Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[TECSHARE]

am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

Pretty much anyone arguing against climate change has investments in accelerating change.

That's pretty much the only logical conclusion to why people overwhelming deny the actual, scientific, peer reviewed information.

Here you are again with another completely retarded fallacious argument that anyone who doesn't accept your conclusions must be the stooge of big oil. You are a stooge of the would be carbon swap market that would result from your moronic plans to effect cycles you have no proof that humans are causing to begin with. Now I win. See how stupid you sound? Bring some empirical data to the table.

[1715207679]

1715207679

[1715207679]

1715207679

[1715207679]

1715207679

[1715207679]

1715207679

[sirazimuth]

.... Now I win. See how stupid you sound? ...

Jeeezus dude. Been reading a lot of your material around here.
You must be really popular at parties...

[bluefirecorp_]

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
(corrections: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.307.5708.355

Peer[even corrected] reviewed material.

Ya know what. I could just pretend to live in my own fansty and pretend this data and this study didn't exist. That these people didn't put their lives effort into it and the universe was just created last Thursday; however unlike some individuals, I try to stand rooted in actual reality rather than some silly conspiracy.

.... Now I win. See how stupid you sound? ...

Jeeezus dude. Been reading a lot of your material around here.
You must be really popular at parties...

The thread is why is humanity so stupid about science in reality. Pretty much people choose "ignorance is bliss" and it's perpetuated by individuals for private gains.

[Spendulus]

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
(corrections: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.307.5708.355

Peer[even corrected] reviewed material.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes

Oh, that propaganda piece.

This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#670075ca1157

But don't take his word for it, you can figure it out yourself.

Gee, I guess you've quoted it, now you have to defend it. Of course, many people have noted the sloppy methods in that article, and the way it is mis quoted and abused by political operatives.

In fact, I think it is fair to say that looking at the actual articles, and the way their words were distorted in summarization by O., then in turn how O.'s limited findings were against distorted for pop propaganda usage, is an excellent exercise in understanding the creation of a political meme.

But then, this thread has really not been about science.

[bluefirecorp_]

"oh, 100% of the papers don't support it, so it's bogus. It's only 97%"

Like do you even listen to yourself? Literally linked to a study saying the overwhelming amount of papers support climate change while a few may not suggest a coloration to humans. You're saying "these papers exist because there's not 100% accuracy". But you've yet to link to any papers. You haven't disproven the original 980 some that support claim change.

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20962165

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996clch.book.....H

More proof cause "idk man"

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.289.5477.270

Last 1000 years ^^ I recommend reading it.

[Spendulus]

"oh, 100% of the papers don't support it, so it's bogus. It's only 97%"

Like do you even listen to yourself? Literally linked to a study saying the overwhelming amount of papers support climate change while a few may not suggest a coloration to humans. You're saying "these papers exist because there's not 100% accuracy". But you've yet to link to any papers. You haven't disproven the original 980 some that support claim change....

You've neither quoted the link properly or understood it, or even have a clue what I said.

Also, can you try not to talk like a ten year old?

Thanks.

[bluefirecorp_]

"oh, 100% of the papers don't support it, so it's bogus. It's only 97%"

Like do you even listen to yourself? Literally linked to a study saying the overwhelming amount of papers support climate change while a few may not suggest a coloration to humans. You're saying "these papers exist because there's not 100% accuracy". But you've yet to link to any papers. You haven't disproven the original 980 some that support claim change....

You've neither quoted the link properly or understood it, or even have a clue what I said.

Also, can you try not to talk like a ten year old?

Thanks.

Can you try to refute scientific argument rather than resort to childish name calling?

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.289.5477.270


Thanks

[coins4commies]

... the scientific consensus is that no more than 40% of the warming in the past 100 years and no more than 20% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to the sun.  

I'm sure you saw my earlier quote but let me repeat it.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth’s mean temperature is predicted to rise by between 1.5 – 4.5 °C for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is expected by around 2050

If everybody knows so much why is there a 3x variability in the estimates? They are quite straightforward in stating what little they really do know.

I'm sick and tired of political operatives such as you restating scientific findings into memes and partial truths that support your objectives, but bear little relation to the actual science or none whatsoever.

Well its hard to pinpoint a specific amount of warming because there are so many variables on our planet that affect each other and set off series of events and feedbacks.  Models allow for different scenarios to be put in and spit out different outcomes.  I don't understand why knowing the specific amount of warming that will happen is so important when we know there will be warming.  Its not like 1.5 degrees wouldn't be a huge problem.   You are getting too caught up in the quantitative and ignoring the qualitative.

Increase in temperatures increase plant growth in some places which decreases CO2 which decreases plant growth which increases CO2 but what about plants being cut down by humans which increases CO2 and decreases the amount of CO2 being absorbed.  Theres no certain way to run a climate model.

I am not being funny but I really have to ask, do the two graphs from my last post even load in your browser?

Graphs display data. If you want to use graphs please source them. Otherwise I certainly wouldn't access them. It would not be the first time that "evidence" has been presented that on examination was just propaganda from a radical political group.

.....
The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming.  When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change.  Also, water has a very high heat capacity.  ....

Can you state the equilibrium temperature of the planet Earth, and show how you derived it? Then I'll entertain your ideas of higher and lower temperatures occurring statistically significantly more often and/or predictions of future climate change. (because then you have values to plug into formulas to find the variance, right?)

If you can't do that simple thing, shut the fuck up.

This is way off-topic and irrelevant.  Are you trying to make the point that CO2 and the greenhouse effect are necessary and natural?  everyone understands and acknowledges that the earth would be very cold without any greenhouse effect..  I'm not sure if you went here because you are trying to prove some side point or you really don't understand.  This was never about getting rid of all CO2 or denying natural cycles.  I feel a strawman coming....

[TECSHARE]

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
(corrections: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.307.5708.355

Peer[even corrected] reviewed material.

Ya know what. I could just pretend to live in my own fansty and pretend this data and this study didn't exist. That these people didn't put their lives effort into it and the universe was just created last Thursday; however unlike some individuals, I try to stand rooted in actual reality rather than some silly conspiracy.

.... Now I win. See how stupid you sound? ...

Jeeezus dude. Been reading a lot of your material around here.
You must be really popular at parties...

The thread is why is humanity so stupid about science in reality. Pretty much people choose "ignorance is bliss" and it's perpetuated by individuals for private gains.

You don't know a damned thing about science. You just learned propane and hydrogen turn into liquids when compressed a couple weeks ago and think cars explode when you shoot the gas tank with a gun.

Re: sirazimuth,
We have been round and round and he never has any logic, its always just his little sophist games. Actually people love me at parties, I just hang out with people smarter than him and we get along fine

[Spendulus]

Can you state the equilibrium temperature of the planet Earth, and show how you derived it? Then I'll entertain your ideas of higher and lower temperatures occurring statistically significantly more often and/or predictions of future climate change. (because then you have values to plug into formulas to find the variance, right?)

If you can't do that simple thing, shut the fuck up.

This is way off-topic and irrelevant.  Are you trying to make the point that CO2 and the greenhouse effect are necessary and natural?  everyone understands and acknowledges that the earth would be very cold without any greenhouse effect..  I'm not sure if you went here because you are trying to prove some side point or you really don't understand.  This was never about getting rid of all CO2 or denying natural cycles.  I feel a strawman coming....

There's no straw man here, this is a simple problem.

If one says "The earth is hotter," this implies it is hotter than some standard. Well, what is that standard? That would be the equilibrium temperature of the planet. Deviations from that would be a "hotter planet" or "a cooler planet." Deviations from that would be more or less of "climate change."

That's what I asked. you are of course correct to wonder what's coming from that, but really if you understand some scientific thinking it should be obvious.

[coins4commies]

Equilibrium temperature is not what you're looking for then.  It is around -18 degrees C.  What you seem to be looking for is what Earth's temperature would be without anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.  This is what the IPCC and UN refer to as "pre industrial" temperature.  Defining it is problematic because of differences in volcanic activity and solar cycles when you go back to the 18th and 19th centuries.  This is what deniers have conflated with solar cycles causing climate change. 

Using 1850-1900 as the preindustrial standard has been common and gives us conservative warming numbers considering industry was well underway before 1850.  It gives us a "lower limit".  Using a correct pre-industrial temperature would certainly give us higher, more accurate warming numbers.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process agreed in Paris to limit global surface temperature rise to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” But what period is preindustrial? Somewhat remarkably, this is not defined within the UNFCCC’s many agreements and protocols. Nor is it defined in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in the evaluation of when particular temperature levels might be reached because no robust definition of the period exists. Here we discuss the important factors to consider when defining a preindustrial period, based on estimates of historical radiative forcings and the availability of climate observations. There is no perfect period, but we suggest that 1720–1800 is the most suitable choice when discussing global temperature limits. We then estimate the change in global average temperature since preindustrial using a range of approaches based on observations, radiative forcings, global climate model simulations, and proxy evidence. Our assessment is that this preindustrial period was likely 0.55°–0.80°C cooler than 1986–2005 and that 2015 was likely the first year in which global average temperature was more than 1°C above preindustrial levels

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1

[Spendulus]

....Using a correct pre-industrial temperature would certainly give us higher, more accurate warming numbers.
...

Well, I'm surprised. An intelligent and reasoned reply, even though mostly copy and pasted.

Now let's look at the issues, flaws and faults in this.

Equilibrium temperature is not what you're looking for then.  It is around -18 degrees C.  What you seem to be looking for is what Earth's temperature would be without anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.  This is what the IPCC and UN refer to as "pre industrial" temperature.  ....

Actually, no. I asked explicitly for equilibrium temperature.

You've sidestepped and shifted the goal posts, but to another interesting subject. I'm willing to discuss this subject, because it's amusing.

....Defining it is problematic because of differences in volcanic activity and solar cycles when you go back to the 18th and 19th centuries.  This is what deniers have conflated with solar cycles causing climate change.  
....

I'm not aware of "deniers conflating" volanic cooling with anything. As for "difference with solar cycles," well, duhh....That's not a "conflation."

...limit global surface temperature rise to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” But what period is preindustrial? Somewhat remarkably, this is not defined within the UNFCCC’s many agreements and protocols. Nor is it defined in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)

If it's not defined, then talk of "climate change" is objectively meaningless. As if a cop wanted to give you a speeding ticket but would not or could not tell you the speed limit. Yes it's exactly the same.

 "Because, shut up."

we suggest that 1720–1800 is the most suitable choice when discussing global temperature limits.

Wait, so you'd like to define the "Little Ice Age" temperatures as the measure against which climate change is measured?

Excuse me I have a severe case of ROFL.

Now would you like to continue pursuing the elusive mystery of the Thread, "Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?"

[Spendulus]

...

Can you try to refute scientific argument rather than resort to childish name calling?

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.289.5477.270

Do you have a scientific argument? I don't see any. Anywhere. I see a link, with no explanation.

And I'm serious about your juvenile behavior. Don't expect responses when you engage in it. Also try to actually respond to something posted, not something different or out of left field.

[Spendulus]

....

You don't know a damned thing about science. You just learned propane and hydrogen turn into liquids when compressed a couple weeks ago and think cars explode when you shoot the gas tank with a gun.
...

I do have to admit, T relation to P is first chapter chemistry. You know, just thinking about that. T relation to P. And that good old constant R.

if a ball of gas around a planet got hotter due to climate change, it would become ... a bigger ball...Gosh, then there would be more radiative surface area to that ball, and more of that bad greenhouse heat would escape. Wait, if that ball expanded from that bad greenhouse heat, what percent of that bad greenhouse energy went to lift molecules higher against gravity?

[bones261]

....

You don't know a damned thing about science. You just learned propane and hydrogen turn into liquids when compressed a couple weeks ago and think cars explode when you shoot the gas tank with a gun.
...

I do have to admit, T relation to P is first chapter chemistry. You know, just thinking about that. T relation to P. And that good old constant R.

if a ball of gas around a planet got hotter due to climate change, it would become ... a bigger ball...Gosh, then there would be more radiative surface area to that ball, and more of that bad greenhouse heat would escape. Wait, if that ball expanded from that bad greenhouse heat, what percent of that bad greenhouse energy went to lift molecules higher against gravity?

     I don't think the mechanism that you describe is accurate. Venus is way hotter than Earth and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of Earth on its surface.

[Spendulus]

....

You don't know a damned thing about science. You just learned propane and hydrogen turn into liquids when compressed a couple weeks ago and think cars explode when you shoot the gas tank with a gun.
...

I do have to admit, T relation to P is first chapter chemistry. You know, just thinking about that. T relation to P. And that good old constant R.

if a ball of gas around a planet got hotter due to climate change, it would become ... a bigger ball...Gosh, then there would be more radiative surface area to that ball, and more of that bad greenhouse heat would escape. Wait, if that ball expanded from that bad greenhouse heat, what percent of that bad greenhouse energy went to lift molecules higher against gravity?

     I don't think the mechanism that you describe is accurate. Venus is way hotter than Earth and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of Earth on its surface.

If I recall correctly, the upper stratosphere of Venus is highly reflective, so little IR from below gets out.

As for the pressure, a quick google search shows...

The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 92 times that of the Earth, similar to the pressure found 900 m (3,000 ft) below the surface of the ocean. The atmosphere has a mass of 4.8×1020 kg, about 93 times the mass of the Earth's total atmosphere.

Thus the mass of air on Venus does approximate pressure. It's mostly CO2 down low, so it would be near liquid, very viscous like trying to walk underwater. Its gas envelope has reached equilibrium conditions.

[bones261]

If I recall correctly, the upper stratosphere of Venus is highly reflective, so little IR from below gets out.

As for the pressure, a quick google search shows...

The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 92 times that of the Earth, similar to the pressure found 900 m (3,000 ft) below the surface of the ocean. The atmosphere has a mass of 4.8×1020 kg, about 93 times the mass of the Earth's total atmosphere.

Thus the mass of air on Venus does approximate pressure. It's mostly CO2 down low, so it would be near liquid, very viscous like trying to walk underwater. Its gas envelope has reached equilibrium conditions.

     From my google search, it appears the main reason that the atmosphere of Venus is thicker is because it is hot enough for the rocks themselves to leach out the carbon dioxide. In Earth's case, what is likely to happen is a warmer troposphere will result in a slightly thicker atmosphere due to water evaporation.(warm air can hold much more water vapor than cooler air.)  This effect will likely counter any loss of atmosphere into space due to expansion. Especially since Earth has the benefit of having a robust magnetic field which protects the atmosphere from being stripped by the solar wind.
  However, I will acknowledge that we just don't know all of the factors. It is possible that the meting of polar ice will disrupt the sea currents and make some regions cooler. This could then self regulate, by causing more snow and the ice caps would become bigger again.

[Spendulus]

If I recall correctly, the upper stratosphere of Venus is highly reflective, so little IR from below gets out.

As for the pressure, a quick google search shows...

The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 92 times that of the Earth, similar to the pressure found 900 m (3,000 ft) below the surface of the ocean. The atmosphere has a mass of 4.8×1020 kg, about 93 times the mass of the Earth's total atmosphere.

Thus the mass of air on Venus does approximate pressure. It's mostly CO2 down low, so it would be near liquid, very viscous like trying to walk underwater. Its gas envelope has reached equilibrium conditions.

     From my google search, it appears the main reason that the atmosphere of Venus is thicker is because it is hot enough for the rocks themselves to leach out the carbon dioxide. In Earth's case, what is likely to happen is a warmer troposphere will result in a slightly thicker atmosphere due to water evaporation.(warm air can hold much more water vapor than cooler air.)  This effect will likely counter any loss of atmosphere into space due to expansion. Especially since Earth has the benefit of having a robust magnetic field which protects the atmosphere from being stripped by the solar wind.
  However, I will acknowledge that we just don't know all of the factors. It is possible that the meting of polar ice will disrupt the sea currents and make some regions cooler. This could then self regulate, by causing more snow and the ice caps would become bigger again.

Those are some interesting concepts. Clearly Venus is in equilibrium status. On Earth we seek to answer the question of whether man made influences create a "new" equilibrium status, and whether it is no different, better, worse, or horribly worse than the past millennia.

"Self-reg" has been explored but not nearly enough. I dislike the idea of "Hoping" for self-reg of the planet to cure any flagrant problems man creates.  But also the environmental left tilt that the earth is "Fragile and delicate" I dislike. Strong evidence exists that's not correct.

Lot of issues here. Going to have to think about some things you said. Incidentally I was not hinting that gas ball expansion would cause loss of ionized atmosphere to space, rather that an expansion of the gas envelope would use up energy that would not go into kinetic energy (eg would not cause additional heat or "warming"). Hence first approximation for a given energy input to the Earth or retention of IR 1/2 should be translated to potential energy of position (eg gas ball expansion) and 1/2 to kinetic (eg heat).

But yah, that's moderated or exaggerated by water vapor and clouds. Very complex chaotic system, we are mere observers of.

LOL the progressive view we can control the climate is laughable it's literally the powers that be claiming they can roll back the tides of the ocean.

[bluefirecorp_]

You don't know a damned thing about science.

I don't know any science? Fuck off with that shit you dumb cunt. I'm formally educated with a scientific degree. What fucking qualifications do you have you? Fucking internet troll degrees?

Alright guy; you refused to look at the evidence that I presented after stating "no evidence". You didn't refute the existing evidence and you cannot deny the evidence exists. You shoved your head in the sand. That's the reason people are skeptical about climate change because they REFUSE to see the evidence.

[Spendulus]

You don't know a damned thing about science.

I don't know any science? Fuck off with that shit you dumb cunt. I'm formally educated with a scientific degree. What fucking qualifications do you have you? ...

The method of scientific inquiry, formulation of proper hypothesis, critical review of methods and results. The kind of thinking that results in findings which are true and accurate?