The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

My argument would be that 'what we have' is not set in stone.It's not an 'absolute.'

Now you and I are finally finding a common ground. Humans are headed for a world with less. There is no rebuildable seamless transition to the level of material wealth we have now enjoyed from fossil fuel consumption. Which, oil is reaching it's peak availability within the next 20 years no matter how hard we try. We can go kicking and screaming with world and civil wars fighting over control of the last remaining new oil deposit discoveries (probably), or become wise in understanding we are all stuck together on one planet and use what we have left to soften the landing as best we can.
.
We will end up with a whole new way after the carbon pulse enters decline. We can fight to the end or learn how to cooperate.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The ipcc said they had been over estimating the effect that CO2 had in the climate by double what it actually is.
Is the ipcc not at least backed up by a bunch of scientists?

People have been saying man made global warming is settled science for years now. But then the ipcc says virtually everyone has been wrong all along about the effects CO2 has.
How is it settled science if stuff keeps changing and only a small part has measurable values assigned?
I'm assuming some where some one has assigned measurable numbers to at least some things. But no one can seem to find them. So when I say "some", it's the benefit of the doubt.

*The General Circulation Models give a range of possible quanta,and probabilities.
*The researchers who do the modeling submit all the data,and after that,they have no say in what the IPCC reports.
*The climatologists are saying that the IPCC is using too conservative of values,and that what is being observed is twice what was predicted,not the other way around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know from proxy data,what Earth's paleo record is,and the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and average temperatures.
They've been able to reverse and forward the models and get a good fits from records or more recent recorded data.That's all they can hope for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never have I seen where the IPCC disputes the climate science.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I wasn't talking about artic ice. I was specifically talking about ant-artic ice.

We have told you multiple times the ipcc announcement about overestimating the effects of CO2 is easy to search for on bing.
I have linked it multiple times but you chose to ignore it.
So just continue to pretend like it never happened.

If the artic ice volume is down 80% then why is my old house at Langley (in Virginia) not under water?
I like how all this ice melts and there is almost no measurable change in sea level.
I thought the big worry was the ice was going to melt and displace something like 70% of the entire world's population?
And that's not going to happen now so what's the panic?
Another question, if the earth is warming so much why is it only effecting one side of the planet?

What if this is what the artic has always done?

If all the arctic ice were to melt,it would only add 1/2-foot to sea level rise.
The problem is what some have referred to as the 100-gigaton Methane bomb!
If the Arctic goes,the greenhouse gases that will be released from the Arctic shelves,shallow seas,permafrost,and tundra will be so great as to accelerate global warming to unprecedented levels.
This is all Methane and it's 20-times more effective as a greenhouse gas.
The warming from all the additional GHG WILL trigger Greenland and Antarctica,which will have a profound affect on sea-level.
15,000 years ago,Greenland went up 16-degrees in fifteen years.This is the 'abrupt' climate change climatologists fear.We know Earth can do this.So it could do it again.
And half the global population lives withing 50-miles of the coastlines.
The last time Earth had this much CO2 in the atmosphere,the oceans were 20-30 feet higher.
And it's affecting both poles.

[oil pan 4]

It's just effecting 1 pole a lot more than the other.
One side most of the ice is gone, the other side doesn't even seem to notice.

Maybe once all that methane goes up snowy winters will become a thing of the past.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Right now there doesn't appear to be a way to build enough batteries to replace even 5% of the cars on the road with electric.
As of 2017 about 0.15% are purely electric.

The second result that came up took less than 5 seconds.
This talks about the ipcc shift saying they were overestimating the effects of CO2 by double.
“Seismic Shift” In Climate Science… IPCC CO2-Induced Warming Estimate “Far Too High”…”In A Free Fall”
I post it again and the alarmists believers will ignore it again.
The believersare just but hurt that the denyers have been saying all along that believes have been far overestimating the effects of CO2.
If I was a hard core blind faith beliver I would pretend like it didn't happen too.

I'd request that you keep to websites associated with the actual research organizations.They're just as easy to find.
You're wasting our time with this s---.
They're practicing confirmational bias,disputation,using rhetorical skill to argue for anything but truth,problematic deduction,context dependency,a posteriori reasoning,defeasible knowledge,tacit reserve,Ad Ignorantiam,Ad Hominem,Hasty Generalization,Overreliance on Authorities,fallacy of negation,false dilemna,tautology,Effort Inadequacies,Problem-Solving Inadequacies,Priniciple of undetermination,Duhem-Quine Thesis,and Cognitive Egalitarianism.

[oil pan 4]

The problem is earth is experiencing the "worst of the worst case scenario" for CO2 emissions mainly because of china, but the warming is on the lowest end of the ipcc spectrum of estimates.
A totally unexpected result.

The man made global warming craze will be over in a few years anyways.

[freebeard]

Could you please write up a brief synopsis of the presentation?
I get one day a week where I can hear audio,and a 1-hour video can take me up to 3-hours to go through to do a transcript.They're killing me!

???

I wanted to be helpful, but when I opened the video I presume you're referencing (Pinker) it took a few seconds to Click the three dots and select Open Transcript, but when I copied it into Summarize text it thought each line was a paragraph, so I went through it by hand, cutting out the time stamps and then the lack of punctuation made it all one sentence so it still didn't summarize.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

You understand albedo,and heat absorbtion,heating,and increased heating,and increased melting,and increased absorbtion,heating,ad infinitum?
It takes 144-Btu worth of sunshine to melt one pound of heat-reflecting 32F ice into 32F-degree water.
Once the ice is gone,the same 144-Btu worth of sunshine will warm that same pound of 32F heat-absorbing dark water to 144F .

That's mechanical engineering. It's a well established religion, based around numbers, math and assigning values to abstract equations.
The opposite of global warming.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There's no need to wage a war.

We're not beyond peak oil.

The rate of population growth has been in decline, and will continue to do so, perhaps even drastically (my theory with VR porn and growing nonsense about there being no biological distinction between men and women).

If we gradually increased oil consumption, we can gradually move away from it. War not necessary. What you propose would cause a civil war, not just a war on business. Me and millions of Americans would not allow an authoritarian state.

The top petroleum geologists and market analytics showed that peak oil was in 2002.
All major oil prospecting is behind us.
There are no more 'elephant' fields to be found.
A number of OPEC nations have lied about their reserves so they could fudge their allowable production quotas.
Saudi is pumping more sea water than oil.
'My father rode a camel,I drive a Rolls-Royce,my son flies a jet airplane,and his son will ride a camel.' Arab proverb.
When Vice President HALLIBURTON Kellog Brown & Root said,'The American way of life is not negotiable.'............. we may have to amend that.
And since the late,Matthew Simmons said,'America has no Plan-B,' war might be inevitable.(I'm just playing 'advocatus diaboli')
We don't have a 'swing producer' anymore.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It's just effecting 1 pole a lot more than the other.
One side most of the ice is gone, the other side doesn't even seem to notice.

Maybe once all that methane goes up snowy winters will become a thing of the past.

The poles are warming faster than elsewhere,but the whole planet is warming.
Warming in the poles is believed to be affecting the polar jets,which in turn affect the Jet Stream,which is responsible for much of the heat and water vapor distribution around the globe.
We've had meridional Jet Stream excursions well below the equator,dividing the US in half,with high pressure parked on both sides,with monthly time scales,bringing heat waves,drought, and flood simultaneously.
If the Methane goes everything is gonna accelerate,amplify.It's cause for alarm.
It's negative 270-degrees F above us.I don't know if we could have an anomaly which could expose us to that.With all the additional water available as it is,we might still see catastrophic snow events.Don't know.Nobody does.But some of those on the front lines are shocked at what they're witnessing.
It's pretty amazing!