When you heat up coke/pepsi, the CO2 bubbles out! — Agent Smith

Things happen in a bathtub, too.

Scrolled by:

World Climate Declaration: There is no climate emergency (Global Climate Intelligence Group; Jun 27, 2022)

Haven't had a chance to go over it though.
Anyone?

Haven't had a chance to go over it though. — jorndoe

It’s a list of names of self-appointed climate deniers. Useful for a future class action perhaps?

Things happen in a bathtub, too. — god must be atheist

:lol:

Things happen in a bathtub, too. — god must be atheist

Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke for bubble baths? Diet or regular?

Had a chance to glance over that "World Climate Declaration", only verified a couple of the undersigned.
( or whoever knows climate stuff well)

Their justification is more or less ...

There is no climate emergency

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO₂ is beneficial.

CO₂ is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO₂ is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO₂ is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO₂ in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO₂-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO₂ policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
— THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY (Jun 27, 2022)

"Don't Panic" and letting science speak with minimal bias. :up:

The "no evidence" claim seems a bit sketchy. (I'm not up to date on the latest, though.)

As far as climate models go, the scientists do the best they can; declaring that known limitations means no effect or no concern would be a non sequitur.

The "CO₂" and "adaptation" comments seem to confirm anthropogenic climate effects (otherwise somewhat or partially irrelevant, the exercise isn't just to provide breathing air for plants).

From there to declaring "There is no climate emergency" isn't quite justified, premature, well, unless the real message is "Don't Panic".

Think we can burn millions of years of accumulated fossil fuels in a century or two without noticeable effects? :down: ^{• What are fossil fuels? (Jul 2010), • If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change? (Jul 2017), • Why are fossil fuels so hard to quit? (Jun 2020), • Burning of fossil fuels (Mar 2022), • The Causes of Climate Change (Jul 2022)}

Is there reason for concern? Yes.
There are other parts of the equation, like deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, biodiversity, population growth, renewability, ...
Weigh best- and worst-case scenarios?
Assess appropriate adaptation and mitigation efforts?

Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke for bubble baths? Diet or regular? — Bitter Crank

I prefer to make my own bubbles. Sorry.

I prefer to make my own bubbles. Sorry. — god must be atheist

There's not much CO2 in that.

Experts Debunk Viral Post Claiming 1,100 Scientists Say ‘There’s No Climate Emergency’

But despite its measured tone and its list of supporters with impressive-sounding titles like professor or doctor, the declaration isn’t what it appears to be, several career climatologists and disinformation experts told Inside Climate News.

Rather, they said, the post seems to be the latest iteration of a broader disinformation campaign that for decades has peddled a series of arguments long discredited by the scientific community at large. Furthermore, the experts told me, the vast majority of the declaration’s signatories have no experience in climate science at all, and the group behind the message—the Climate Intelligence Foundation, or CLINTEL—has well-documented ties to oil money and fossil fuel interest groups. — Inside Climate News

So all the people who blame humanity ALONE for the global warming are nothing but puppets of a political game and they themselves are so absorbed in it, that they don't realize that reality has not been captured yet.

The minority scientists could be wrong, or the majority. At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety — god must be atheist

Let me clue you in: scientists the world over have indeed taken into account natural variation and natural phenomena. The rate of change we see is due to human activity -- namely, deforestation and the burning of fossils fuels releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Not complicated. Nothing political about it. No one is saying human activity "alone" accounts for everything. It accounts for the rate of change we're seeing, as is obvious from the graphs already given alone.

You have it backwards: the reason why anyone would be compelled to deny this or suddenly get "skeptical" about the consensus is for political reasons -- not scientific ones. That makes you more of a puppet for the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign than anything else. Or you're just incredibly ignorant.

Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish. — god must be atheist

A climate denial talking point. More conspiracy theories.

So the overwhelming evidence is faked because scientists get government funding...so that the governments can take over the world by pushing for green energy. Makes perfect sense.

Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone. — god must be atheist

"Created by man alone" is a bullshit statement so you can weasel out of an embarrassing argument. "Natural forces" have been accounted for. The rate of warming we see is due to human activity.

Here's a tip: whatever you view as a discovery -- i.e., a hole in the "theory" -- stop for a few seconds and ask yourself if perhaps this has been thought of by people who have studied the issue their entire lives. Then do a quick google search to see what they say about it. You'll find answers. Do that BEFORE making a fool of yourself on the internet.

But there are scientists -- like you said -- who have conducted research and say the same thing. — god must be atheist

Who? Where are their publications? Who are they? I can think of a handful of oil-funded scientists who are a laughingstock in the science community and have been debunked over and over again...do they count? Is that really what you're referring to?

Why anyone would go with these idiots over the overwhelming evidence is beyond me -- unless for political reasons, which is usually the answer.

Since these forces exist, and whether we know their nature or origin or not, we CAN'T RULE THEM OUT AS ACTIVE FORCES, AND RENDER THEM TO BE MERE IMPOTENT BYSTANDERS IN THE CHANGE WE EXPERIENCE AND MEASURE TODAY. — god must be atheist

Yes, we can and we do. Volcanoes, clouds, water vapor, Earth's trajectory, etc. To bring you up to speed: this has been studied for a long time by people called climatologists.

Yes, Xtrix, make fun of my choice of words. You are so good at snide remarks and ridiculing others, while your thinking capacity is, in my opinion, seriously lagging and lacking. You should be a journalist, not a philosopher, because at the latter, my friend, you suck, if you ask me. — god must be atheist

Your choice of words? No -- your ignored and arrogance.

Yes, MY thinking capacity is "seriously lagging and lacking," says the guy who thinks he's cracked the case of climate change all by himself. "We can't rule out natural forces!" True, I don't know how else to deal with this other than ridicule. I think it's appropriate when it comes to such pomposity.

And I never claimed to be a "philosopher," nor do I want to be.

In conclusion: Current mainstream scientific opinion is that the CO2 concentration increased, and that was a product of human activity. This causes global warming.

My counterpoint: in the past global warming and cooling were caused by non-man-made activities. Those global heat energy producing or reducing forces could still be working today. — god must be atheist

And you wonder why you get ridiculed. I guess I'll do the work for you:

97 percent of working climate scientists agree that the warming of Earth’s climate over the last 100 years is mainly due to human activity that has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why are they so sure?

Earth’s climate has changed naturally over the past 650,000 years, moving in and out of ice ages and warm periods. Changes in climate occur because of alterations in Earth’s energy balance, which result from some kind of external factor or “forcing”—an environmental factor that influences the climate. The ice ages and shifting climate were caused by a combination of changes in solar output, Earth’s orbit, ocean circulation, albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface) and makeup of the atmosphere (the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone that are present).

Now stop here and ask yourself whether you still believe scientists haven't considered "natural forces." Maybe -- just maybe -- they have considered just that, for the last 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years or so...

Or you can go on believing you're onto something they've all missed. Again, your choice.

Anyway -- to continue:

Scientists can track these earlier natural changes in climate by examining ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica, which provide evidence about conditions as far back as 800,000 years ago. The ice cores have shown that rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures are closely linked.

Scientists also study tree rings, glaciers, pollen remains, ocean sediments, and changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun to get a picture of Earth’s climate going back hundreds of thousands of years or more.

...

Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon molecules from different sources have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei; these different versions of molecules are called isotopes. Carbon isotopes derived from burning fossil fuels and deforestation are lighter than those from other sources. Scientists measuring carbon in the atmosphere can see that lighter carbon molecules are increasing, corresponding to the rise in fossil fuel emissions.

I'll leave you to read the rest. Interesting stuff for those actually curious about climate science.

How We Know Today's Climate Change is Not Natural

Scientists don't expect human extinction to take place due to global warming.
— Tate

Maybe, but I am going by the clip on the Video displayed on the top of this page. That, as far as I can see it, predicts human extinction. That's why I brought this up.

This is what the official opinion is, as I read it (thanks to Xtrix for the contribution)
“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.”
— Xtrix — god must be atheist

You're embarrassingly silly. That video is from the TV program called "The Newsroom". I posted it because I thought it was funny -- notice the little laughing emoji at the bottom?

Of course, like most climate deniers, you show up believing that climate "alarmism" is a problem, and thus you're so quick to jump at any opportunity to "refute" it that you failed to even notice any of this. Not surprised.

You are being unnatural. I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity.

There are too many holes in your arguments. It gives me a headache to think I would need to correct you in each one of them. Am I getting paid for that? No.

You are emotional and hence irrational. You call me a climate denier. You say that because you equate my dissent to being a denier. You are full of misplaced rage and anger and confusion. You are a fanatic of the worst kind. A person who can't see beyond his nose and realize what is being said truly, you just feel the rage and anger and confusion consume you, so you need to find a scape goat to take it out on... and it's someone who says something that you misinterpret and bring up irrelevant arguments against, because in your anger your judgment got impaired, and you immediately latch labels on him, and want to see his blood flow.

At one point you swore to not reply to me and to ignore my input on these pages. Why could you not stick to your promise? You even break your own word. I am not a climate denier and you are inconsistent with what you promise.

Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases:

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
specific heat of carbon dioxide at 300K is 0.846 units.

https://whatsinsight.org/specific-heat-of-air/
specific heat of air at 300K is 1.005 units.

If under constant pressure the specific heat of air is higher than the specific heat of co2, then the increase of CO2 concentration will drive the specific heat of air DOWN, not UP.

Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming.

If you don't understand the physics here, please ask and don't make irrelevant claims.

No matter what Xtrix claims, I am NOT DENYING climate change or global warming.

The physics says, however, that it's not due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

Therefore the CO2 increase and the global aveage temperature increase are coincidental, not causally related.

No arguments.

In light of the above facts: the heat retention of the atmosphere is not due to an increase in carbon dioxide concentration. Whoever came up with that needs to be questioned.

But the increase in average temperature of the globe's atmosphere is undeniable.

Therefore, since the cause is not carbon dioxide increase, the cause must be something else.

Which I have advocated from the first minute.

You are being unnatural. I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity. — god must be atheist

Your incapacity with logic is alarming. Here you agree humans DO have an impact. You just want to question how much.

But if there is a natural cause of warming as well, then that simply says humans would have to do even more to mitigate climate change by now cutting back even harder on carbon.

Use that Mensa brain of yours. It isn’t difficult to figure out. The more the natural background warning, the more we then have to do ourselves.

My logic has not said anything how to mitigate the changes. Your logic is taking into consideration things you imagine I said but I did not say.

I really, but really wish you guys would not use logical fallacies.

Here's my claim again, and please DO NOT READ INTO IT ANYTHIING THAT IS NOT THERE. I ask you because this is a philosophy forum, and we have to stick to the rules of philosophy.

My claim: Global warming is happening. Climate change is happening. These changes are not entirely due to human-created causes.
End of my claim.

Understood? Please don't put words in my mouth I have not said. Please don't assume things I MUST think according to your fantasy life, and then claim that your fantasy is reality.

My logic has not said anything how to mitigate the changes. — god must be atheist

That’s only because your logic doesn’t follow itself to its own conclusions. But keep raving.

Global warming is happening. Climate change is happening. These changes are not entirely due to human-created causes. — god must be atheist

Maybe I missed this but do you have a science-backed view about whether the background natural trend is in the warming or cooling direction?

No climate scientist disputes there is natural variation. Back in the 1960s, the most likely scenario was taken as that we were overdue for a return to a glacial, for instance.

But again I return to the logic of a position in which natural causes indeed contribute added change in one or other direction.

It is either the case that nature is warming, and therefore we humans need to cut our own climate contribution even more sharply as nature isn’t going to help us out here.

Or nature is cooling, and thus the fact we are already seeing such a sharp increase in warming means our human contribution is even more potent than we think - and so again we have to cut back harder.

Give us the benefit of your mighty Mensa brain and tell us how these conclusions might be in error?

I hope this whole climate change affair isn't a detective novel - all the evidence points to one person but in the end the culprit turns out to be an another, someone who we thought couldn't possibly have committed the crime. :snicker:

Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases: — god must be atheist

This is evidence only of your ignorance of very basic science. Specific heat is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a substance, usually measured in units of joules of energy per kilogram per degree centigrade. Thus the lower the specific heat, the higher the temperature that will be achieved by the absorption of a given amount of radiant energy.

But this has exactly nothing to do with the insulating effect of CO2 which rather depends on its transparency to higher frequency radiation and relative opacity to infra red. The suns rays penetrate the atmosphere easily to heat the ground that absorbs them, but the heat is reradiated as infra red which is more absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus the 'greenhouse effect' is more of a 'duvet effect' preventing heat loss.

I am interested if you can shed any light on your own motivation for rooting out such 'scientific facts' that you clearly have no understanding of, in order to support a contrarian position you are incapable of making a meaningful judgement of? Apart from the hubris of imagining that scientists have no idea what they are doing, such that your 30 second google can put us all straight, there must be some reason why this is your focus rather than building a better mousetrap or whatever.

Meanwhile, facts….

In 2013, research published in the journal Science analyzed even earlier temperatures, dating back 11,000 years. The conclusion was the same: our planet has warmed faster in the past century than at any time since the end of the last ice age.

The study also revealed that for the last 2,000 years Earth has actually been in a natural cooling period in terms of its position relative to the sun.

But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350

relative opacity to infra red. — unenlightened

So glass (re greenhouses) is basically CO₂ solidified. :cool:

How fasinating. Are we expecting the two oppsing forces (natural cooling effect due to earth's orbital characteristics vs. global warming) to cancel each other out? Net effect = normal climate.

Evidence for this could come in the form of temperature rising but being lower than expected for the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

The study also revealed that for the last 2,000 years Earth has actually been in a natural cooling period in terms of its position relative to the sun.

But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.

I want to point out that this is not the narrative most people are familiar with. Most people think human contributions to climate started 200 years ago, not 2000.

This is one of the many ways the narrative is in flux. I think we should welcome challenges to the official view. In that spirit we have the resilience to live with changing narratives. When we become rigid and treat the science in a religious way, science stands to lose credibility.

I'm sure you agree.

the increase of CO2 concentration will drive the specific heat of air DOWN, not UP.

Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming.

If you don't understand the physics here, please ask — god must be atheist

You evidently don't understand the physics here.

Are we expecting the two oppsing forces (natural cooling effect due to earth's orbital characteristics vs. global warming) to cancel each other out? Net effect = normal climate. — Agent Smith

If only life were so simple. To start with, the human heating will happen in decades and the natural cooling in millennia. So if you don’t mind first being cooked and then waiting….

But then the cooking is going to be so extreme that it pushes the Earth into some new setting anyway. Do stuff like melt the poles and you might have to wait hundreds of millions of years for ice to start to creep back.

I want to point out that this is not the narrative most people are familiar with. Most people think human contributions to climate started 200 years ago, not 2000. — Tate

What are you on about? In which narrative could humans be considered responsible for pushing the Earth father from the Sun these past 2000 years?

This is one of the many ways the narrative is in flux. I think we should welcome challenges to the official view. In that spirit we have the resilience to live with changing narratives. When we become rigid and treat the science in a religious way, science stands to lose credibility. — Tate

Jeez, not another climate denier who can’t read or think straight.

The problem isn’t with those who have a religious faith in the scientific consensus, it is with idiots who can’t even parse the evidence being presented.

What are you on about? In which narrative could humans be considered responsible for pushing the Earth father from the Sun these past 2000 years? — apokrisis

The narrative you quoted says we've been affecting the climate for 2000 years. There's research that says it's actually 6000-8000.

Tate

Jeez, not another climate denier who can’t read or think straight.

The problem isn’t with those who have a religious faith in the scientific consensus, it is with idiots who can’t even parse the evidence being presented. — apokrisis

Let's try to stay civil.