The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

[specinho + 440]

6 hours ago, James Regan said:

@Douglas Buckland @Tom Kirkman @Red

Three men go into a bar.....

(Replies In order as above guys)

It's tense........ A little shy off from forming RDX ( Cyclonite)..... Someone could have hidden as anonymous X.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Okie said:

On the contrary, a scientific theory is defined differently:

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

From Scientific American:

2. Just a theory?

Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

"It's as though it weren't true because it's just a theory," Allain said.

That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

A theory is more than a hypothesis, which is just an idea that someone has.  That seems to be the way Tom Kirkman and Douglas Buckland are using the terms.  For instance, Douglas Buckland said the Theory of Relativity is still (i.e. only just) a theory.  The theory of relativity, theory of gravity and the Pythagorean theorem act more like laws, given how much we know now.  No one, and I mean no one, really disputes these things, as they have consistently been borne out with evidence.  The same is true of weather and climate models, although there is some variation in the models.  For instance, while we may not be perfect at predicting the weather, we have gotten really, really good at predicting the formation of tornadoes and the directions of hurricanes / cyclones.  This has saved countless numbers of lives, including my own, with the threat of tornadoes.  There is as much as one hour warning for tornadoes locally; and several days for hurricanes.

Climate models are weather systems observed or predicted over long terms.  And we are getting better at predicting them all the time.  They are still based on theories, but really good ones that are highly predictable and accurate.  We can measure the changes over time better and better.  That is why 97% of climate scientists (probably more than that now) agree with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory.  We have a lot of data to back it up: satellites, weather balloons, temperature gauges and observations of receding glaciers, among other things.  Ice melts at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius (with some variation due to impurities in the water).  A glacier is simply a river of ice.  As time has gone on, the temperature is rising above freezing more days per year consistently (with some variation), causing the glaciers to turn into water.  But the trend is clear.  The next question is "why?"  From that, we have bored ice core samples from the arctic and antarctic regions, studied plants and soil, and studied animal and human migration patterns.

These scientists have earnestly and honestly tried to answer these questions.  They have formulated theories based on the available data, and no one, and I mean no one, has come up with a viable, testable idea that contradicts the models that the climate scientists have put forth.

The only people who have screamed like banshees over these theories are people in the oil industry.  But it is like what Upton Sinclair famously said: "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it."  The oil companies have seized upon any disagreement in the climate science community, no matter how small.  They have hired their own "climate science experts" to dispute everything.  Why?  Because they stand to lose fortunes.  However, the evidence is overwhelming.

I was going to write about the different standards of proof in court proceedings (preponderance of the evidence vs. clear and convincing vs. beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the standard being applied here requiring that climate scientists prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt.  That should not be the standard.  But I was afraid the point would be lost.  The point being that climate scientists have proven the case by a clear and convincing standard, such that enough evidence has been established to require a change in public policy in response to the known threat posed by the coming climate warming.

Long post, I'll have to break it up

The first is Theory, versus say, HYPOTHESIS. AGW is a hypothesis, it doesn't deserve elevation to Theory status, regardless of how many grant grubbing scientists jump on the gravy train. 99% of the people, like yourself, Red and Nick W, who are active cheerleaders and proselytes for the religion can't even articulate what the base Hypothesis states. Since you can't, I'm confident everything else is parroting whatever dumbed down website caught your fancy, all while gloating you're on the winning side. Backed by nothing. 

The long ignored scientific method is: Observation, followed by Hypothesis, leading to Experimentation, followed by Analysis of experimental results, followed by independent Replication of experimental results, leading to Theory. Science, properly followed stops right there, and rarely if ever elevates Theory to Law, because every GOOD scientist is humble enough to realize that they don't have all the answers, and something else can always come along to upset the house of cards. Hence the Theory of Phlogiston was set aside for more accurate theories of how things work. Smart scientists never know what new discovery is lurking around the corner, so they hedge their bets. But in the days of the Phlogiston Theory the CONSENSUS of scientists was at least 97% in favor! 

Climate "science" skipped all those steps after Hypothesis. Their rather specious claim that "the climate" was impossible to experiment with bypassed the arguments brought forward by REAL scientists for decades, that the hypothesis can be broken down into pieces, and experiments devised to validate those pieces. But no, much easier to write a program that is designed to make it hotter no matter what as CO2 levels increase. Then when thousands of runs of those "models" fail to accurately predict, they cherry pick the closest one and claim, "we've solved it perfectly!" This is precisely like a stock broker sending out thousands of letters to potential clients, with each letter "predicting" a different but similar outcome (similar in that the stock's performance will always Increase). Every now and then the broker is correct, and leverages that into a new client, because prediction. 

You've conflated meteorology, which utilizes Known data and can somewhat accurately "predict" but really extrapolates from that data the likely trends and is fairly good out ten days. After that, chaos ensues, as it should in an inherently complex system as Lorenz taught us long ago. All those instruments weren't giving the results that 99% of the models were predicting, and much was made of the "hiatus". How to make that cooling disappear?  "Interpolate" the data, extrapolate from there and whatever you do, don't increase but rather Decrease the number of "acceptable" weather stations.  The completely bogus argument used by AGW is that a station needs to have been continuously active for 60 years. Miss a day? Hasta la vista Butte, Montana. Too bad those 40 degrees below zero days don't make it into the mix anymore. The entire continent of Australia contributes precisely how many data points? Hint, less than 5. Because "interpolation". 

The major oil companies are THRILLED to support climate change. They're actively pushing to create carbon trading markets. They stand to make trillions there. You're right about the Sinclair quote, but you probably don't realize he was talking about climate scientists. Whoops. 

I've met and interacted with climate "scientists". They are nothing close to the altruists you describe. They got a degree, they know they're standing on a house of cards and they're terrified the gravy train will stop. They can't stand up to argument because they haven't followed the normal steps, and they absolutely know it. The reason you don't see simple experiments to "prove" elements of their hypotheses is because they know it all comes crashing down if those experiments Don't prove! 

How is it a gravy train? Think of the posters here, who trade oil futures getting Paid over $100k per year Today, to predict the price of oil 100 or more years from now. They could be completely, totally Wrong, but they'll be long dead and buried before they'll ever have to face That music! Now who Wouldn't take that gig? 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

@Tom Kirkman @Douglas Buckland

Engineer here.  There's a massive difference between understanding fundamental physics and incorporating tens of thousands of factors into an accurate model.  Climate "scientists" fail to make this painfully obvious distinction. 

The fundamental physics of radiation is quite settled; no one denies that. 

Climate models, on the other hand, are a three ring s***-show of programming errors, missing data, adulterated data, failure to accurately model past climates, incorrect predictions, and political influence.  In my entire life, I have never seen a greater display of flaming incompetence, corruption, wishful thinking, and religious zealotry.  Climate "scientists" are so warped in their thinking, I wouldn't trust them to teach Middle School.  The idea that they can accurately model the earth - one of the largest, most complex, and poorly understood systems humanity has studied - is absurd. 

The fact that climate "scientists" can't see their own limitations speaks volumes about their incompetence.  They're the official poster children of the Dunning-Kruger effect. 

Nailed it, Ben.  Very well said.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, It's Wind and Solar said:

The pope is infalable. Therefore the climate change threat must be real. 

Impressively sarcastic zinger.  (At least I hope you are not actually being serious...)

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, wrs said:

The totality of the energy received and transmitted by the earth is at issue here and the problem for the  climate religionists is that they cannot properly quantify even the human component of that.  In fact the human component is actually really that which is already here just rearranged after a few reactions occur.  Said reactions occur regularly without human involvement as well and produce a tremendous amount more of the same reactants but climate religionists cannot figure that out. 

Scientists don't know how the earth works or why it works, there is no theory of life on the earth that is quantifiable and verifiable.  There is also no theory of energy transmission to and from the earth between the sun and the other planets.

Climate religionists blithely assume that all new CO2 is human generated and all human generated CO2 fails to be reintegrated by the earth's own natural system that we are part of.  The earth properly deals with two orders of magnitude more of these reactants that it produces at the same time, funny that.  Why is human generated CO2 treated any differently than what the earth generates on it's own?  It's not, if you are describing a scientific system.  The retort is that the system was in balance before we started adding CO2 and that the earth can't handle our puny additions. 

Now how stupid is that?  Here is a complicated system that works without the scientists being able to explain it and yet climate religionists know that it was in balance before humans started emitting CO2 and now it's out of balance as a result.  Sure, show us the measurements and relate them directly to human behavior, thus far the climate religionsists have failed to do that in any way that is definitive or conclusive.  Models of stuff you can't explain to begin with don't count as science, only speculation and conjecture.  Hence I dub them climate religionists.

Excellently articulated.  Nailed it, wrs.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I've decided you're a bot, programmed like the Eliza algorithm. You keep turning every phrase back into a question to simulate intelligence. Eliza fooled some people

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

55 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Long post, I'll have to break it up

The first is Theory, versus say, HYPOTHESIS. AGW is a hypothesis, it doesn't deserve elevation to Theory status, regardless of how many grant grubbing scientists jump on the gravy train. 99% of the people, like yourself, Red and Nick W, who are active cheerleaders and proselytes for the religion can't even articulate what the base Hypothesis states. Since you can't, I'm confident everything else is parroting whatever dumbed down website caught your fancy, all while gloating you're on the winning side. Backed by nothing. 

The long ignored scientific method is: Observation, followed by Hypothesis, leading to Experimentation, followed by Analysis of experimental results, followed by independent Replication of experimental results, leading to Theory. Science, properly followed stops right there, and rarely if ever elevates Theory to Law, because every GOOD scientist is humble enough to realize that they don't have all the answers, and something else can always come along to upset the house of cards. Hence the Theory of Phlogiston was set aside for more accurate theories of how things work. Smart scientists never know what new discovery is lurking around the corner, so they hedge their bets. But in the days of the Phlogiston Theory the CONSENSUS of scientists was at least 97% in favor! 

Climate "science" skipped all those steps after Hypothesis. Their rather specious claim that "the climate" was impossible to experiment with bypassed the arguments brought forward by REAL scientists for decades, that the hypothesis can be broken down into pieces, and experiments devised to validate those pieces. But no, much easier to write a program that is designed to make it hotter no matter what as CO2 levels increase. Then when thousands of runs of those "models" fail to accurately predict, they cherry pick the closest one and claim, "we've solved it perfectly!" This is precisely like a stock broker sending out thousands of letters to potential clients, with each letter "predicting" a different but similar outcome (similar in that the stock's performance will always Increase). Every now and then the broker is correct, and leverages that into a new client, because prediction. 

You've conflated meteorology, which utilizes Known data and can somewhat accurately "predict" but really extrapolates from that data the likely trends and is fairly good out ten days. After that, chaos ensues, as it should in an inherently complex system as Lorenz taught us long ago. All those instruments weren't giving the results that 99% of the models were predicting, and much was made of the "hiatus". How to make that cooling disappear?  "Interpolate" the data, extrapolate from there and whatever you do, don't increase but rather Decrease the number of "acceptable" weather stations.  The completely bogus argument used by AGW is that a station needs to have been continuously active for 60 years. Miss a day? Hasta la vista Butte, Montana. Too bad those 40 degrees below zero days don't make it into the mix anymore. The entire continent of Australia contributes precisely how many data points? Hint, less than 5. Because "interpolation". 

The major oil companies are THRILLED to support climate change. They're actively pushing to create carbon trading markets. They stand to make trillions there. You're right about the Sinclair quote, but you probably don't realize he was talking about climate scientists. Whoops. 

I've met and interacted with climate "scientists". They are nothing close to the altruists you describe. They got a degree, they know they're standing on a house of cards and they're terrified the gravy train will stop. They can't stand up to argument because they haven't followed the normal steps, and they absolutely know it. The reason you don't see simple experiments to "prove" elements of their hypotheses is because they know it all comes crashing down if those experiments Don't prove! 

How is it a gravy train? Think of the posters here, who trade oil futures getting Paid over $100k per year Today, to predict the price of oil 100 or more years from now. They could be completely, totally Wrong, but they'll be long dead and buried before they'll ever have to face That music! Now who Wouldn't take that gig? 

Excellent deconstruction, Ward.  You nailed it, repeatedly.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

(And yes, the "ignore user" spam filter does not work for moderators on this forum.)

And that is known as "the burdens of Leadership."   Oh, well. 

(I was tempted to say the original line, which was on "Bearing the cross of Leadership," but then I would get yelled at!  Hey, I know how to duck and cover....)

OK, now to get serious here. Can "climate" be accurately modeled and predicted, and from there every prediction tracked back in time to some trigger event or set of events  (which could lead to a trail from "Man" to "temperature change")?  Surprisingly, I think it could.  But - big but coming up here - I think it would also require that all Earth movement events, specifically Wind and Water, and all internal events, including magma and plate tectonics, and axis tilt, be Linear.  Linear movements lend themselves to analysis by the mathematics of Calculus, specifically the math of differentiation. 

Now here is where it falls apart:  liquids movements on Earth are not linear, because in order to be linear, the movements must first be Laminar.  All you have to do is stand at the ocean edge and see the angry sea and you already know the water movement is Turbulent, not Laminar.  Can "turbulence" be predicted out into the future?  I don't see how. 

So: what is discontinuous, turbulent, and erratic on the Earth?  Turns out: everything.  The air movement is not laminar, it is all turbulent, and in some storm, it is massively turbulent.  So the energy transfer paths can be guessed at, but can they be "modeled"?  Hard to see how that would work.  Now you go to the oceans, and at least on the surface, it is massively turbulent.  You might make the presumption that, once below a certain thermocline, it is laminar in movement, but in say the case of the Southern Ocean, down around Antarctica, it is hard to believe that the water is nice and smooth once you are off that surface.  The Southern Ocean routinely has waves of staggering heights, forty feet is routine, and staggering speeds, with movements of thirty knots (at least).  Is it all an angry trashing around down to the floor?  Hey, could be.  Probably is.  

Are there laminar movements in plate tectonics?  Probably not.  There sure are "discontinuous" movements: those earthquakes happen at irregular intervals, and of widely varying intensity.  Now, is the same true for the movement of magma deep inside the earth?  Yup, that is likely erratic as well. 

Now on top of that the earth crust is of widely varying height over the magma, and widely varying mass, causing dramatic shifts in gravity as you move around on the planet.  Do changes in gravitational pull have different effects?  Probably do.  One effect is that the earth does not spin as a smooth top; instead, it jiggles and wiggles its way through space, and that angle of inclination is also jiggling and wiggling - which in turn changes the profile of the sun's heat striking the earth surface. 

Put all this chaos together and you think you can have a predictive model?  When nothing is linear and all is turbulent flow and erratic mass shifts?  In all candor, I don't see it.  To make that claim, yes you do need to be the Pope, because now you are up in the realm of Acts of Faith. 

So, what does Jan think?  Can "Man" cause climate change?  Answer: sure he can.  Observable climate change is clearly seen and not refutable, in the terms of the micro-climate of cities.  The globe cities are dense islands of built-up concrete (and cut-down greenery) and will have temperatures of 10 degrees F. higher than the surrounding countryside, through all seasons.   Those are "micro-climates."  And, because of all the people, you will have both higher CO2 concentrations and more water vapor than outside.  Why?  Because people are breathing machines, developing CO2 and water vapor each time they exhale. Put ten million of those people together and yes you can both see and measure an effect. 

India has one billion peasants, engaged in subsistence agriculture. they contribute nothing to the intellectual advancement of society, and poop their area into ecological oblivion.  Let that billion not reproduce, so that they naturally remove themselves.  That is your best bet for chipping away and the humans contribution to entropy chaos in the universe.  (Your next best bet is to stop global desertification by diverting major rivers in part to flow into the desert areas, and start planting trees and grasses.  But nobody seems interested in what I view as a logical, (relatively) inexpensive, solution.)

[Red + 252]

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Engineer here.  There's a massive difference between understanding fundamental physics and incorporating tens of thousands of factors into an accurate model.  Climate "scientists" fail to make this painfully obvious distinction. 

So when you design something, you don't really know if it will work because there are so many parts to it and you do not know they will all do what they are supposed to?

ESMs use the physics you agree should not be denied.  Model outputs are conditional and probabilistic. 

6 hours ago, wrs said:

You have elevated their status too much, they are conjecture dressed up as hypothesis and no science to back them up.  Studies and statistical analysis are not science, they are at best pseudo science.

Actually it's about theory, not hypothesis.  You need to be able to separate your gluteus maximus from your lateral epicondyle.

5 hours ago, wrs said:

The totality of the energy received and transmitted by the earth is at issue here and the problem for the  climate religionists is that they cannot properly quantify even the human component of that. 

True - because they do not bother. Instead, an energy balance equation is used.

5 hours ago, wrs said:

Scientists don't know how the earth works or why it works, there is no theory of life on the earth that is quantifiable and verifiable.  There is also no theory of energy transmission to and from the earth between the sun and the other planets.

Your evidence is....?

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

You keep turning every phrase back into a question to simulate intelligence.

Except that questions which are not intelligible cannot have an adequate response.

4 hours ago, James Regan said:

We are a one off (at this point in time) in order to do the science you need case studies we are a case study.

True.  Message me and I will explain where your idea falls down.

3 hours ago, specinho said:

When Science can not explain the event (or in our case to stop the dispute)........ Gods and religions come into play............ " 

Except that the event is explained through a theory (see Okie's earlier post).

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

13 minutes ago, Red said:

Except that questions which are not intelligible cannot have an adequate response.

You're the one asking the "not intelligible" questions. (Hint, your programmer should add "unintelligible" to your dictionary).

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

... yourself, Red and Nick W, who are active cheerleaders and proselytes for the religion can't even articulate what the base Hypothesis states.

We don't bother as a rule because there are now 5 IPCC Reports which describe the climate state and the reasons for its change over time, and are openly accessible to readers.

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

... posters here, who trade oil futures getting Paid over $100k per year Today, to predict the price of oil 100 or more years from now.

True... they get well paid but there are no contracts anywhere near that far out to worry about, so it's indicative of how you exagggggerate.

46 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Put all this chaos together and you think you can have a predictive model?  When nothing is linear and all is turbulent flow and erratic mass shifts?  In all candor, I don't see it. 

 Except that we are not modelling events over geological time, so most of what you referred to is not relevant to the physics.  Over 30 years ago Hansen modelled temperature trends and he remains on track.  Since then models have only got better:

[Red + 252]

5 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You're the one asking the "not intelligible" questions. (Hint, your programmer should add "unintelligible" to your dictionary).

That is an outright lie.

If the theory is false then the planet should be cooling.  I have asked those who indulge in predatory denailism to explain why that is not so.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

20 minutes ago, Red said:

Hansen modelled temperature trends

Red, I trust you do realize that Hansen is a complete quack.  Forget that guy.  Total quack. 

[Red + 252]

14 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

A. Climate Change Theory (aka 'AGW religion') that humans are causing global warming claims that the theory is not a theory, but instead claims AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a proven fact that is "settled" and is not open to debate.

B. Since AGW is presented as indisputable fact instead of a theory, it should be incredibly simple for scientists to prove AGW as an indisputable, easily proven fact.  Sorry, vague computer models are not provable scientific facts, computer models are theories, they are extrapolated conclusions based on assumptions.

. The Laws of Physics are proven.  AGW Climate Change Theory is not proven.  

D. Instead, anyone who questions AGW Climate Change Theory is shouted down, and simply not allowed to question AGW.

E. @Red since you claim that AGW is a proven fact, that AGW is proven science that is settled, the burden of proof rests with you to prove your assertions.

F. The Pope is making the exact same logical mistake as you in declaring that his theories on manmade Climate Change (AGW) are proven scientific facts rather than the theories that they actually are.

Responses:

A: Unintelligible question. How can you be "debating" something you say is not open to debate!

B: What!

C. Fails to understand what a theory is. 

D. False claim.  Also continues to misunderstand what a theory is.

E: Scientists have shown AGW to be a theory - I am not relevant to that evidence, except to tell you that it is available.

F: The Pope has accepted the available science.

[Keith boyd + 178]

You dont even need to prove whether or not co2 causes warming to understand the true agenda of cli.ate change. Co2 almost certainly does cause some warming. To which the alarmists immediately jump to total control over every aspect of every person's life as the only solution. And it is  digging into the absolutely baseless logic of their reasoning to get there that we see why climate change is a fraud. 

The first question to ask is: ok so HOW MUCH warming and is it even a problem. 

The next question is, ok assuming it is a problem, which we are ASSUMING it even is, then co2 is the big bad boogeyman according to them, not us.

 

So then reducing co2 is the only goal here to save the planet right? 

.....so then we need o go nuclear. It's the lowest co2 power source we have that can meet the demand. 

 

And the reaction you get proves the goal isn't stopping co2 emissions. They HATE nuclear power. Well if co2 is going to destroy the planet FOR SURE IN THEIR OWN WORDS then isn't the risks of nuclear worth it?  It must be. But that isn't the goal. 

 

Carbon capture is another example. In the early days Upon canada announcing a cap on oil sands emissions shell was all on board  and said ok no problem we will sequester the co2. No emissions. 

 

.....and canada replied REEEEEEEEE NOOOOOO!!!! NO CARBON CAPTURE!!  

Shell: it's cheaper to sequester the carbon then pay the tax. 

Canada: no carbon capture! Pay the tax!

Shell: we are selling all of our canadian oil assets goodbye.  P.S. we agree you should tax our competitors now that we dont operate in canada any more trololo! 

 

So you KNOW it's a scam. Every real solution is demonized and the real agenda is pushed. Unreliable energy and control over society. It was never about co2. 

 

[James Regan + 1,776]

Has anyone been to the arctic regions and spoken to Inuits about this global warming, they would be the first to see it correct?

I have worked north of Tuk in Canada and we were driving over 25ft thick  sea ice in May in a truck he (The old Inuit) told me that he didn’t believe in Global Warming. His exacts words were that it was BS.

Thats the only science I’ve seen and listening to an Eskimo (no offense) I think would be better informed than most of us.

Sorry no fancy links of numbers just the words of an old Inuit Elder...

[wrs + 893]

3 hours ago, Red said:

 

Actually it's about theory, not hypothesis.  You need to be able to separate your gluteus maximus from your lateral epicondyle.

True - because they do not bother. Instead, an energy balance equation is used.

Your evidence is....?

 

 

It's not anything more than a hypothesis at best and a model at worst.  Models are not theory, they are heuristics that have to be adjusted based on the best measurements from an operable system. Models operate based on perturbation analysis and are only valid for a very limited range of deviation from the steady state.  We have no idea if earth is in steady state or not.

How can you write an energy balance equation without knowing what the inputs and outputs are?

The earth is spinning it's way through the galaxy and it takes energy to move through the galaxy so where does all that energy come from?  No answer.........

Edited June 16, 2019 by wrs

[Red + 252]

28 minutes ago, wrs said:

It's not anything more than a hypothesis at best and a model at worst.  Models are not theory, they are heuristics that have to be adjusted based on the best measurements from an operable system. Models operate based on perturbation analysis and are only valid for a very limited range of deviation from the steady state.  We have no idea if earth is in steady state or not.

How can you write an energy balance equation without knowing what the inputs and outputs are?

The earth is spinning it's way through the galaxy and it takes energy to move through the galaxy so where does all that energy come from?  No answer.........

Too funny.  Seeing we are on a planet moving so fast through the galaxy, AND spinning rapidly, we surely should not be here 😵.

Please go back to school!

[wrs + 893]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

Too funny.  Seeing we are on a planet moving so fast through the galaxy, AND spinning rapidly, we surely should not be here 😵.

Please go back to school!

Sorry, doesn't matter if we are spinning, that takes energy too, where does it come from?  No, answer.......

[Red + 252]

7 minutes ago, wrs said:

Sorry, doesn't matter if we are spinning, that takes energy too, where does it come from?  No, answer.......

Not really interested in what you raised because it's plain rubbish.  You appear to have no idea about what it is possible to measure, and to do so accurately.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, Red said:

Not really interested in what you raised because it's plain rubbish.  You appear to have no idea about what it is possible to measure, and to do so accurately.

Seems legit.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Keith boyd said:

Co2 almost certainly does cause some warming.

Actually, Keith, it probably does not.  And the reason is that there is not enough of the stuff in the atmosphere.  When you have these molecules that are being measured in parts per million, you are talking about very, very small concentrations.  Is anything that minute going to do earth-shattering things?  Likely not. 

The concentration of CO2 is about that of argon gas.  Yet you don't hear anybody raising the issue of an argon gas emergency, now do you? 

3 hours ago, Keith boyd said:

Well if co2 is going to destroy the planet FOR SURE IN THEIR OWN WORDS then isn't the risks of nuclear worth it?

There are no risks of nuclear power.  It is totally benign.  Forget the hysteria that uninformed people shout about. Nuclear power is benign and risk free. 

[Red + 252]

21 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, Keith, it probably does not.  And the reason is that there is not enough of the stuff in the atmosphere.

That is not a valid argument Jan, because it ignores the physical properties of gases. 

Different atmospheric gases have different properties, and these are measurable wrt to incoming and outgoing radiation.  

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

The Pope just won't shut up about criticizing Oil & Gas, and the supposed "Climate Crisis".

Enough already trying to inject religion into Oil & Gas.

● Oil & Gas have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

● Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with Oil & Gas.

 

Pope Tells Oil Execs: The World Needs A “Radical Energy Transition”

Pope Francis has declared a global “climate emergency” and preach to oil companies executives, pointing out that specific measures are needed to alleviate the problem with rising global temperatures. “The climate crisis requires our decisive action, here and now and the Church is fully committed to playing her part.”

“Time is running out!” Francis said. “Deliberations must go beyond mere exploration of what can be done, and concentrate on what needs to be done. We do not have the luxury of waiting for others to step forward, or of prioritizing short-term economic benefits.”

This is the second year that oil executives have gathered in Rome at the invitation of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Integral Human Development and Notre Dame University’s Mendoza College of Business. The theme of this year’s meeting is “The Energy Transition and Care for our Common Home.”

Attendees of the said event were the CEOs of Royal Dutch Shell, Eni, BP, Repsol, Conoco Phillips, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and executives of investment funds.  ...

[Red + 252]

31 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Pope just won't shut up about criticizing Oil & Gas, and the supposed "Climate Crisis". 

Probably because, unlike you, he gets the science behind climate change.

More importantly, the Pope appreciates that as a "leader" he has an obligation to explore, with key players, how the problem can be mitigated.  

Meanwhile all you can do is cast pearls before swine.