Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[kerplunk]

you're welcome

[Kawasicki]

So, following your advice, I spent a worthwhile hour or so reading when the next age will begin. Hmmm, not much agreement to be found, which sort of shoots down your idea that we know how our climate functions.

I like the theory that the industrial revolution stopped the little ice age turning into a full on ice age! These peer reviewed climate scientists do come up with some interesting stuff.

[Kawasicki]

“The Deglacial”

co-author and PIK-Director Hans Joachim Schellnhuber said:

“This illustrates very clearly that we have long entered a new era, and that in the Anthropocene humanity itself has become a geological force. In fact, an epoch could be ushered in which might be dubbed the Deglacial.”

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/human-made-climate-change-suppresses-the-next-ice-age

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

Your post sounds very much like “we have a robust understanding of our climate”. When did that happen?

Climate scientists have expected pretty much everything to happen, they have supported alarmism in both cooling and warming directions. No matter what actually happens in the future, there is a scientific theory in place to support it.

Have you got anything more than lazy, repeatedly debunked talking points copied from propaganda blogs?

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

So, following your advice, I spent a worthwhile hour or so reading when the next age will begin. Hmmm, not much agreement to be found, which sort of shoots down your idea that we know how our climate functions.

I like the theory that the industrial revolution stopped the little ice age turning into a full on ice age! These peer reviewed climate scientists do come up with some interesting stuff.

Yes estimates vary but I never said they didn't so no ideas of mine have been shot down. The only thing I've said on the subject is that the holocene is expected to continue for a good while yet.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

So, following your advice, I spent a worthwhile hour or so reading when the next age will begin. Hmmm, not much agreement to be found, which sort of shoots down your idea that we know how our climate functions.

I like the theory that the industrial revolution stopped the little ice age turning into a full on ice age! These peer reviewed climate scientists do come up with some interesting stuff.

Yes estimates vary but I never said they didn't so no ideas of mine have been shot down. The only thing I've said on the subject is that the holocene is expected to continue for a good while yet.

Estimates vary? That’s an understatement.

I got the impression from you that you believed we had a good idea how the climate functioned. Sorry if I got that wrong.

[LoonyTunes]

I'm a little baffled at the point trying to be made re the next ice age in relation to near-term human-caused climate change.

Can somebody please elaborate?

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Your post sounds very much like “we have a robust understanding of our climate”. When did that happen?

Climate scientists have expected pretty much everything to happen, they have supported alarmism in both cooling and warming directions. No matter what actually happens in the future, there is a scientific theory in place to support it.

Have you got anything more than lazy, repeatedly debunked talking points copied from propaganda blogs?

Yeah, loads more.

Any consensus estimate on something as simple and incredibly important as predicting the start of the next ice age? Your assertion was that we understand our climate, the answer should be easy then.

Stay focused!

[LoonyTunes]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Your post sounds very much like “we have a robust understanding of our climate”. When did that happen?

Climate scientists have expected pretty much everything to happen, they have supported alarmism in both cooling and warming directions. No matter what actually happens in the future, there is a scientific theory in place to support it.

Have you got anything more than lazy, repeatedly debunked talking points copied from propaganda blogs?

Yeah, loads more.

Any consensus estimate on something as simple and incredibly important as predicting the start of the next ice age? Your assertion was that we understand our climate, the answer should be easy then.

Stay focused!

AFAIK causes for the previous ice ages range from the oscillation in the tilt of the earth and volcanic activity to maunder minimums having an influence on "little" ice ages.

[deeen]

LoonyTunes said:

I'm a little baffled at the point trying to be made re the next ice age in relation to near-term human-caused climate change.

Can somebody please elaborate?

What human based climate change? If (as discussed above) we agree that the current climate is unremarkable compared to the climate without humans, why would you assume that this time around, we caused it?

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

So, following your advice, I spent a worthwhile hour or so reading when the next age will begin. Hmmm, not much agreement to be found, which sort of shoots down your idea that we know how our climate functions.

I like the theory that the industrial revolution stopped the little ice age turning into a full on ice age! These peer reviewed climate scientists do come up with some interesting stuff.

Yes estimates vary but I never said they didn't so no ideas of mine have been shot down. The only thing I've said on the subject is that the holocene is expected to continue for a good while yet.

Estimates vary? That’s an understatement.

I got the impression from you that you believed we had a good idea how the climate functioned. Sorry if I got that wrong.

How do you measure what is a 'good idea'? We know some things quite well and other things less well.

Frankly though I think you just like creating straw men.

[Kawasicki]

deeen said:

LoonyTunes said:

I'm a little baffled at the point trying to be made re the next ice age in relation to near-term human-caused climate change.

Can somebody please elaborate?

What human based climate change? If (as discussed above) we agree that the current climate is unremarkable compared to the climate without humans, why would you assume that this time around, we caused it?

It’s a “walks like a duck” plus “we can’t think of anything else” type of justification.

[deeen]

Kawasicki said:

deeen said:

LoonyTunes said:

I'm a little baffled at the point trying to be made re the next ice age in relation to near-term human-caused climate change.

Can somebody please elaborate?

What human based climate change? If (as discussed above) we agree that the current climate is unremarkable compared to the climate without humans, why would you assume that this time around, we caused it?

It’s a “walks like a duck” plus “we can’t think of anything else” type of justification.

There might be a direct correlation between global increases in waddling and global consumption of fast food...

[LoonyTunes]

deeen said:

LoonyTunes said:

I'm a little baffled at the point trying to be made re the next ice age in relation to near-term human-caused climate change.

Can somebody please elaborate?

What human based climate change? If (as discussed above) we agree that the current climate is unremarkable compared to the climate without humans, why would you assume that this time around, we caused it?

Cancer has been around as long as living cells have been around yet we know Smoking causes cancer.

How do we know that?

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

So, following your advice, I spent a worthwhile hour or so reading when the next age will begin. Hmmm, not much agreement to be found, which sort of shoots down your idea that we know how our climate functions.

I like the theory that the industrial revolution stopped the little ice age turning into a full on ice age! These peer reviewed climate scientists do come up with some interesting stuff.

Yes estimates vary but I never said they didn't so no ideas of mine have been shot down. The only thing I've said on the subject is that the holocene is expected to continue for a good while yet.

Estimates vary? That’s an understatement.

I got the impression from you that you believed we had a good idea how the climate functioned. Sorry if I got that wrong.

How do you measure what is a 'good idea'? We know some things quite well and other things less well.

Frankly though I think you just like creating straw men.

An example of having a good idea would be to have the knowledge to roughly predict the start of the next ice age. Simple stuff, like that.

[Kawasicki]

LoonyTunes said:

deeen said:

LoonyTunes said:

I'm a little baffled at the point trying to be made re the next ice age in relation to near-term human-caused climate change.

Can somebody please elaborate?

What human based climate change? If (as discussed above) we agree that the current climate is unremarkable compared to the climate without humans, why would you assume that this time around, we caused it?

Cancer has been around as long as living cells have been around yet we know Smoking causes cancer.

How do we know that?

We found out using computer models, designed to show smoking is the most significant cause of cancer.

Can I say straw man? It might not be relevant but it makes me feel clever.

[LoonyTunes]

Kawasicki said:

LoonyTunes said:

deeen said:

LoonyTunes said:

I'm a little baffled at the point trying to be made re the next ice age in relation to near-term human-caused climate change.

Can somebody please elaborate?

What human based climate change? If (as discussed above) we agree that the current climate is unremarkable compared to the climate without humans, why would you assume that this time around, we caused it?

Cancer has been around as long as living cells have been around yet we know Smoking causes cancer.

How do we know that?

We found out using computer models, designed to show smoking is the most significant cause of cancer.

Can I say straw man? It might not be relevant but it makes me feel clever.

Sorry, we designed computer models specifically to show that smoking causes cancer?

My comment was a simple analogy to highlight that because things happen naturally they can also happen through unintentional intervention which we can quantify.

I have to say this line of reasoning is baffling me.

[LoonyTunes]

Quick resume of why climate scientists agree we are a major contributor to climate change

When we burn carbon based stuff we produce CO2. We can measure how much CO2 we burn.

We can use ice to tell us how much CO2 has been in the atmosphere to see that it is increasing with levels higher than anything we have seen in 100's of thousands of years.

We have analysed the CO2 and found that the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels and physics tells us CO2 absorbs heat.

The increase in warming correlates with rising CO2 emissions.

Scientists use models to check this and project forward the consequence of continued CO2 emissions and are pretty much universally agreed that it's not a rosy outlook if nothing changes.

That's how I understand it anyway.

Yes the well known phrase states that correlation does not equal causation but in this instance a more pertinent adage is the other well known phrase that there is no correlation without causation.

If you have a rival theory I'm all ears. Goodnight chaps.

[kerplunk]

deeen said:

LoonyTunes said:

I'm a little baffled at the point trying to be made re the next ice age in relation to near-term human-caused climate change.

Can somebody please elaborate?

What human based climate change? If (as discussed above) we agree that the current climate is unremarkable compared to the climate without humans, why would you assume that this time around, we caused it?

Because humans are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, obviously (duh).

[deeps]

Wow. The last 3 posts truly demonstrate the level of true belief around here. I'm actually a little shocked, I expected more than this primary school level of commentary, presented as fact.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If humans burn fossil fuels Earth's climate must warm. Scientists agree, the science is settled.