https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/ad3fda
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02041-1
Do you need more?
Youâd have to explain to me how I am segregating anything.
I live in a big county. King County. Every year people in the Red part of the county want to form their own county because they hate Seattle.
But King County is never going to split. Because Seattle, a tiny part of a big county, funds 90% of county expenses, and the anti-Seattle crowd are all virtuous until they realize how much theyâd have to pay for their own county roads.
When I hear the Red part of the county threaten to make their own county I say, Do it. You do you. No one is being segregated. No one is moving. The laws hardly change. Itâs strictly a matter of adjusting taxation at a more local level based solely on politics. All the laws that really matterâ state and federalâare unchanged. But then donât expect my county to fund your new countyâs sewer system.
The league system does the same thing, except instead of dealing with hard infrastructure issues it would deal mostly with social and general welfare programs, including SSA.
1 Like
Sadly, heâs your president, not mine. You elected him. Enjoy it while heâs there. Iâm jealous, of course. But I can think for myself and donât need Trump to tell me about global warming. Trumpâs doing all the right things to explode Lefty heads and get you crying into your TicTok selfies.
It seems he has the whole world jumping to his tune.
This is not how science works.
There is no single study that âprovesâ human-caused warming, just like there is no single study that âprovesâ gravity exists or that smoking causes cancer. Science doesnât work by publishing one final, definitive paper that settles everythingâit works by accumulating evidence from multiple independent lines of research, all pointing to the same conclusion.
We have direct measurements of COâ trapping heat. We have isotope analysis confirming that the additional COâ in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels, not natural sources. We have decades of satellite data showing an increasing energy imbalance. We have observed long-term temperature trends that match the physics of greenhouse gases.
When every major scientific institution, every line of observational data, and every fundamental principle of atmospheric physics agree on the same conclusion, itâs not just an assertionâitâs the best-supported explanation we have.
Expecting a single study to âproveâ it misses how science actually works.
9 Likes
My friend, you are just bringing facts to a poo-slinging contest.
8 Likes
Everyone here loves to tell themselves they know how science works ⌠and I donât. Stop it. Iâve blown that argument up.
You ignore, with that diatribe, all of the accumulated evidence that disproves your consensus thesis. You simply want to wish an entire side of the argument away. You havenât even studied the alternative case which exists and has strong supporters with impeccable scientific credentials.
Argumentum ad vericundiam ⌠as you now know. And itâs not true. What caused global warming and cooling before humans? What is the amount of natural change? You cannot say because you cannot know.
Ok. Try with just one that claims to prove it.
Science works when a single fact can disprove an entire consensus position. My position is that climate change is natural and that humans have only insignificant effects. Go to work to disprove that null hypothesis with your unproved (as you admit) alternative hypothesis.
Read up first. Hereâs an excellent collection of alternative experts (you love the experts) saying the opposite of yours.
Argumentum ad hominem.
I can handle facts. Try these. Download the app and study at your leisure.
Why not DIY?
Today just about anyone can build a simple computer model. There are instructions and examples on line.
Py4E is a good source to learn, itâs how I did my DIY weather station.
A very simple (zero dimension model) script in Python with just CO2 levels and temperature change can be done in about 30 lines of code or less.
2 Likes
In that statement you have assumed the thing to be proved; that there is a proven relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature change. We can demonstrate that such a relationship exists in a closed system under experimental controls but not in a global context subject to numerous other warming and cooling influences.
That also ignores the many other factors that contribute to temperature change such as cycles of solar radiation, the vastly greater effect of water vapour and clouds and many others.
Most importantly, it doesnât differentiate between the much greater amount of natural CO2 emissions and the almost insignificantly minor human emissions, noting that it is the human emissions we are so desperate to eliminate in order to save is from alleged global boiling.
Nor does it acknowledge the fact that the radiative effect of CO2 diminishes with higher concentrations. At current concentrations the warming effect of CO2 is nearly fully saturated such that increases produce insignificant warming.
If the smartest climate scientists with the biggest a best computers canât forecast climate accurately then the science they punch in as assumptions is wrong. The $trillions we spend on saving the world from climate change would be better spent on more immediate issues because no subsistence farmer would prefer a minuscule temperature change for his great grandson to a more productive harvest, a machine or two to assist, an electric light, and clean drinking water now.
Get yourself the Inconvenient Facts app I linked to above and challenge your own assumptions.
Could it be that âthe greater amount of natural CO2 emissionâ is caused by the warming that is caused by human emission?
If the permafrost melt and release the CO2 and methane stored in frozen soil in the arctic, global warming will escalate beyond control-
Or should we hope your next statement is accurate?:
Is that based on proven and undisputed scientific facts, or are you advocating the we should emit more CO2 to prove it? If it shows up to be wrong, what do you do?
I know, just say; âSorry, I was wrong!!â
No.
Again, you assume that which is to be proven ie that release of CO2 will cause more (or even âbeyond controlâ global warming.
Yes you should. It is well established scientific fact.
Nope. Already established science.
Nice graphs, what is the source?
One thing for sure is the insurance industry is not arguing about the science of climate change as they know climate change whether unscientific or not is driving up their losses so they are increasing premiums and refusing coverage in many areas. This increased insurance cost has mortgage companies nervous as soon homeowners will not be able to pay the mortgage and insurance so keys may be arriving in the mail as in 2009.
The guys that control the world economy are already aware that climate change is real as it is costing some of them billions.
I wish the people who have proof that climate change is not real would put all their effort towards convincing the insurance company actuaries that their models are wrong and force them to stop increasing premiums. Take them to court to prove the case. It would save home and business owners a lot of money. Additionally the climate change truthers would have a tangible goal to works towards instead of trying to convince the uneducated masses that climate change is a hoax.
4 Likes
The uneducated and less intellectually gifted mass of voters have delivered us to the doorstep of a new era of economic, intellectual, and cultural decline not seen since the dark ages.
4 Likes
But they brought back plastic straws, so it balances out. 
2 Likes
Ditto the US military.
DoD is making specific plans and strategic decisions based on climate change and what it means in terms of global politics, resources, and the potential location and nature of future conflict.
Iâm sure there are those who would just deride this as more evidence the US military is going âwokeâ, but I donât really think this would factor in to long term strategic thinking across multiple administrations unless military leaders from the US, NATO, and other nations truly believed this is where things are headed.
2 Likes
Or at least the gilded age.
I mean the US was arguably wealthiest in comparison to the world stage during the gilded age. However all that wealth was predominantly controlled by about 4 or 5 people. Iâm sure Mr. Musk can relate though, as isnât occupying Mars just as admirable as a transcontinental railway? I wonder if pioneering space travel will come with all the government largesse, grants, and handouts that the railroads came with?
When emotions rather than facts rule you have a cult. No amount of reasoning works. Jim Jones got people to drink poison Kool Aid.
Folks know they likely will not do as well as their parents did economically. Why? Well you might want to look at the last 50 years of governance. Suddenly the stockholders not the working folks were supposed to reap the benefits of increased production. Not long thereafter the US companies decided to start eliminating jobs and moving the overseas. Meanwhile CEO pay
Then DOGE to the rescue of the working folks?
1 Like
Any reputable website. Itâs settled physics. Do you distrust the graphs because I posted them? Find your own authority. They all agree.
Did they tax the dinosaurs for making the planet warm or was that the normal as it was for millions of yearsâŚthen it froze then it warmed to allow a few humans to inhabit and now its going back to where it was for most of the planets life?
2 Likes