The issue IS whether CO2 from fossil fuels could cause a harmful amount of global warming. And it can't. Now you just need to show that every such weather-related inconvenience is caused by CO2. And you can't. Unfortunately, lots of people care about a completely bogus threat, and are imposing immense and entirely unnecessary costs on everyone because of it.
Scientists are not screaming and yelling. They are simply pointing out what is happening. Your reference to screaming and yelling suggests you aren't looking at what scientists are saying. The fact of small degree changes does not mean that the impact will be small. The heat is not spread evenly, thus the effects of the heat are not spread evenly. Plus, while humans don't feel small degree changes, we do notice water distribution for agriculture, the effect of warming on plant and animal species, people movement, etc.
Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers are. The actual scientists know there is no cause for alarm. Problem is, the media are full of anti-CO2 scare stories, and they are influencing government policies in directions that are costing people all over the world a lot to no purpose. So, any change is bad?
Nope. You'd be wrong. I look at both sides and balance claims. Nor have they ever been - climate is randomized and non-linear; computer models are even close to being able to reproduce reasonably close back testing results. [quote-WRM] Plus, while humans don't feel small degree changes, we do notice water distribution for agriculture, the effect of warming on plant and animal species, people movement, etc.[/QUOTE] And yeah agriculture is blooming with many production records being broken. Water distribution is more a matter of growing civilization that climate change. Heat isn't some evil affliction or bugaboo - particularly when the change is a fraction of a degree per decade. Like the world has done for millions of years - the ecosystem and societies will adapt or accommodate to the changes. BTW: plants and animals that can't adapt to a tenth or two degree temperature change aren't long for this world; it's called evolution; species thrive or become extinction as they have for millions of years.
Climate change affects general patterns, so it is unreasonable to consider it a requirement to tie individual weather events to climate change. It's a matter of changing the average. You would need to show your cost analysis. For example, in electricity generation, green energy is cheaper than other sources, so it makes economic sense to move toward green energy opportunities. Also, fossil fuel sources tend to have greater costly side effects, as we see for the healthcare costs of burning fossil fuel in our neighborhoods for transportation.
And yeah agriculture is blooming with many production records being broken. Water distribution is more a matter of growing civilization that climate change. Heat isn't some evil affliction or bugaboo - particularly when the change is a fraction of a degree per decade. Like the world has done for millions of years - the ecosystem and societies will adapt or accommodate to the changes. BTW: plants and animals that can't adapt to a tenth or two degree temperature change aren't long for this world; it's called evolution; species thrive or become extinction as they have for millions of years.[/QUOTE] I don't see a reason to accept your personal analysis. Your "millions of years" idea does not account for human lifetimes and speed and cost of adaptation at a time of huge world population.
So, you argument comes down to "I don't care about reality or facts, climate change is still going to kill us if we don't cut carbon".
No, it comes down to accepting what the vast majority of climate related scientists are saying. Your "going to kill us" is just more of personal feelings. We need to avoid that. There certainly are scientists that say our ongoing climate change will be increasingly expensive.
You forgot that those scientists want increased funding for their "research". So obviously the climate change narrative will get more expensive. Somebody's got to pay these people.
But that's what you were trying to do! Like every other know-nothing anti-fossil-fuel scaremonger, you just assume climate change is due to CO2 as your basic axiom. It isn't. Your premise is false. Climate has always changed, and there is nothing we can do to stop it from changing. No, it's a matter of CO2 not changing the average enough to be perceptible in the noise of normal, natural climate variability. No, I just need to point out the fact that there is no discernible benefit being gained in return for the multi-trillion-dollar costs being imposed by law. No it isn't. That's just nonscience based on false and absurd assumptions. Wrong. If it made economic sense, governments wouldn't have to force everyone to shoulder the costs of switching. They would do it on their own to save money. Garbage. That's not a result of burning fossil fuels. It's a very implausibly claimed result of not enforcing laws against dirty engines, like legacy truck diesels.
ALL the science that contributes to understanding climate will continue to be needed. Plus, there are huge areas of science that need more research.
And yeah agriculture is blooming with many production records being broken. Water distribution is more a matter of growing civilization that climate change. Heat isn't some evil affliction or bugaboo - particularly when the change is a fraction of a degree per decade. Like the world has done for millions of years - the ecosystem and societies will adapt or accommodate to the changes. BTW: plants and animals that can't adapt to a tenth or two degree temperature change aren't long for this world; it's called evolution; species thrive or become extinction as they have for millions of years.[/QUOTE] And what is your evidence for that?
No, once again that is most definitely NOT my premise. My premise is that science from here and around the world, as studied over the past DECADES, is the foundation that must be considered. Also, I'd point out that climatologists are the ones who have done the research to understand climate change back through pre-history. And here you point out that YOU AGREE with climatologists on that!!
Proof please. Fossil fuel industry has been pouring billions into denialism for decades. Willie Soon alone got over 1 million in funding
And global government advocates spending just as much or more; counting on weak thinking dupes to fund and support them.
I've been forced to listen to physics denialism for 50-60 years. How much has the IPCC and others paid out in that time to fabricate the lies that keep climate scientists, or should I say "elite weather forecasters", in business? At least oil companies produce something useful to society to earn their money. Maybe climate scientists should get real jobs and produce something that people are interested in and improves their lives.
Heat isn't some evil affliction or bugaboo - particularly when the change is a fraction of a degree per decade. Like the world has done for millions of years - the ecosystem and societies will adapt or accommodate to the changes. BTW: plants and animals that can't adapt to a tenth or two degree temperature change aren't long for this world; it's called evolution; species thrive or become extinction as they have for millions of years millions of years of history.
We don't even know if the warming is caused by CO2 or CO2 is caused by the warming. Based on ice cores it seems CO2 increases are connected with warming but we're not sure which one causes the other.
Really? Proof please because Aus certainly hasn’t and I have yet to find a government that wouldn’t happily save money on research so they can spend it on something that they can put their names on
You mean the millions of years that have included 5 mass extinctions and numerous minor ones like the death of the megafauna? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/what-killed-the-megafauna/ https://australian.museum/learn/aus...megafauna around,the onset of warmer climates.
In the past, increased atmospheric CO2 was an effect of warming, as proved by the prospective and retrospective correlations in the paleoclimate record. The increase in CO2 over the last century, however, is clearly far too large to be a result of the natural warming caused by the increase in solar activity from the lowest to the highest sustained levels in thousands of years. It is a result of fossil fuel use. In nature, warming climate causes the oceans to release CO2, cooling climate causes them to reabsorb it, which is why warmer climate is associated with higher levels of CO2 in the paleoclimate record. But the recent increase in CO2 is far greater than could be caused by ocean warming.
Right. But all the anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering that prevents understanding of climate will continue to be dishonest, harmful, and despicable. Indeed. But none of them include absurd and dishonest nonscience designed to whip up anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.
Yes, of course it is. No, you have decided that only hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscience can be accepted as "science." And they were making good progress until hysterical, anti-fossil-fuel nonscience was forced onto them to serve a political agenda. I agree with real climatologists who pursue understanding of the truth, and not despicable liars like Michael Mann who only noise the hysterical and unscientific anti-CO2 narrative.
Not wrong. No idea where you're getting any sort of "warming" from to begin with, assuming constant output from the sun (IOW, no additional thermal energy). If you're buying a blanket for a dead person, then the blanket might as well be decoration, as it won't warm up the dead person any. You still mistakenly think that blankets warm people up and don't understand why blankets are useful. You still also think that Earth has a magic one-way blanket around it rather than a vacuum in which conduction and convection are not factors as they are with blankets. Projection. Projection. Projection. Correct, however you keep erroneously basing your analogies upon false equivalences (E.g. space is not a blanket). All IR interacting with atmospheric CO2 is, by definition, not leaving the earth. It is, in fact, flowing specifically from the earth to the earth. We are not concerned with any of that energy; it is merely redistributing itself, as I've already explained to you. Please stay focused on only the energy leaving the earth. Your physics denial is truly baffling. Colder gases cannot heat warmer surfaces (e.g. the usage of ice cubes doesn't result in room temperature water becoming warmer), and you cannot create energy out of nothing. Even IF your falsehood was true, you're still ignoring the COOLING effect that's happening within the atmosphere as a result. Ergo, what you're switching gears towards is a REDISTRIBUTION of Earth's total thermal energy ("Earth to Earth" heating), not an INCREASE in Earth's total thermal energy ("Earth to Space" heat sink). It's a perfectly fine analogy. There's technically better ways to express a couple of things within it, but the analogy is still correct in concept. Nope. You're appealing to the same false equivalence as before. There is no 'weir' between Earth and space, just as there is no magic one-way blanket between Earth and space. The river's water freely flows from Earth to space. Thermal energy freely flows from Earth to space. Ergo, there is no additional water within the whole river (the water has simply been REDISTRIBUTED from one part of the river to another part of the river). It's the same re: your claim of additional thermal energy within the whole Earth. Redistributing existing thermal energy from one part of Earth (its atmosphere) to another part of Earth (its surface) does nothing to increase Earth's total thermal energy (in the form of an equilibrium temperature increase "resulting directly from 'greenhouse' gases"). Nope. You keep omitting the physics that renders your 'global warming' religion to be hooey. No it isn't. I continue identifying instances in which you omit the cooling aspect. The latest instance was your "weir in the river" example above in which you make note of the increased amount of water upstream but purposely omit the decreased amount of water downstream. The total amount of water within the river remains the same. The total amount of thermal energy within the Earth remains the same. The temperature of Earth remains the same. You are denying (or otherwise don't understand) black body science. Earth IS a black body, as I have described, and is in equilibrium. Earth has an emissivity value somewhere between 0.0 and 1.0 (the emissivity value of Earth is unknown). The earth absorbs that percentage of incident solar energy. The earth, being in equilibrium, radiates exactly that quantity out. This is black body science. You can't take the earth out of equilibrium. You can't have Temperature and Radiance move in opposite directions. You can't concern yourself with earth-to-earth energy flows because they are mere redistributions and are not escaping to space, (e.g. anything absorbed by CO2). Nope, it is ENTIRELY the point. Your issue is that you're ultimately trying to claim that the weir affecting the amount of water in the channel is somehow ADDING WATER TO THE RIVER AS A WHOLE. This isn't about "surface temperature" or "emission temperature"... It's about Earth's GLOBAL temperature. Yet, you keep trying to ultimately argue that the weir is creating water out of nothing (that Earth's temperature is increasing even though Earth's total thermal energy is NOT increasing)... Continued projection. These are YOUR issues, not mine. No. It's quite literally physics. People buy blankets to reduce heat via convection and conduction. WRONG! I've claimed that people buy blankets to reduce heat (which results in a pocket of warmer air underneath the blanket). Nope. Redistributing existing thermal energy within Earth is not adding any additional thermal energy to Earth. Redistributing a river's water is not adding any additional water to the river. <sigh> Do you or do you not understand that REDISTRIBUTING water to the "river channel" does nothing to increase the total volume of water in the river as a whole. Yet you deny there is any difference between the volume of water in the "river channel" and the volume of water in the entire river. You keep omitting the amount of substance you're taking from elsewhere within the whole in order to increase the amount of substance within a particular area of the whole, and then mistakenly treating that particular area of the whole as if it was equivalent to the whole.
Not sure how you think the relates to the current minuscule temperature rise. Somehow I'd guess that none of those events occurred because prehistory man burned wood and animal. dung.
