, including but not limited to: a "method", a "peer-reviewed document", a "consensus", a "university course", a "textbook", a "professor", a "climate scientist" (or a random percentage of them), a "website", "facts", "proofs", "supporting evidence", "religion" (although they don't openly claim this one), and even a "casino" (they don't openly claim this one either). Science is none of those things. It is merely a set of falsifiable theories. (theories meaning "explanatory arguments")

 

Future climate is nothing but a guess so preparing for a certain outcome is a fools folly. Climate continuously changes and different societies adapt or perish. The Anasazi for instance couldn't adapt to climate change in their region and the civilzatuon collapsed. A hundred years from now earths climate could be about the same, colder, warmer, wetter or dryer. Nobody really knows.

 

I can't formally prove it, but currently standing laws of science stand in the way of all proposed 'greenhouse gas models'. If those laws get falsified, then I will consider proposed AGW models. Until then...

I am arguing against anyone who believes in AGW...

Show me acceptable data of this. Remember, land based thermometer data MUST be uniformly spaced AND simultaneously read by the same observer, as per statistical mathematics. Remember, the stefan-boltzmann law gets in the way of satellite based data, since we don't know the emissivity of Earth.

There is no one global "climate". There are numerous climates across Earth.

I didn't say circular argument; I said circular definition. It is a circular definition because it does not make reference to anything outside of itself. This is the case when one attempts to define 'global warming' as "the increase of temperature across Earth" or something along those lines. That is essentially claiming that "global warming" IS "global warming". It makes no reference to anything outside of itself. That is why it is a circular definition.

I frame it against anyone who accepts AGW as 'true'...

They reject the laws of thermodynamics whenever they claim that CO2 heats the Earth's surface and whenever they claim that CO2 traps heat within the Earth's atmosphere. Thermodynamics are being rejected with those claims because heat cannot be trapped, nor can heat flow from cold to hot. Also, entropy cannot decrease in any isolated system, which is what they attempt to do as well with those claims. Entropy can only increase or stay the same.

That poster is wrong. Earth's albedo is NOT known to be 0.3 ... That would mean that Earth's emissivity is known to be 0.7 ... We do not know what Earth's emissivity is, so we can't use the SB Law to convert light readings into temperature readings... Since's he's making use of random numbers as his inputs, his output numbers are completely meaningless. Argument From RandU Fallacy on his part.

Also, it is impossible for [insert magick gas here] to heat the Earth's surface. Heat does not flow from cold to hot; it flows from hot to cold. It flows from the sun, to the Earth's surface, and then back out into space. It does not flow from the sun, to the surface, to the [insert magick gas here], then back to the surface, back to the gas, back to the surface, etc... That would create a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. This is what I refer to as the "magick bouncing photon argument".

This poster also thinks that [insert magick gases here] trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. I refer to this as the "magick blanket argument". It is a "magick" blanket because supposedly heat is only being trapped from coming back out; it is supposedly not being trapped from coming in. (ie, it is a "one way effect only" blanket, hence "magickal") This argument is in violation of thermodynamics.

Pretty much anyone who supports AGW makes those arguments, such as the poster from the other forum which you linked to above.

Anyone who thinks that global temperature can be accurately measured using our current land based thermometers is rejecting mathematics. Anyone who thinks that it can be measured using satellites is rejecting the stefan boltzmann law.

WRONG. See my argument for why this is wrong.

WRONG. Science is not peer review. I'm not saying that having multiple people review something is a bad idea, in fact I think it's a good idea, but that does not make a theory into a theory of science.

So?

No, I have not. Stop lying.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You need to provide counterarguments, not merely claim absurdity...

 

Also let's address the way Climate skips one area but in a short distance harms the other area.

Drive from Bakersfield CA and head to Death Valley. Bakersfield is a prosperous agriculture area and gets warm all Summer long. It has to be warm to support it's crops.

But stay on the road to Death Valley and notice the radical change in climate. I do not mean one season of Death, but virtually each year humans can't survive in the open if lost in the valley. They must perish. But in Bakersfield they are not perishing due to heat.

 

They need to start being realistic about Satellites

. They are quite valuable in fact. But I look at them this way.

Take New York City. Say to clean the city streets, they employ a device like the vacuum called the Roomba. Photo below. It roams city streets in an effort to clean the entire city. It is not a huge device. It has a limited range. As it sweeps the streets, it runs across a heavy trash area. Do we predict for the entire city based on that limited finding? I would not. Alarmists do.

 

Yup, and they can even be quite useful in determining relative temperatures, such as in the case of determining locations where home insulation is weak.

What they can't measure, however, is the absolute temperature of Earth. Satellites can be quite useful, but they are not magickal.

 

If you have a pot of water.... and add heat, it will get warmer
If you add heat to the atmosphere, it will get warmer
Can we say exactly how much warmer, no
Can eliminate all uncertainties, no
So in that sense it is a guess
But it is not a blind guess
The fact is that climate skeptics themselves do no believe that the climate is a blind guess
Which is why no so called skeptics will make against future warming. ... even if they are given favorable odds.

 

Just to be clear about what you are saying
Lets say that you fill two clear containers with gas
Lets say a two. Two liter soda bottles
One bottle filled with air
The other bottle filled with co2
Set them in the sun
Will they come to a different temperature, or not?

This is an experiment that has been done on youtube
And which we all can do ourselves in order to verify the physical characteristics of co2 gas as compared to air

 

The earth and it's climate are much more complex than a pot of water with countless factors that effect it some of which we know and many we haven't even thought of. Focusing on one factor out of the myriad out there is not only myopic but borders on paranoia and is definitely hysteria.

 

The Earth's atmosphere is not a 2L soda bottle, it is not a closed convective system, so I'm not seeing your point.

 

CNN has moved much of its operation to Hudson Yard, on the water, subject to tides. They don't believe Al Gore and the global warming hoax.

 

Heat is not thermal energy itself, but simply the transfer of thermal energy. But yes, increasing thermal energy by the use of an outside energy source will indeed make the pot of water warmer.

??????????????? huh?????????????????????

As for the bolded part, the universe is an isolated system... Per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the total energy of an isolated system is constant (ie, energy can neither be created nor destroyed). Where is this additional thermal energy coming from?

 

This is the crux of the dispute, isn’t it?
Scientists say that “based on everything that we know....co2 is the only thing that could cause what we see happening”

Skeptics say “yeah but it is complicated and some other unidentifiable thing is causing these results ”. Not only that, skeptics say that the existence of this unidentifiable factor PROVES that co2 could not be related to what we see. And yet further, skeptics say that since scientists do not allow for causation by this unidentifiable factor... they are guilty of perpetrating a hoax.

 

And the same scientists still debate the cause of the LIA yet they are absolutely certain why the planets warming now? Seems a bit far fetched or should I say politicized.

 

That argument is dated. Only a very small percentage of the Republican party still claims global warming is a hoax. The new argument is that it is an elitist issue that only rich people can afford to combat.

 

Yeah, I see that more and more of them are getting hoodwinked by the day...

Global Warming (as in, Earth's temperature is rising, and dangerously) is a hoax. It denies logic, science, and mathematics.

Not even rich people can combat it, since there is no issue to combat. [Insert magick gas here] cannot heat the Earth's surface. Heat does not flow uphill.

 

No one claimed otherwise. They are ALL changing.

 

That is correct. Weather is a random event...