Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[sk47]

More confusion. Never once has it been said humans are the main cause of warming. Sheesh!

Are Humans the Major Cause of Global Warming? | Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org)

Hello; Just need to read the first part.

I tire of your games today. You are refuted twice in the last minutes.

Sponsored

 

[HoosierDaddy]

BJ is now set to ignore.
What a vastly better forum experience this will be for me without his presence.
Praise Jesus.

@bjstang bet me he is an internet influencer. I shouldn't have bet against him.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; You challenged me to provide a source. I guess you do not recall your own statements.

No, I just didn't see any sort of evidence or proof of anything in the reference. It was just someone talking about electric cars.

 

[CJJon]

Are Humans the Major Cause of Global Warming? | Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org)

Hello; Just need to read the first part.

I tire of your games today. You are refuted twice in the last minutes.

Well, it is poorly worded but if you look at the data you will see I am correct. See the trend line? See the ups and downs? See the last up? The overall trend is warming, but human activity has caused more warming than the trend over the last million years or so.

This graph documents carbon dioxide levels since roughly 800,000 years ago. Starting around the 1760s, there's a dramatic upward spike that's attributed to the Industrial Revolution. Taken from data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

 

[CJJon]

 

[CJJon]

It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
2018 US National Climate Assessment

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Did a search. Found several sites. Here is a link to one.
This is what will happen to the climate in the next 100 years (theconversation.com)

Had to do the math. We may already be at 1 degree C warm already.
Adding the Paris and other agreements together we will get a 2.7 degree world (of warming?)

If we go on as usual the world can warm from 3 to 5 degrees C by the end of the century. So If I subtract 2.7 form 3 degrees I get that we can maybe save 3/10 of a degree of warming. Taking 2.7 from 5 degrees gets a 2.3 degrees of reduced warming.

There are other number to play with, but all are estimates at this point.

Do you think that 2.3 Celsius is insignificant?

Just read what you posted? I don't get it. you are making my point! Have you seen the light???

What next?
Even if the atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases and other forcing agents was kept constant at levels from the year 2000, global warming would reach about 1.5℃ by the end of the century. Without changing our behaviour it could increase to 3-5℃ by the end of the century.

Climate model simulations have shown that the probability of hot daily temperatures will increase non-linearly with global mean warming. At 2℃, the probability of hot extremes is projected to be more than five times higher than for the present day.

The risk of flooding is also projected to increase. Currently, floods are among the main weather events that force people to leave their homes each year. An average of 22.5 million people per year over the period 2008-2014. Without accounting for changes in population, the number of people affected by flood events could more than double if global warming increased from 2℃ to 4℃.

Floods will displace more and more people. Anindito Mukherjee/Reuters
If global warming is kept to 2℃, the availability of water is expected to decrease in some areas such as the Mediterranean by up to 50%. Globally, the additional warming could lead to a 20% increase in the number of people affected by chronic water scarcity.

Sea level is expected to rise for centuries. Over 2000 years, sea level has been estimated to rise by about two metres for each degree of global warming. Looking ahead to the end of this century, limiting global warming to 2℃ could limit sea level rise to 0.26–0.55 m. It may reach 0.45–0.82 m for warming closer to 4℃. In this world, the rate of sea-level rise may exceed 1 cm per year.

Arctic summer sea ice may completely vanish if global mean temperature exceeds 2℃.

Tipping points
Some components of the climate system are expected to tip into another state when warming exceeds a certain threshold, a process that cannot be stopped by stabilising temperatures.

The environmental impacts are profound and could endanger the livelihoods of millions of people. For example, the Greenland ice sheet is expected to vanish if temperatures remain over a certain level. The critical limit could lie below 2℃ of global warming. This would increase sea level by about seven metres.

One of these points might already have tipped: very recent evidence shows that parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet may have already entered an irresistible decline. Over the coming centuries or millennia this alone could contribute three metres to global mean sea level rise.

 

[sk47]

Hello; I allowed myself to be drawn into the game being played by two of the more vocal about human causes of climate change. I attempted to respond to a couple of distinct items mentioned.
One asking for a source for my comment that warming will continue no matter what we do and that with total compliance we may only reduce warming by 1/2 degree.
The other was a response claiming no one has ever claimed humans to be a major part of warming.
You can read for yourself the replies and judge for yourself who is playing games. You can also judge for yourself if my questions about what we will have to change in our lifestyles in order to comply.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I allowed myself to be drawn into the game being played by two of the more vocal about human causes of climate change. I attempted to respond to a couple of distinct items mentioned.
One asking for a source for my comment that warming will continue no matter what we do and that with total compliance we may only reduce warming by 1/2 degree.
The other was a response claiming no one has ever claimed humans to be a major part of warming.
You can read for yourself the replies and judge for yourself who is playing games. You can also judge for yourself if my questions about what we will have to change in our lifestyles in order to comply.

No games, I can assure you. That is your bias showing.

So you ask for answers but don't like them. Your source was some CSPAN video of some woman talking about electric cars. I missed the reference to your scientific literature. What you keep talking about are your memories and ideas about things (again, mostly based on flawed premises).

The reference you cite for the 1/2 C change (not degrees by the way...) is pasted in my post above. Again, you talk in absolutes and can't string a cogent though together about how you reach these conclusions. It is not my fault that you can't provide anything of substance to back up your claims.

I explained myself yet again about warming. Cut and pasted with references and everything showing the data. I really don't know what else to say.

Your ally in all this is some total kook that has some serious mental health issues. No one that is honest intellectually agree with your sentiment about game playing.

 

[Caballus]

Two aspects of climate change—mitigation and adaptation:

1. Climate is changing in a way that will adversely affect humans in the future
A. Agree: move to step two
B. Disagree: full stop; ignore the rest

2. Humans contribute to changes in climate that will adversely affect humans in the future
A. Agree: move to step three and then step four
B. Disagree: skip step three and move to step four

3. Mitigation: Determine what changes in human behavior will decrease or eliminate human contributions to climate change

• Calculate loss vs. gain, recognizing that all change comes at a cost—quality of life (near term), finances/economics, environmental trade-offs, etc.

4. Adaptation: Determine what actions need to be taken (by whom) to adapt to changes

• Reinforce levies, improve navigation and communication capabilities in the Arctic region, etc.

Challenge (and reason this has been a circular argument): 3 & 4 require resources contributed by 1B—tax $$$/A$A$A$/₪₪₪/€€€/£££/krkrkr, so 1B cannot responsibly ignore the rest

Hmmm---that didn’t help did it?. Back to science.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; #4 -reasons for /causes of a number of things have yet to be discovered.

Burden of proof. You have no proof. Ergo, your objection fails any test of science or rationality.
How you were deemed qualified to teach science is beyond me.

Do you accept that viruses cause illness or are you waiting for an alternative explanation?
I agree entirely that it’s possible that the theory of gravity might be fatally flawed. It might in fact be true that invisible, undetectable fairies are providing the forces.
I can’t provide any evidence of it, so I won’t insert it as a candidate answer.

There are theories about climate change. A theory can be popular but is not necessarily proof.

For a former science teacher, you seem to lack the basic language

“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

Popularity has nothing to do with it. Germ theory is “just a theory“. It could be proven wrong tomorrow, but until it is, it’s the best current explanation that we have and you can’t attempt to dismiss it with “it could be some other reason that we don’t yet know of” as some sort of rebuttal to its veracity.

This is pivotal to the scientific method at its core.

Two example were the theory of dinosaur extinction and the theory that all life was sustained by the sun.

Now you’re using “theory” in the colloquial sense, not the scientific sense. There is no “theory of how dinosaurs became extinct”.

You seem to be asserting that the sun DOESN’T sustain all life on Earth. Please provide examples. Even one would do.

I grew up thinking those two were true, yet new evidence put both old theories into the trash bin.

That’s not a failure of science. That’s a failure on your part. “True” isn’t a word that a scientist would use when discussing these topics. They might say “The currently available evidence suggests”.
This “true” vs “not true” thinking is getting you into a lot of trouble when discussing scientific concepts, as evidenced by your replies so far.

I really can’t be bothered with fixing the rest of your mistakes. It’s quite draining to be honest.

 

[K4fxd]

You seem to be asserting that the sun DOESN’T sustain all life on Earth. Please provide examples. Even one would do.

Organisms that live around hydrothermal vents don't rely on sunlight and photosynthesis. Instead, bacteria and archaea use a process called chemosynthesis to convert minerals and other chemicals in the water into energy. This bacterium is the base of the vent community food web, and supports hundreds of species of animals.
https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/lifeonavent/

 

[Burkey]

Organisms that live around hydrothermal vents don't rely on sunlight and photosynthesis. Instead, bacteria and archaea use a process called chemosynthesis to convert minerals and other chemicals in the water into energy. This bacterium is the base of the vent community food web, and supports hundreds of species of animals.
https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/lifeonavent/

And how would the planet they live on exist at all without the sun? You know, that thing that the planet revolves around...
Would they not be frozen solid in the absence of any heat?
This is yet another example of what happens when you don’t exercise critical thinking.

 

[K4fxd]

Would they not be frozen solid in the absence of any heat?

The earth's core is molten, so if the sun winked out today those organisms and animals would live for a very long time. Till the core cooled.

So we are both right.

 

[K4fxd]

Thinking further who is to say those life forms would not have formed in the absence of the sun? If this ball of rock hit enough other balls of rock to become molten and capture water. As it cooled deep in the oceans these lifeforms could have formed.

Sponsored