It is science. Your own ramblings notwithstanding. Feel free to take your Republican talking points elsewhere.

“Optimal CO2 level.” :lol: — Xtrix

If it is science, can you verify or falsify it? can you explain how the scientific method was applied to come to this conclusion?

do you have a problem with republicans?

You are welcome to believe whatever religion / cult / ideology you want, just be honest with yourself and don't call it science — stoicHoneyBadger

What's non-scientific about it? Seems pretty convincing to me. You gotta admit that capitalism is fucking up the planet. Which might not be evil per se, but is quite disturbing to be honest.

If it is science, can you verify or falsify it? — stoicHoneyBadger

That's no criterion for being scientific.

You might read about the scientific method ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ), about Popper’s falsifiability criteria, etc.

Capitalism has certainly fucked some things up, like putting sugars and seed oils into food. But blaming all your troubles on it and assuming communism would do better might not be a reasonable way to go.

You might read about the scientific method ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ), about Popper’s falsifiability criteria, etc. — stoicHoneyBadger

Sir pimpelPopper was a frustrated scientist, who tried to make science dance on the marchmusic of his false method.

Capitalism has certainly fucked some things up, like putting sugars and seed oils into food. But blaming all your troubles on it and assuming communism would do better might not be a reasonable way to go. — stoicHoneyBadger

Where I claim to be a communist?

Don’t bother with trolls. Climate deniers don’t know about science or care about science. They’re as interested in “science” as creationists are.

50 years worth of research, overwhelming evidence (of which I give a sample in the OP), 99% consensus, etc — all irrelevant to those who follow Trump’s lead. It shows up in the stupid questions, for example about “optimal CO2” and so forth. Wow! They’ve cracked the case! Single handedly! All from spending 15 minutes on Wikipedia. Imagine the level of ego? It’s impressive.

And isn’t it funny how science ignoramuses ALWAYS point to Popper? It’s almost as if that’s the only philosophy of science they’ve ever heard about. :chin:

Problem is that people always try to twist the reality to fit their narrative and than try to give it credibility by calling it science. Even in such obvious un-scientific concepts a men turning into women by wishing for it to be so.

It all boils down to the fact that the idea of a minuscule ~1 degree warming causing some global catastrophe does not sound reasonable.

We have been promised sea levels raising, extreme weather events, etc. for decades, yet none of that has materialized. Is any nation underwater, as promised from the UN tribune 20 years ago?

If nothing happens in 5 years, 10 or 20 , when will you finally say "ok, guess it was a bit exaggerated"?

We have been promised sea levels raising, extreme weather events, etc. for decades, yet none of that has materialized. — stoicHoneyBadger

Actually, it has. Sea level has risen, and extreme weather events happen every year — breaking records. Not to mention average global temperatures are the hottest year after year. But I know that means nothing for those who don’t want to believe it.

It all boils down to the fact that the idea of a minuscule ~1 degree warming causing some global catastrophe does not sound reasonable. — stoicHoneyBadger

That’s because you don’t have a clue about the Earth’s climate.

Nevermind. It sounds unreasonable to you, so I guess that settles it. What are all those stupid scientists who’ve dedicated their entire lives to understanding the earth talking about? Idiots!

If nothing happens in 5 years, 10 or 20 — stoicHoneyBadger

We don’t have to wait— they’re already here, and have been visible now for about a decade. Which is exactly what was predicted back in the 1980s. Believe it or not, there’s a lot of information about this — all free. Or you can talk to a climatologist, and they’ll explain it to you.

Or you can go on believing you know more than them because you spent 5 minutes thinking about it and have judged it to be “unreasonable.” Your call.

Actually, it has. Sea level has risen, and extreme weather events happen every year — breaking records. Not to mention average global temperatures are the hottest year after year. But I know that means nothing for those who don’t want to believe it. — Xtrix

How much has it risen? Is some city underwater? What extreme events has it caused? I can say the same way, if you want to see climate change, you will find it everywhere and than use it as a confirmation.

That’s because you don’t have a clue about the Earth’s climate.
Nevermind. It sounds unreasonable to you, so I guess that settles it. What are all those stupid scientists who’ve dedicated their entire lives to understanding the earth talking about? Idiots! — Xtrix

So you blindly trust some group of people, who claim to know something you can't verify? Why not trust priests or imams or UFO hunters?

Or you can talk to a climatologist, and they’ll explain it to you. — Xtrix

In a same way you can talk to a liberal gender studies major and xzer will kindly explain you that there are 128 genders, yet it still does not make it reasonable or trustworthy.

Sea level has risen, and extreme weather events happen every year — Xtrix

I just checked randomly the levels at KeyWest, FL. Here is the graph, I can not see any sharp increase in it, can you?
The current rate it about 2.5mm per year. The highest point of KeyWest is 5.5m , so if my math is right, it will take just 2200 years for them to go under water.



Can you provide me with a counter example?

Now let's do San Francisco:



On average 1.75mm per year. I don't see any sharp increases, but ok, let's double that for the sake of the argument. So 3.5mm per year, elevation of SF is 16m , so at this rate it will still take like 4.5K years.

Let's also do Marseille, France. 1mm per year, elevation 36m. Fully gone in just 36.000 years! OMG!

So you blindly trust some group of people, who claim to know something you can't verify? — stoicHoneyBadger

No, it’s a group of experts with overwhelming evidence that can be verified by anyone who wants to know about it. They can explain it to me and answer any questions I have about it. This is typical of science.

Or we can walk into a physics department and say “quantum mechanics seems unreasonable to me” and leave it at that.

gender studies — stoicHoneyBadger

Someone’s been watching a lot of Fox News I see.

I’m not interested in your therapy.

sharp increase — stoicHoneyBadger

Who said it would be a sharp increase? You notice that sea level has indeed risen. Your claims about sharp increases or cities being under water are your own fabrications. That’s not what’s being claimed. There are areas in the world — like the Maldives and areas of Bangladesh where sea rise already is causing real problems. But no one is saying the seas will consume New York overnight. No one.

at this rate — stoicHoneyBadger

Yeah…great job. So I guess that settles it! You’ve singlehandedly refuted all of climate science! Somehow they missed your extraordinary insight! Good work!

For anyone serious about learning about sea level rise:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

For anyone serious about learning about sea level rise:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level — Xtrix

Aha, so it went from 1.4mm to 3.6mm , therefor in one case Marseille would be under water in 25k years, but in the other in just 10k years. Yeap, that a real emergency! :D

Yeah…great job. So I guess that settles it! You’ve singlehandedly refuted all of climate science! Somehow they missed your extraordinary insight! Good work! — Xtrix

You are looking at them like some God-send enlightened gurus, I see them just as another breed of quacks, similar to astrologers, homeopath, faith healers, taro card readers etc.

I don't need to read every book on horoscopes to know it is quackery.

:rofl:

:ok:

You are looking at them like some God-send enlightened gurus, I see them just as another breed of quacks, similar to astrologers, homeopath, faith healers, taro card readers etc.

I don't need to read every book on horoscopes to know it is quackery. — stoicHoneyBadger

Seems pretty clear though that the planet has never been so fucked up as in recent times. Even the big asteroid that once hit had a mild effect in comparison.

Aha, so it went from 1.4mm to 3.6mm , therefor in one case Marseille would be under water in 25k years, but in the other in just 10k years. Yeap, that a real emergency! :D — stoicHoneyBadger

The real emergency, though floods and fires are serious, lies not in temperature change per se. It's the short time in which it happens that matters. And in comparison with human impact on nature, even this looks pale and bleak.

's the short time in which it happens that matters. — Haglund

Notice how you are moving the goalposts. Ok, temperature changes some 10 degrees every day/night cycle. It changes 50 degrees during the year. Having a 20 degree difference between average temperatures withing two sequential years is not unusual. Yet having a 1 degree increase in 30 years is the end of the world? Does that sound reasonable?

And in comparison with human impact on nature, even this looks pale and bleak. — Haglund

See goalpost moved again. What exactly is this impact? Sahara is greening because of the release of trapped co2 by human. In cities situation is certainly way better than it was 150 years ago, when everything was covered with soot.

I think you just hate people as such and are trying to make up reasons for why we are bad.

Notice how you are moving the goalposts. Ok, temperature changes some 10 degrees every day/night cycle. It changes 50 degrees during the year. Having a 20 degree difference between average temperatures withing two sequential years is not unusual. Yet having a 1 degree increase in 30 years is the end of the world? Does that sound reasonable? — stoicHoneyBadger

Okay, analysis time. The final one! Now it's you who moves the goal posts. You introduce whole new goalposts even. The temperature changes you refer to, the daily or seasonal variations, are not what gives the danger. The goalposts we talk about are about the change in the average temperature. This change in average temperature (the energy contained in the whole atmosphere) has occurred before in history, even in shorter time, but this lasted a short time, so nature had not really suffered because if it. The temperature change induced by man is short term and lasting. There is no return to normal.

See goalpost moved again. What exactly is this impact? Sahara is greening because of the release of trapped co2 by human. In cities situation is certainly way better than it was 150 years ago, when everything was covered with soot — stoicHoneyBadger

No goalposts moved here. I placed the problem next to another problem: human intervention in nature in general. So nit only on the atmosphere. Again, I didn't change the posts, I put two larger and thicker ones around them. If you can't see the impact and consequences than yiu wear some damned big blinkers.

The temperature change induced by man is short term and lasting. There is no return to normal. — Haglund

What is normal? I mean the idea that if temperature fluctuates tens of degrees withing a few years is not a problem, if the same happens over thousands of years it's ok, too. Yet if a 10 times smaller fluctuation happens within decades - global catastrophe! It does not sound very logical to me, nor is it testable in an experiment. Moreover, those "experts" are known to be wrong / grossly exaggerating many times before, so seems like quackery.

There is no fluctuation we induce. We induce a permanent increase (in short time) without fluctuating back. That's not natural. Not normal.

There is no fluctuation we induce. We induce a permanent increase (in short time) without fluctuating back. That's not natural. Not normal. — Haglund

ok, but the question still is whether it is a small pleasantry or a global catastrophe. I don't see any tangible evidence to suggest a catastrophe.

ok, but the question still is whether it is a small pleasantry or a global catastrophe. I don't see any tangible evidence to suggest a catastrophe. — stoicHoneyBadger

In general: the shorter a change takes the bigger the consequence. Birth, lightning, a meteor crashing on Earth, etc. So the transgression in short time to a higher temperature will show. There is just more energy injected into the atmosphere. And the energy increases fast. You might call 1 degree rise in 10 years not much but it's huge. And it stays. A natural balance is disrupted. Chaotic effects. Forrest fires and floods happen quite regularly lately.

Chaotic effects. Forrest fires and floods happen quite regularly lately. — Haglund

War! Pestilence! Famine! Death! and also locusts everywhere! I mean it is a doomsday cult prophecy, not a credible scientific theory. What if forest fires are caused by its mismanagement?

War! Pestilence! Famine! — stoicHoneyBadger

Not sure what these have to do with the atmosphere. Poisined air maybe?

not a credible scientific theory. What if forest fires are caused by its mismanagement? — stoicHoneyBadger

It's not a theory. There are just more fires and floods everywhere. For a fact. And you would expect management to have improved.

It's not a theory. There are just more fires and floods everywhere. For a fact. And you would expect management to have improved. — Haglund

And how do you know it is caused by a 1 degree temp. increase? If we measure it in the number of death, the picture is not so bleak.

And how do you know it is caused by a 1 degree temp. increase? — stoicHoneyBadger

How else?

The article is about catastophes...And the number of deaths would be lower without temperature increase by man.

Climate change, if a scientific hypothesis, can't be, for that very fact, the only game in town. Are there other hypotheses that are...well...inelegant, too complex, etc.?