It's all over but for the sweating?

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You can refuse to accept the science, but that doesn't change reality. Do you understand how gravity works? Do you understand how the climate works? Do you understand how DNA works? No?

The scientists who study these do know much more then we all do, and science is the best understanding we have of reality.

Anthropogenic climate change is reality.

I only refuse to accept science that is not done properly, such as using proxies instead of direct measurements because the proxies show what is wanted.
Two examples off the top of my head
1. As stated several times recently sun spots vs. direct TSI measurements
2. Using the high altitude wind speeds measured from radiosondes run through their computer simulation instead of the direct measurements from the sensor package. These measurements are then used to calibrate the readings from satellites.

I have a basic understanding of gravity, and I can calculate the force between two objects based off of their masses.

I understand how the climate works better than the vast majority.

I have a basic understanding of how DNA works, Yes.

Anthropogenic climate change is reality. Yes that is true, but it is being grossly exaggerated.

Since you understand climate science so well maybe you can show some of the equations involved. Start with the black body emission energy output for temperature. Hint I have even explained it on this very thread at least once.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by CFECO

Neil, How do we just "Stop" what we are doing, turn off the all the Power Plants and stop driving ICE powered vehicles

That is the real question. We've left it too late to do it relatively painlessly. Doing what is required is now going to hurt. The later it is left, the more it's going to hurt.

What was the result of those past changes, destruction of life on Earth...no.

But there were very different forms of life/ecosystems on this planet when the atmospheric composition and global temperatures were different. We weren't there then and like the planet as it is now (give or take a bit). Life would be very difficult for us humans if the Earth were to be like it has been in the more distant past.

If it has been hotter before from Natural causes, what would man do if it became hotter again by Natural causes, scream and yell and steal everyones money, to give to pie-in-the sky projects?

"Life" is one of those natural causes. We are "life". I'll remind you that the only reason there is any O2 in the atmosphere and liquid H2O on the Earth's surface is because of biological activity.

One of the "natural causes" of previous climate change was the sequestration of Carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere, into the form of coal, oil and natural gas, by biological activity. That, naturally, altered the Earth's temperature and climate (it cooled).

With those higher than recent (preindustrial) levels of GHGs, Earth was a Hell hole, unsuitable for human life. Reverse the sequestration - our biological activity - and we go back to that Hell hole. It's that simple.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

Since no one was able to answer this question, I did a little research myself.... Thank you, me.

I added thanks to your previous posting just now, top research - I went away due to the return to work after Christmas, or rather Hogmanay as it was at the time.

What are your thoughts on the differences between the climate models and observations. For example the Met office here has reduced it's predictions of temp rises due to CO2 as they have newer models.

If the models are too hot (and apart from some resetting of the base years to try and argue the opposite they are) then should "policy" be influenced by them?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

So do we know what the temperatures were in the past or don't we?

Actually we know f**k all really about "world" temperatures at all until the modern satelite measurements. Same for lots of other metrics too.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

That is the real question. We've left it too late to do it relatively painlessly. Doing what is required is now going to hurt. The later it is left, the more it's going to hurt.

Start now, turn off your computer / tablet / phone or whatever you use to post.

Every little helps.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Start now, turn off your computer / tablet / phone or whatever you use to post.

Every little helps.

What makes you think that me having an electrically powered device switched on is contributing to GHG emissions?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

What makes you think that me having an electrically powered device switched on is contributing to GHG emissions?

Because it is turned on, and it exists.

[CFECO]

Fossil fuel was burned, in order for you to be able to turn that device on.

[Occasionally6]

To manufacturer it, yes. But it didn't have to be.

Turning it off will not make any difference because it's use (by me anyway) doesn't contribute to GHG emissions.

[P-hack]

you are connected to the web, using the web which is coal/nuclear powered in part. There's no getting around it if you are online or on the grid.