"Global warming" is unfortunate terminology as climate change does not occur evenly across Earth. In fact, some locations may cool. It's not about ME using that terminology, as I don't - it's about all the places where others use it. Neither of your proposed terms works, as everybody including you thinks they are a realist. And, "alarmist" is a deprecating term.
Actulally they do. But if other scientists who study the specific area of science are not convinced, then we can't make claims that it is ignorant not to accept the cite to be what the poster claimed. Jack Hays has cited several. And you don't thing global warming should also be tested just as thoroughly? And yet It IS voting, when, as we've shown several times, when papers are rejected because they question the effects of AWG or the importance/insignificance of CO2 in global warming.
Of course not, it must simply be accepted based on faith and nothing else. Just like everybody should know the Earth is the center of the universe. Don't question, just accept.
Yet you insist on pretending that there is no difference between "humans are a notable factor" and "CO2 is the principal factor." Science as a whole is not corrupt; but certain branches of science have certainly been corrupted for financial and political ends, including most notably economics, pharmacology, and climate science. In the three fields identified above, it is not merely a matter of a few bogus papers. The corruption is endemic, systematic, and in some measure organized. It shows that many peer-reviewed scholarly journals are corrupt.
Most people know it refers to an average. The problem is that like "climate change," it is a dishonest term intended to imply that what are mostly natural global warming and climate change are due primarily to human CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels. Why use it when you know it is inaccurate and dishonest? OK, how about "CO2 climate skeptic"? And "denier" isn't? "CO2 alarmist" at least has the advantage of being accurate.
If significant numbers of scientists remain unconvinced, then we should remain unconvinced. I've pushed back for that reason. I don't see significant numbers of scientists in the field being convinced by these single papers that get posted here. And, mostly because this is not a location for that kind of activity. Scientists don't come here to review papers some poster decided he/she liked. I'm not voting. I'm pointing out that posting cites here is not convincing. So, I remain skeptical. And, that is especially so when I get told that since I don't accept it, I'm religious or science is corrupt or I'm an idiot or whatever. My objection is totally legit.
I agree with Feynman on that. But, that's not the question here. The question here has more to do with determining how to recognize a valid answer.
That is the problem when trying to deal with a zealot. In their minds, they can say absolutely anything they want. They can lie, twist words, distort things said to them, because pushing their beliefs is far more important than things like honesty or accuracy. And they feel 100% justified in doing so, but are sure easy to offend if you use words they do not like. Hell, I still laugh myself silly in that they keep screaming I am a "denier". Even though I am very much the opposite and stating outright that things are going to get a hell of a lot worse than even their most dire predictions will even touch. Because in order to keep people from realizing what frauds they are, they have to walk a knife-edge between gaining converts, and scaring the crap out of them by telling them the truth. And the truth is, this is all natural and all predictable. This has happened many times in the past, and is going to continue many times in the future. Eventually, all of for example Southern Florida will once again be underwater. This is a fact. And we are still to this day in an unprecedented cold period in the history of the planet, that also is a fact. And that in the future once again, glaciation will return. And you will once again be able to walk from New York to Cuba and never get your feet wet. Or walk from Berlin to Dublin and never get your feet wet. Or walk from Saigon to New Guinea and never get your feet wet. These are all simple facts, ask any geologist and they will confirm what I have said. This has happened at least 5 times in the past 3 million years, and will likely happen another dozen or more times until plate tectonics rearranges our continents again so the temperatures can return to what they normally are on our planet. And that is on average 21-25c warmer than it is today. But no, they keep using words like "unprecedented", which is absolute gibberish because even the entire time that H. Sapiens has existed has entirely been inside of a cool period. I would love to throw them back in time about 30 million years, and see what they think of things then. And even that was an extraordinary "cool period" in the history of our planet. Only around 17c warmer than today. Oh, and can't forget no Antarctic ice sheet. Most of that continent was semi-tropical forest at that time period.
Again you're arguing majority rule; Science doesn't work that way, particularly when the Powers that Be stifle publications of papers that even disagree slightly the party line may be faulty or incomplete. Oh, and here's your home work - find the previous high on 21 July. And note the difference.
Geological time is interesting, but that's not what we're dealing with. Humans don't live in geological time. We live in human time. I might agree that humans have lived during a geological cool period. Our issue is what portends over the next 100 years (or whatever), not over millions of years.
Yes it is. We live in geological time. We just pay more attention to human time. The point, obviously, is that to understand what is likely to happen over the next 100y, it is necessary to understand what has happened over millions of years.
Exactly true. We are in the Holocene Epoch, of the Quaternary Period, of the Cenozoic era. That is all geologic time, and we are not separate from it, we are in it. The ash from Mt. St. Helens laid down over 4 decades ago is already part of the geological record, as is the pillow basalt being laid down right now in Hawaii and the basalt being laid down by rifting in Iceland today. The planet is very active geologically. The event at Biscuit Basin last week should also drive that home. The Laurentide Ice Sheet melted away from the Great Lakes around 14,000 years ago. Yet, the northern Great Lakes are still lifting from 1-2 inches per year even today. And while it is hard for many to imagine, early humans did live and see the Laurentide when it was where Chicago is today. And a California Coast when the shore was 20 miles to the west, and San Francisco was just a wide river valley. Just as humans thrived in Doggerland, a huge area of land now under the North Sea. But to a lot of people, what happened even 50 years ago does not matter. So expecting them to think events of over 10,000 years ago matter is beyond their capability. Especially in the past 3 million years. This is not the first Ice Age the planet has gone through, just this cycle alone has at least 5 major glaciation events. As well as 4 major interglacial events, we are entering the fifth one now. And there is absolutely nothing in the geological record of any of the previous ones that shows ours is unusual in any way. Other than we have not warmed as fast, and had a few significant cooling cycles during it. Plus, I simply think that a lot of people simply do not like the ultimate reality. That the planet is going to do what it does, and there is really nothing we can do about it. Just as H. Sapiens will someday become extinct and be only an interesting strata line in that geological record. And in about 5 gy, our sun will become a red giant, extinguishing all life on the planet. We all started as stardust, so we will all return to stardust. But humans simply can not stand to feel insignificant. Like the fact that sometime in the future Yellowstone will erupt again, and when it does it may well wipe out half the population of the planet if not more. As well as make most of North America uninhabitable for decades. I think a lot of this kind of hysteria is akin to whistling in the dark, to be honest. That is they can do something to "make a difference", it will mean that ultimately we are not doomed to extinction.
We make no decisions based on geological time alone. Yes, one of numerous inputs is what we detect concerning the timeframe of millions of years. Again, there are numerous others.
It's important to have scientists from numerous aspects of climatology to review. I don't see the importance of Earth's previous average high temp on 21 July.
The antidote for bad science is good science. Role of Humans in the Global Water Cycle and Impacts on Climate Change Posted on August 4, 2024 by curryja | 8 comments by Bruce Peachey and Nobuo Maeda Contemporary climate models only include the impact of water vapor as positive feedback on warming; the impact of direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor has not been seriously considered. Continue reading → . . . . Conclusions and Recommendations Anthropogenic water emissions are large enough to result in a ~5 to 7% incremental increase (4 to 5 Tt/yr) in land-to-atmosphere water flux and a similar increase in water vapor in the atmosphere over land areas impacted by human water uses such as irrigation, evaporative cooling and evaporation from water reservoirs. These water emissions are about 1000× the net increase in carbon mass emitted to the atmosphere and contribute significant amounts of latent energy to the atmosphere in cold northern areas, which GHG emissions do not. We recommend that such direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor should be coherently incorporated into the contemporary climate models before forcing extreme actions related to the carbon balance alone. About the authors: Nobua Maeda is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alberta, Canada. Bruce Peachey is President of New Paradigm Engineering in Alberta, Canada.
Water is most definitely NOT left out of climate models. Also, what is this "forcing extreme actions" about?
Clean air is not only for attempts to reduce human impact on climate. It also turns out that clean air can be less expensive, less of a health problem, somewhat less of a dependence on oil and gas. At least as importantly, claiming this is some economically calamitous direction isn't supportable.
Well, simple solution to that then. Simply kill the majority of humans, reduce the population to around 40 million, like it was during the neolithic. Then refuse to allow anything like agriculture, and no domestication of animals other than dogs. At that point there will be no more worry about that pesky evaporation. I always find it amazing that no matter what they research, it always seems to be pointed a global warming. And not only that, but global warming caused by humans. Almost as if, that is what they wanted to find in the first place.
