Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 6. (Read 22113 times)

Just because its not "settled science" (there is none), doesn't mean you shouldn't start to act on it.  If you are dying in the hospital and your doctors recommend a new drug, you don't really have the luxury of waiting until there is 100% proof that it works.  Listen to the experts.  

The most unrealistic of aspect of that analogy is that there is no drug that would also have a completely positive affect on your health regardless of you having the targeted disease or not.


We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong.  Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever.   The wild suggested brought up earlier (nuking the sky, painting everything white) are not serious solutions being considered by governments.  

Yes, that's true.

And chaos remains the exact opposite of fixed belief.

Because sadly tons of people don't exactly know what they're talking about. Media and people report what actual scientists do and say in a too simple way. Hence most people are sure that climate change is 100% acted 100% understood and 100% linked to human activity even though scientists are the first one to admit climate is one of the most complex and chaotic structure so all we're going to reach are plausible assumption, theories and corelations.

And because you just LOVE being the devil's advocate 

You make some good points.

But why is it that every time some religious style Warmer blurts out ...

"It's Settled Science!"

... I have to restrain myself from bursting out laughing?

The more so, the more they look serious and stern when they pontificate their truths. truthies.

It's indeed a bit strange to see people believing there is no climate change when 99% of scientific agrees on its existence.

But it's a little more complicated to link it to human activities. It's quite easy to show a correlation of course but... Well some people will tell you that correlation isn't cause-effect. And they would be right.

Technically I don't think we have really "proven" that climate change is vastly due to human activities at 100%. We still have tons of indirect proofs and clues but nothing 10% solid.

Nevertheless I still believe it's completely stupid to not take into account that there is a HUGE POSSIBILITY that climate change is entirely man-made and so that we should be extremely cautious about that. Cause after all:
-If we're wrong and planet can completely handle it and everything goes fine well it won't hurt to be cautious about the environment
-If we're right and planet can't take it well it would be necessary to be cautious about environment.

People are skeptical just because they are less knowledgeable about climate change, science, and they do not believe they are real, they only live in reality but they do not think about the future.

Shifting a bit away from the argument that is going on here...

If anyone notices Trump happily asked yesterday on his Twitter "Whatever happened to global warming?" because there is record cold in many parts in the US for thanksgiving... so a short article for anyone who might feel the same way that how can we still have cold weather while there's so much talk about global warming.
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-why-that-freezing-winter-doesn-t-mean-we-can-ignore-global-warming

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?

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.

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.

     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.

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.

     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.

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?

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.

I think that most people do not even think about such global problems. People are more interested in their personal minor problems than common and global ones. Collective responsibility is not peculiar to a person. It turns out everyone is guilty and no one personally. Therefore, people are not very worried about such problems.

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.


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.


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

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."


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?"

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.

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

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.