# The Science of Climate Change **URL:** \ **Category:** Scuttlebutt\ **Created:** [February 8, 2025, 10:14pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828 "2025-02-08T22:14:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Volk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b19c9b/32.png) [@Volk](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Volk)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2025, 10:14pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/1 "2025-02-08T22:14:22Z")
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/ad3fda](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/ad3fda) [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106) > **[Global warming links to carbon emissions | University of Southampton](https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/12/01-global-warming-links-to-carbon-emissions.page#:~:text=The%20results%20show%20every%20million,emissions%20are%20subsequently%20phased%20out)** > > Research has identified, for the first time, how global warming is related to the amount of carbon emitted [https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/greenhouse-gases-and-the-climate.php#:~:text=The%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change%20(IPCC),activity%20is%20likely%20an%20important%20driving%20factor](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/greenhouse-gases-and-the-climate.php#:~:text=The%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change%20(IPCC),activity%20is%20likely%20an%20important%20driving%20factor) > **[Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change? -...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/#:~:text=The%20link%20between%20cumulative%20emissions%20and%20warming,1%2C000bn%20tonnes%20of%20carbon%20(0.45C%20per%201%2C000GtCO2))** > > Carbon Brief looks at national responsibility for historical emissions of CO2 from 1850-2021, updating analysis published in 2019. > **[Climate change due to increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and its...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1018364723001556)** > > The good quality of life, growth, nutrition and development of all living beings directly or indirectly depends upon natural surroundings. Urbanizatio… > **[Greenhouse gases emissions and global climate change: Examining the influence...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972403506X)** > > An in-depth analysis of the role of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in climate change is examined here along with their diverse sources, including the combust… [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02041-1](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02041-1) > **[The Rising Threat of Atmospheric CO2: A Review on the Causes, Impacts, and...](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/10/4/66)** > > The increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have become a major environmental challenge due to their contribution to global warming. The primary drivers of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the combustion of... > **[A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-19718-6)** > > Climate change is a long-lasting change in the weather arrays across tropics to polls. It is a global threat that has embarked on to put stress on various sectors. This study is aimed to conceptually engineer how climate variability is deteriorating... Do you need more? ---
**Author:** ![freighterman1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/freighterman1/32/11176_2.png) [@freighterman1](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/freighterman1)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2025, 10:25pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/2 "2025-02-08T22:25:48Z")
> [@Is NOAA on the chopping block?](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/is-noaa-on-the-chopping-block/71779/65): > > You want to segregate the country based on politics? You’d 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 they’d 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. It’s strictly a matter of adjusting taxation at a more local level based solely on politics. All the laws that really matter— state and federal—are unchanged. But then don’t expect my county to fund your new county’s 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jughead](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/jughead/32/4257_2.png) [@Jughead](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Jughead)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2025, 1:51am UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/3 "2025-02-09T01:51:25Z")
> [@Is NOAA on the chopping block?](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/is-noaa-on-the-chopping-block/71779/69): > > he worships Trump, so in his mind Trump can do no wrong Sadly, he’s your president, not mine. You elected him. Enjoy it while he’s there. I’m jealous, of course. But I can think for myself and don’t need Trump to tell me about global warming. Trump’s 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zappa](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/zappa/32/59824_2.png) [@Zappa](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Zappa)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 9:08pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/4 "2025-02-10T21:08:29Z")
> [@Is NOAA on the chopping block?](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/is-noaa-on-the-chopping-block/71779/72): > > I only need one peer reviewed study which proves (not simply asserts) that human emissions (and not natural emissions) warm the world temperature. > > There aren’t any. > > Numbers of papers that simply declare human caused CO2 emissions doesn’t matter. This is not how science works. There is no single study that “proves” human-caused warming, just like there is no single study that “proves” gravity exists or that smoking causes cancer. Science doesn’t work by publishing one final, definitive paper that settles everything—it works by accumulating evidence from multiple independent lines of research, all pointing to the same conclusion. We have direct measurements of CO₂ trapping heat. We have isotope analysis confirming that the additional CO₂ 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, it’s not just an assertion—it’s the best-supported explanation we have. Expecting a single study to “prove” it misses how science actually works. ---
**Author:** ![freighterman1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/freighterman1/32/11176_2.png) [@freighterman1](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/freighterman1)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 9:58pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/5 "2025-02-10T21:58:25Z")
My friend, you are just bringing facts to a poo-slinging contest. ---
**Author:** ![Jughead](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/jughead/32/4257_2.png) [@Jughead](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Jughead)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 11:21pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/6 "2025-02-10T23:21:32Z")
> [@Zappa](#): > > This is not how science works. Everyone here loves to tell themselves they know how science works … and I don’t. Stop it. I’ve blown that argument up. > [@Zappa](#): > > There is no single study that “proves” human-caused warming, just like there is no single study that “proves” gravity exists or that smoking causes cancer. Science doesn’t work by publishing one final, definitive paper that settles everything—it works by accumulating evidence from multiple independent lines of research, all pointing to the same conclusion. 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 haven’t even studied the alternative case which exists and has strong supporters with impeccable scientific credentials. > [@Zappa](#): > > When every major scientific institution, every line of observational data, and every fundamental principle of atmospheric physics agree on the same conclusion, it’s not just an assertion—it’s the best-supported explanation we have. Argumentum ad vericundiam … as you now know. And it’s not true. What caused global warming and cooling before humans? What is the amount of natural change? You cannot say because you cannot know. > [@Zappa](#): > > Expecting a single study to “prove” it misses how science actually works. 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. Here’s an excellent collection of alternative experts (you love the experts) saying the opposite of yours. > **[Professor Ian Plimer Launches Climate Change: The Facts 2025](https://ipa.org.au/research/climate-change-and-energy/professor-ian-plimer-launches-climate-change-the-facts-2025)** > > Watch the inimitable Professor Ian Plimer launch the Institute of Public Affairs’ Climate Change: The Facts 2025. ---
**Author:** ![Jughead](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/jughead/32/4257_2.png) [@Jughead](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Jughead)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 11:25pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/7 "2025-02-10T23:25:41Z")
> [@freighterman1](#): > > you are just bringing facts to a poo-slinging contest. Argumentum ad hominem. I can handle facts. Try these. Download the app and study at your leisure. > **[‎Inconvenient Facts](https://apps.apple.com/au/app/inconvenient-facts/id1449892823)** > > ‎Based on Gregory Wrightstone's book, “Inconvenient Facts - The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.” This app enables you to powerfully challenge the media-hyped notion of catastrophic man-made warming. > > Incisive inconvenient facts are... ---
**Author:** ![Kennebec\_Captain](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/kennebec_captain/32/13_2.png) [@Kennebec\_Captain](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Kennebec_Captain)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2025, 12:07pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/8 "2025-02-13T12:07:23Z")
> [@Well if this is going to happen](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/well-if-this-is-going-to-happen/71778/64): > > If the link between human emissions and temperature increases is so obvious, why can’t any scientist positively link the two that one causes the other. 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, it’s 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jughead](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/jughead/32/4257_2.png) [@Jughead](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Jughead)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 2:12am UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/9 "2025-02-14T02:12:48Z")
> [@Kennebec\_Captain](#): > > 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. 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 doesn’t 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 can’t 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. ---
**Author:** ![ombugge](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/ombugge/32/11217_2.png) [@ombugge](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/ombugge)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 3:30pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/10 "2025-02-14T15:30:22Z")
> [@Jughead](#): > > Most importantly, it doesn’t 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 us from alleged global boiling. Could it be that “the greater amount of natural CO2 emission” 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?: > [@Jughead](#): > > 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. 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; “Sorry, I was wrong!!” ---
**Author:** ![Jughead](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/jughead/32/4257_2.png) [@Jughead](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Jughead)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 3:46pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/11 "2025-02-14T15:46:33Z")
> [@ombugge](#): > > Could it be that “the greater amount of natural CO2 emission” is caused by the warming that is caused by human emission? No. ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/gcaptain_maritime_forum/original/3X/b/6/b6d1da197414fe4feea614be8149cc8e2aceb629.jpeg) > [@ombugge](#): > > If the permafrost melt and release the CO2 and methane stored in frozen soil in the arctic, global warming will escalate beyond control- Again, you assume that which is to be proven ie that release of CO2 will cause more (or even ‘beyond control’ global warming. > [@ombugge](#): > > Or should we hope your next statement is accurate?: Yes you should. It is well established scientific fact. > [@ombugge](#): > > If it shows up to be wrong, what do you do? > I know, just say; “Sorry, I was wrong!!” Nope. Already established science. ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/gcaptain_maritime_forum/original/3X/d/d/dd0b0ecf59ad3568daf8c2fca979c4f357ef4cd8.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![ombugge](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/ombugge/32/11217_2.png) [@ombugge](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/ombugge)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 3:56pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/12 "2025-02-14T15:56:40Z")
Nice graphs, what is the source? ---
**Author:** ![tengineer1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/858c86/32.png) [@tengineer1](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/tengineer1)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 4:08pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/13 "2025-02-14T16:08:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Steamer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Steamer](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Steamer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 5:43pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/14 "2025-02-14T17:43:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![freighterman1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/freighterman1/32/11176_2.png) [@freighterman1](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/freighterman1)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 5:49pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/15 "2025-02-14T17:49:18Z")
But they brought back plastic straws, so it balances out. 😀 ---
**Author:** ![Rock\_Hill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4bbf92/32.png) [@Rock\_Hill](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Rock_Hill)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 6:08pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/16 "2025-02-14T18:08:54Z")
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. I’m sure there are those who would just deride this as more evidence the US military is going “woke”, but I don’t 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rock\_Hill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4bbf92/32.png) [@Rock\_Hill](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Rock_Hill)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 6:12pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/17 "2025-02-14T18:12:36Z")
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. I’m sure Mr. Musk can relate though, as isn’t 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? ---
**Author:** ![tengineer1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/858c86/32.png) [@tengineer1](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/tengineer1)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 6:20pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/18 "2025-02-14T18:20:23Z")
> [@Steamer](#): > > 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. 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 > **[The Meteoric Rise In CEO Compensation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/12/27/the-meteoric-rise-in-ceo-compensation-how-executive-pay-surged-over-1000-since-1978/)** > > Learn how stock market gains amplified the value of CEO compensation packages, far outpacing the growth of average worker wages. Then DOGE to the rescue of the working folks? ---
**Author:** ![Jughead](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.gcaptain.com/jughead/32/4257_2.png) [@Jughead](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Jughead)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 11:13pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/19 "2025-02-14T23:13:27Z")
> [@ombugge](#): > > what is the source? Any reputable website. It’s settled physics. Do you distrust the graphs because I posted them? Find your own authority. They all agree. ---
**Author:** ![powerabout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@powerabout](https://forum.gcaptain.com/u/powerabout)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2025, 11:25pm UTC](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828/20 "2025-02-14T23:25:42Z")
Did they tax the dinosaurs for making the planet warm or was that the normal as it was for millions of years…then 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? [Next page](https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/the-science-of-climate-change/71828.md?page=2)