They model the climate with super computers and they subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere. That tells us what the climate would be like without our contribution. 100s of scientists did that. That's where the IPCC came from. — frank
But kudos for almost finding a mistake in a news item. :roll: — unenlightened
I think he's just here to poke unenlightened in the butt.
— frank
Always happy to be someone's significant other. :joke: — unenlightened
But it's the human way of learning (if learning happens at all): learning from your mistakes and simply learning by doing. — ssu
The IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. That is a very wide range. — Agree-to-Disagree
If 100s of climate scientists make the same incorrect assumptions then they will all get the same incorrect answers. If the majority of people think that the earth if flat it doesn't mean that the earth really is flat. — Agree-to-Disagree
Let's say you're right and the impending climate crisis is zero percent due to human activity, do you propose we do nothing to address it? — LuckyR
I just saw a news thing that said the revised ECS is 4.8. — frank
But doing the wrong thing based on what we think we know about global-warming/climate-change is a VERY expensive mistake. — Agree-to-Disagree
Mikhail Budyko is believed to have been the first, in 1974, to put forth the concept of artificial solar radiation management with stratospheric sulfate aerosols if global warming ever became a pressing issue.[150] Such controversial climate engineering proposals for global dimming have sometimes been called a "Budyko Blanket".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection#History
Okay. If it was in the news then it must be correct. :wink: — Agree-to-Disagree
If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence. — Echarmion
If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence. — Echarmion
What are you doing here though? — Echarmion
So according to you there is evidence for horoscopes, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, yeti, aliens, UFO's, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, etc. — Agree-to-Disagree
These subjects are in the news repeatedly, but that doesn't mean that the odds of them being true is increased. — Agree-to-Disagree
The ECS has been notoriously difficult to pin down. Even after decades of scientific investigation the IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. So why should we suddenly believe a new value of 4.8 °C that is reported in the news? This is outside of the high confidence range stated by the IPCC. And as far as I know the IPCC has not accepted this new value. — Agree-to-Disagree
I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here? — Agree-to-Disagree
I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here?
— Agree-to-Disagree
Are you? Because it doesn't look like that's what you're doing. — Echarmion
Do you think that these topics are not relevant to climate change? — Agree-to-Disagree
They are. But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". Which I'm putting in quotes because unlike actual scepticism, it mostly looks like motivated reasoning adopting the aesthetics of scepticism.
Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest. — Echarmion
But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". — Echarmion
Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest. — Echarmion
A bad faith poster, basically, cherrypicking evidence to support a position they never explicitly declare, and so never have to defend or concede. A time-waster, who will never give up because time wasting is the whole project, and communication is not on the agenda. — unenlightened
but since you confine yourself to 'whataboutisms' and feeble attempts to undermine climate science from a position of sublime ignorance, there is little but your personality to go at. — unenlightened
I must be young at heart then at 71 and three quarters. — unenlightened
But I don't blame you really, you are only a pawn in their game. — unenlightened
Does one get any rest from spite, despite a respite from spite? I mean, spite and then re-spite? Can we de-spite somebody, the way one de-worms a dog? — BC
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.