Climate change and satellites

[starrdreams]

Simple and clear.

[faelismaegnus]

Too simple to be useful.

[starrdreams]

@starrdreams So simple to understand. It is explained like for 5-year old.

[faelismaegnus]

The experiment with the bottles does not represent "exactly" what is happening on earth. None of the current computer models used to back anthropogenic global warming represent all factors involved in earth's climate either. This is propaganda of a politically motivated nature.

[DynaCatlovesme]

@faelismaegnus The experiment only needs to show that a higher level of CO2 results in a higher retained temperature given the same input of heat. Given that, measurements of earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration over time, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is all that is needed to prove the danger of "anthropogenic global warming."

[faelismaegnus]

Sorry. You CANNOT simplify the entire climate system of planet earth in that way. There are factors which lessen heat retention that you are completely ignoring. Again, you're need to believe that the current warming trend is manmade is linked to your political worldview, and not objective and comprehensive study of the science. There is no "consensus" on the cause of the current warming, nor on the real effects it will have upon our world. Anyway, science is not a consensus field, politics is

[HeadlightMorningGlow]

No "consensus" on the cause of current warming?

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."

It sounds like your position is more politically motivated than anyone else's here.

[faelismaegnus]

See. You're a sophist. What's your source that says that human-released CO² has caused the latest warming AND that it is a dangerous thing. Then you could tell us WHY you think the failed "cap and trade" socialist EU government program is the way for the rest of the world to go. I never doubted that the world is warming. We are in an interglacial period heading for the maximum.

[faelismaegnus]

It has been much warmer than it is today, even in the Middle Ages, and there was no world catastrophe. I don't expect a brainwashed media-bot like you to realize how you've been had by snake-oil salesmen and their phony computer models.

And science is not a consensus field, unlike socialist politics.

[jffryfnt]

Yes, science does operate by consensus. That's why we're not stuck deliberating the existence of gravity. Eventually things we learn in science become common knowledge. And when you write a scientific report, these bits of common knowledge desire no referencing at all. So, yes, science does operate by consensus.

[faelismaegnus]

Consensus has nothing to do with facts speaking for themselves. There's no debate about basic scientific facts as we know them. When people make assumptions based upon flawed or insufficient data and say that it's science, that's just sophistry. There's nothing "common knowledge" about flawed computer models used to predict "anthropomorphic global warming" as a catastrophe. These models don't even all agree and cannot accurately predict the past climate which is on record when run "backwards".

[jffryfnt]

Don't get me wrong, it is in the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge that drives science and I've been in it many years...I can attest to this, there's a LOT of integrity, in science. We acknowledge that answers beget more questions. One basic scientific fact-->CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is not debated in the scientific community. We've known that for over 100 years. It has an atmospheric turnover rate of about a few dozen to 100 years. It can/will force climate.

[faelismaegnus]

What are your political views, Mr. Scientist? Maybe you can tell me about the amount of CO² put into the atmosphere by natural sources like volcanoes, the ocean, animal respiration, organic decay like fall die-off as compared to the puny amount of human-released CO². And while you are at it, you could also tell us about the negative feedback factors that are part of the world climate system. And tell me how MUCH CO² it takes to force climate into a warm range that is catastrophic.