The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Man driven climate change also seemed logical too.

Just because old carbon isotopes that were obviously released by man are found some where doesn't prove man driven climate change.
That's like saying because man went to the moon proves that there is or was life on mars.
They have little to do with each other besides being in the same subject.

The radioisotopic carbon,oxygen,and other isotope assays of all the climate proxies belong to a very mature field of scientific study.There is no dispute over its efficacy.
It's like ancestry.com for ice cores,sea sediments,paleodendrochronology,coral,stalagtites, etc..
All CO2 has a specific fingerprint which belies it's origin.We know if it came from Coal,gasoline,diesel,natural gas,etc..
And again,when you burn a man-made fire the size of the entire surface of Earth (oceans included),1.6-X each year,you can expect to see that show up in the atmosphere.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Then if you want to talk about distance past then the atmospheric CO2 was several times higher than it is now.
2 things happened.
The world didn't end and it was only slightly warmer than today.
I say that if the believers are right, then I propose that maybe there wasn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere for the last million or so years and that's why we kept having ice ages.

The last time there was this much CO2 in the atmosphere,the oceans were 20-30-feet higher.That's a concern to half the population of Earth.
The Younger-Dryas demonstrates that Earth can change around 13-degrees,in a little more than a decade,and stay there for 10,000 years.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So we can't believe IPCC then, since they have a biased opinion.

It sounds like if someone agrees with the held belief, then it's unbiased and credible, and if they disagree with the held belief, then they are biased and uncredible.

Research that results in data saying everything is fine gets no funding. Proclaiming apocalypse gets all the funding and results in a belief system.

Some research claims that global warming has been a net benefit at least until now, and possibly until 2080. Certainly it's been a net benefit since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and since the little ice age 500 years ago.

Even mentioning this is heresy in the AGW religion.

It's absolutely pointless to propose a course of action regarding climate change without also considering the benefits of warming. Most people who are fearful of GW have never even Googled "benefits of global warming" because they aren't interested in a narrative that goes against the one they have decided to believe.

Acknowledging the benefits of global warming and also acknowledging the negatives are not mutually exclusive, but people treat them as such. Knowing about one without the other is to only have half the story. 50% is a failing grade.

I continue to look at it nearly every day,and so far,there is very little good to be said for global climate change.Nothing on the planet evolved for it.Nothing can adapt at the speed it is moving.If the mob votes that we go off the cliff,then I must accept that I'll be dragged along with it.There's no escape capsule.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We never said "man has no influencen".
Just that man is not the driving force.

What it looks like is the belivers exaggerate, inflate, falsify, cherry pick varrious circumstances, events, weather and spin it look like man is destroying the planet.

So far,I've not seen a single instance where anthropogenic carbon wasn't the driver for climate change.
We've looked at the Sun.We've looked at our orbital perturbations.We've looked at volcanism.
Nothing but man-made greenhouse gases can explain the deviation in the climate that's observed.
As a believer,I'll ask if you've observed me exaggerating?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Aircrete could be a good alternate building system for Brazil, since here portland ceament it's quite less expensive than in USA.

But one thing I don't understand.and sound foolish, maybe my ignorance : Ceament it's a kind of glue to connect sand or sand and small rocks (concrete). How can just the "glue" alone work as a material, resistent ?
Aircrete it's just this "glue" and air.

The air-entrained,cellular concrete my dad made was an 8-sack,Portland cement,per cubic yard of sand mix.At 11-pounds/cubic foot,it would have no structural strength at all,and would basically be for fire-proofing and sound proofing floors in commercial/apartment buildings.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

14 thousand tons per second is nothing.
The glaciers retreated nearly a thousand miles in as little as a few hundred years at the end of the last ice age.
Man didn't cause that by lighting a few camp fires.

Plus all the beliver approved was to fix global warming barely amount to "fossil fuel extenders" and offer no actual solution. Redistribution of wealth is not a solution.

There's been 10-ice ages in the last million years.And there's a major-mode,dominant,100,000 year interglacial/interstadial cycle that's been recognized which is associated with them.
I don't have that material with me,and I'll have that for Saturday.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

In 2006 they said we only had 5 or 10 years "before it was too late".
But before that in the 1970s we had to do something by 1980 to fix global cooling or it would be too late.

If you go back and look at the weather events they were observing at the time,you might understand their concern.
If you were around in the 1970s and seen what they were seeing,you'd understand why they might say it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Some aircrete have some sand, but most it's just detergent foam (veru tick) and poortland cement

In the US they would not legally be allowed to call it 'crete' unless it had some sort of aggregate in it.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Uncle Jordan's money

And people still give hin money on Patreon, despite he made much more than Patreon and enough to a wealth life style.

Do you have a criticism other than he is relatively well off?

Originally Posted by aerohead

I continue to look at it nearly every day,and so far,there is very little good to be said for global climate change.

What have you found that supports some good is/has been caused by global warming?

[aerohead]

Container ships,Cruise lines,tankers,and Ro-Ro ships run off this fuel.
2016 global sales were $98,111,000,000.00
2023 projected sales are $147,008,890,000.00
Companies who provide it:
*Royal Dutch Shell
*KPI Bridge Oils A/S
*Gazpromneft Marine Bunker LLC
*GAC Bunker Fuels Ltd
*Exxon Mobil Corp
*Chemical Energy Limited
*Bunker Holdings A/S
*BP Plc
*Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.
*Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc.
*Lukoil-Bunker LLC
*World Fuel Services Corp.
With respect to the climate,black carbon soot is associated with its use,which alters the albedo of ice and snow,darkening it from 85% solar reflectivity,down to 5%,accelerating melting.
Watch for soot-flavored snow-cones at a county fair near you.