The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Seems like climate change is well understood:
*1824 Joseph Fourrier (sp?) explains the greenhouse effect
*1864 John Tyndall isolates CO2 as 'the' greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere
*1898 Arrhenias Svante is able to predict global warming from CO2 atmospheric concentration.
*1950s David Keeling's CO2 curve,from Mauna Loa ,measurements is verified by other researchers' proxy data.
*Antropogenic CO2 is rising at a nonlinear,geometric rate.(Isotopic assay verifies that this carbon is 'ancient' carbon,dug from the ground)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Venus is 30,000,000 miles further from the Sun than Mercury,and yet,it is 500F warmer.(it has a CO2 atmosphere)
*Earth's MOON,with no atmosphere,averages -100F.
*Earth,at the same distance from the Sun has averaged 56F,with a small compliment of greenhouse gases until recently.Now we're over 57F.
*We've already warmed 1.5 degrees since the Industrial Revolution began.
*If we turn off coal-fired power plants today,we'll gain another immediate 1.5-degrees due to the stratospheric albedo loss from settling Sulfate aerosols now suspended up there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the debate?

Wasn't debating anything.
But thank you for flawlessly proving my point better than I ever would have bothered to.
All those are text book example statements of hypothesis and theories.

[freebeard]

depolymerization
I'm losing interest in anything which involves a tailpipe.

All depolymerization does is reduce long polymer chains to short ones. Usable as fuel or to re-polymerize into new long-chain plastic materials.

....for when the dinosaur juice runs out.

[freebeard]

Exactly, under high pressure.

edit: Responding to a deleted post, apparently.

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

As the sun goes into a grand solar minimum and the climate cools off, they will still insist man is the driving force behind all climate change.

To clarify we are in solar cycle 24, cycle 24 has a few years left before 25 starts, solar cycle 25 is expected to have a very weak solar maximum. 26 is expected to barely happen.

Again, changes caused by those cycles don't suddenly just pop in.

The cooling effect is already taking place.

It just isn't as big as the heating one.

Again, scientists are not, somehow, stupidly ignoring this factor. They've known about it for decades. It just doesn't explain the current data.

[oil pan 4]

I was looking over a paper from 1983 detailing 179 year solar cycles.
It was reviewed in 2015, the review found out of the 10 climate or weather related predictions made, I believe there were 10 or 12 of them, all but 2 of those predictions have been correct and the other 2 predictions appeared to be in progress of happening.

By contrast all of the man made climate predictions made since 1983 have been wrong.

But the sun isn't the driving force behind the climate, according to the believers who are constantly always wrong with their predictions.

I had that paper on the my work computer, at work let me see if I can find it again.
(I worked this weekend and hopefully I won't work today or tomorrow)

[sendler]

Atmospheric CO2 increase with steady or decreasing aerosols will raise the Earth temp. Fortunately we are also getting a reprieve right now via a cooler period from the Sun. Warming will one day give humans some problems when the Sun comes back strong. Resource depletion will wreck everything when we tip over the top of affordable oil and phosphorous needed to mega farm enough food.

[oil pan 4]

The paper was published in 1987 reviewed by James Shirley in 2009, it was a 1987 paper my bad. Shilery_SPD09.pdf should narrow it down a bit.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by sendler

The other big problem is that the sheeple have been greenwashed by trade magazines promoting sales of their product into thinking we can just replace all of the 17 TeraWatts we are now using with solar and wind without ever running the numbers to find out how impossible it is to create that much hardware and find the room to install it. Renewables (rebuildables) are not nearly dense enough to replace fossil fuel. Not to mention the storage issues to prevent frequent blackouts. And the loss of the versatility and storage density of liquid fuels for large machines.

Renewables are good exactly because they are not concentrated. Distributed over a wide area, and over a number of diverse sources, mean that they are much more robust, and more stable. Renewables cost less over time, and the improved health and reduced pollution, and mitigated climate - all make renewable energy not only cheaper, but necessary.

Renewable energy doesn't require military protection, and we don't have to kiss up to dictators. Distribution of sources mean that no company / country can control it.

Nuclear power is way too expensive, and poisonous and radioactive waste are a ridiculous thing to even contemplate.

We have a perfectly good fusion reactor, all fueled up and distributing energy all over the earth - called the sun.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Wasn't debating anything.
But thank you for flawlessly proving my point better than I ever would have bothered to.
All those are text book example statements of hypothesis and theories.

Um no - Aerohead's post proves that all the data and science are well understood and confirms that human activity is causing the climate to change.

Watch this, and learn about what we know about climate change - it covers the history, and solutions:

NOVA - Official Website | Decoding the Weather Machine

[freebeard]

You were spot-on until the last paragraph:

We have a perfectly good fusion reactor, all fueled up and distributing energy all over the earth - called the sun.

Even if the photons are generated in that 'compost heap' in the center, the distribution is via the plazmatic 'solar wind'.

Edit: Still haven't watched it, but I skimmed the transcript

HEIDI CULLEN (Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute): Our planet did not come with a manual of how it all works.
[snip]
RUTH GATES: The scientific evidence is so clear about where we're going, but there is an astonishing inertia. We're not mitigating fast enough to stop the train crash.

STEPHEN PACALA: The technological solutions make it inevitable that we will solve this problem. The question is just how much damage we create before we finally reign it in.

WALEED ABDALATI: We can wait; we can do nothing for 50 years, but we will have dug a much, much deeper hole for ourselves to climb out of.

NARRATOR: The evidence for human-made climate change is solid. Solutions for how to stop or slow it are available.

It's already been ~50 years. R. B. Fuller published the Operating Manual in 1969!

Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth Contents
1 Chapter synopsis
1.1 Comprehensive propensities
1.2 Origins of specialization
1.3 Comprehensively commanded automation
1.4 Spaceship earth
1.5 General systems theory
1.6 Synergy
1.7 Integral functions
1.8 The regenerative landscape
2 See also
3 Notes
4 External links