The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not?

Nor can I. I've given up.

I think there were two ends of Ice Ages with a Younger Dryas in between.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

About 3,000 to 4,000 year ago there was a devastating drought in the middle east.

Radiating waves of human misery as displaced peoples displaced [other] peoples. It finally encompassed the globe with the invention of the steam engine. See Demeo

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

About 3,000 to 4,000 year ago there was a devastating drought in the middle east. That was a climate change drought as it lasted at least hundreds of years.
A little drought or flood isn't proof of climate change, man made or not.

It is the overall pattern that is changing - there is more extreme droughts, and more extreme precipitation. We KNOW that the climate is changing, due mainly to human activity.

[oil pan 4]

Sure, just like we knew the world was cooling in the 1970s.

[freebeard]

"We KNOW that the climate is changing, due mainly to inclusive of human activity."

To claim to know more might be hubris.

[redpoint5]

The warming is accelerated by human activity. When we talk about the effect of reducing CO2 emissions, we're speaking in terms of delaying the warming of x degrees by y days/months/years.

If all vehicles in the US were EVs, we'd speak in terms of something like a 2C degree global warming being postponed by 6 months (I made up the figures here, but gives an example of what we're talking about). So instead of the 2C temperature being reached in January of 2050, it would be reached in July 2050 instead.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The warming is accelerated by human activity. When we talk about the effect of reducing CO2 emissions, we're speaking in terms of delaying the warming of x degrees by y days/months/years.

If all vehicles in the US were EVs, we'd speak in terms of something like a 2C degree global warming being postponed by 6 months (I made up the figures here, but gives an example of what we're talking about). So instead of the 2C temperature being reached in January of 2050, it would be reached in July 2050 instead.

Yeah something to that effect, if the old models are even correct which they're not.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

"We KNOW that the climate is changing, due mainly to inclusive of human activity."

To claim to know more might be hubris.

I've not seen where any researcher uses language like 'know.' In the conclusions section of papers and reports,you'll find them referring to confidence levels and degrees of probability that, what they're observing lay outside the boundary of any natural variability that can be deduced from the scatter-plot of current data,using the highest level of known statistical tools.We can't 'know' the future until we experience it in real time.The models just give us a reasonable glimpse of what we might expect given the limitations of the simulation.Just like COVID-19.Same tools.Attempting to factor 'Patient-Zero',all the asymptomatic 'Typhoid Marys' acting as viral vectors,spatial and temporal distributions,identification,shelf-lives,mitigation scenarios,logistics,etc.. It will be whatever it turns out to be,either with intervention,or abandonment to let it run its natural course.

[freebeard]

Let the record show I was [mis-]quoting NeilBlanchard.

What's needed is multivariant analysis. I was reading somewhere recently about how some people have a problem conceptualizing this. For them analogies about Black Swans is the best you can do.

Fuller talked about 'starting with the Universe'. Then you discard everything too Macro and too Micro to affect a given situation. Everything left warrants consideration. It gets you the engineering from first principles that Elon Musk employs.

[RedDevil]

There is knowledge and there is insight and logic.

When scientists in the 19th century started measuring the speed of light they came to the startling conclusion that it did not matter in which direction the measurement was done; the speed was always the same.
As the Earth is not stationary in the universe under Newtonian physics there should be a difference. When Einstein posted his special relativity theory and the effect on perceived time and speed many physicists understood and appreciated its implications.
IF the speed of light as measured is independent on the speed of the observer (the know) THEN the special relativity theory describes the relationship of time and space, and Newtonian physics do not (the insight).

Same with evolution. What Darwin explained is what people who breed animals already put in practice. Of course selection also happens in nature. If only the Bible agreed...

[oil pan 4]

CMIP5 climate models have never been able to accurately predict rain fall or lack of rain fall over most of Africa.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...639?via%3Dihub

Now someone on here said we know the models work because we can run them back in time and get a reasonably accurate account of what we know has happened and that's the reason why we know they're going to be an accurate model of reality for the future. So just ignore what's inconvenient?

Originally Posted by RedDevil

There is knowledge and there is insight and logic.

When scientists in the 19th century started measuring the speed of light they came to the startling conclusion that it did not matter in which direction the measurement was done; the speed was always the same.
As the Earth is not stationary in the universe under Newtonian physics there should be a difference. When Einstein posted his special relativity theory and the effect on perceived time and speed many physicists understood and appreciated its implications.
IF the speed of light as measured is independent on the speed of the observer (the know) THEN the special relativity theory describes the relationship of time and space, and Newtonian physics do not (the insight).

Same with evolution. What Darwin explained is what people who breed animals already put in practice. Of course selection also happens in nature. If only the Bible agreed...

You might like "why do people laugh at creationists" on YouTube.