modest temp increase=irreversible loss of ice caps:

@metal-brain said
Guessing is a poor way to conduct science.

You don't know science.
The educated guess or hypothesis is the cornerstone of science.
The ramifications of the "guess" are calculated.
The calculations are compared with the observable world and/or experimentation.
The hypothesis either stands (sometimes temporarily) or is debunked.

Do you have a better system?

@metal-brain said
Don't be silly. All the glaciers have melted before during the Pliocene Epoch. They adapted as we well know.

Animals cannot adapt in thousands of years
let alone hundreds (or possibly decades).

The point of global warming is the speed at which it occurs.

@wolfgang59 said
You don't know science.
The educated guess or hypothesis is the cornerstone of science.
The ramifications of the "guess" are calculated.
The calculations are compared with the observable world and/or experimentation.
The hypothesis either stands (sometimes temporarily) or is debunked.

Do you have a better system?

I do know enough about science to know a hypothesis should not be treated as evidence. It is called "Global Warming Theory".

Climate models are not all the same. Hindcasts are always corrected after the trial and error process. Only the people working on it know how many times they got it wrong before they finally got it right by trial and error. Even if you asked them how many times it took they would probably be reluctant to be honest with you.
Predictions in the future are much harder. A climate modeller only has one chance to get it right. That is why their accuracy rate sucks big time. If you omit the hindcasts and only count the forecasts, they show themselves to be a miserable failure. That is why there are all sorts of articles out there saying climate models are reliable. They include hindcasts to mislead you into believing there were only counting forecasts.

Climate model forecasts are pathetic!

Al Gore and others had a hypothesis that CO2 caused Temperatures to rise. It was debunked, yet most people still believe this debunked hypothesis. Can I count on you to correct your peers that are unaware that it has been debunked and temperatures caused CO2 to rise and fall in the ice core samples?

Why isn't the news media helping people to be aware AL Gore's hypothesis has been debunked? Why is PBS' Nova still promoting this debunked myth?

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/propaganda-and-lies-from-pbs-nova.176611

@wolfgang59 said
Animals cannot adapt in thousands of years
let alone hundreds (or possibly decades).

The point of global warming is the speed at which it occurs.

Are you aware of this? You are worried about mere decades and this happened in a year or two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536

It is global cooling that should worry you, not global warming. In fact, it is the ice ages that cause more extinctions, not so much warming periods.

@Metal-Brain
According to you, it's ok if Bangladesh gets completely flooded and tens of millions of people now refugees in another country.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-monsoon-deaths/landslides-floods-kill-five-children-in-southeastern-bangladesh-idUSKBN1KF1YZ

Bangladesh is very low elevation lands, the whole country.

But of course, no big deal to you.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
According to you, it's ok if Bangladesh gets completely flooded and tens of millions of people now refugees in another country.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-monsoon-deaths/landslides-floods-kill-five-children-in-southeastern-bangladesh-idUSKBN1KF1YZ

Bangladesh is very low elevation lands, the whole country.

But of course, no big deal to you.

Are you implying the summer monsoon season in Bangladesh is something new?

@metal-brain said
I do know enough about science to know a hypothesis should not be treated as evidence.

Nobody on this forum has ever said a hypothesis should be treated as evidence.
So straight off the bat you start with lies.

Hypotheses are rigorously tested before anyone would dare publish.
Then tested again and again.

People actually enjoy debunking a hypothesis so it is a popular sport.
But eventually the hypothesis (perhaps with a few caveats) is accepted.
Accepted by thousands of scientists with years of study behind them.

Then a loud-mouth stands up and says
"I do not believe this"
when what he means is
"I do not understand this"

According to you it is not getting worse?

@wolfgang59 said
Nobody on this forum has ever said a hypothesis should be treated as evidence.
So straight off the bat you start with lies.

Hypotheses are rigorously tested before anyone would dare publish.
Then tested again and again.

People actually enjoy debunking a hypothesis so it is a popular sport.
But eventually the hypothesis (perhaps with a few caveats) is accepted.
Ac ...[text shortened]... th stands up and says
"I do not believe this"
when what he means is
"I do not understand this"

"Hypotheses are rigorously tested before anyone would dare publish.
Then tested again and again."

So straight off the bat you lie. People publish hypotheses all the time. They are not always rigorously tested and are not always accepted.

Global warming theory is not a fact. There is no evidence CO2 warms the atmosphere. It is an educated guess and nothing more. I understand this. You do not believe it because you accept a guess as fact when it is not.

I enjoy debunking that hypothesis, because so many people erroneously think it is a fact.

@Metal-Brain
You just enjoy going against the grain, that is your MO pure and simple.

@metal-brain said
I do know enough about science to know a hypothesis should not be treated as evidence. It is called "Global Warming Theory".

Climate models are not all the same. Hindcasts are always corrected after the trial and error process. Only the people working on it know how many times they got it wrong before they finally got it right by trial and error. Even if you asked them ...[text shortened]... debunked myth?

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/propaganda-and-lies-from-pbs-nova.176611

It's time to talk about this idea that CO_2 emissions lag temperature rises. The point is that natural climate change is basically driven by two processes, continental drift - mountain ranges form due to continents colliding, and variation in the Earth's orbit. So because the Earth's orbit is in a warming phase CO_2 starts to build up, this creates additional climate forcing and the Earth moves from being an ice house to a green house. So, does that mean that anthropogenic climate forcing theories are wrong. Clearly not, what has happened is that an allegedly intelligent species is introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The new carbon dioxide is low in carbon 14, as one would expect from fossil fuels, so it is not due to any natural process. The myth of a myth has been debunked.

@deepthought said
It's time to talk about this idea that CO_2 emissions lag temperature rises. The point is that natural climate change is basically driven by two processes, continental drift - mountain ranges form due to continents colliding, and variation in the Earth's orbit. So because the Earth's orbit is in a warming phase CO_2 starts to build up, this creates additional climate fo ...[text shortened]... t from fossil fuels, so it is not due to any natural process. The myth of a myth has been debunked.

Variations in the Earth's orbit is just one of the Milankovitch cycles, but I have always been skeptical of that one. It doesn't seem like neighboring planets would have enough gravitational pull to change the Earth's orbit enough for that kind of change. Also, how do they know it happens every 100,000 years? That matches the ice age cycles perfectly, but did they find the combinations of orbits of the planets using math (computer models) or did they merely guess it was the same number of years as the known 100,000 year ice age cycle?

https://www.universetoday.com/39012/milankovitch-cycle/

"CO_2 starts to build up, this creates additional climate forcing and the Earth moves from being an ice house to a green house."

We do not know CO2 caused additional climate forcing. That is merely a theory. Furthermore, when you say "clearly not" you are in reality expressing nothing more than an opinion with no evidence to back up your claim.

I never claimed man has not increased CO2. You must be thinking of someone else.
I have consistently maintained the warming caused by CO2 is being greatly exaggerated. The Pliocene indicates that. That is something you are having a hard time accepting. You are being very dogmatic about it.

There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. It is certainly possible that it does and I think that is likely, but there is no evidence of that. It is just a popular theory.
It is likely it does cause a negligible amount of warming in my opinion. It is also my opinion that 400 ppm of CO2 is too small of an amount to cause any significant warming. Isn't that more or less 0.025%?

I don't think 0.025% is enough to cause a significant difference. It is actually absurd to assert that. Just silly.

@metal-brain said
Variations in the Earth's orbit is just one of the Milankovitch cycles, but I have always been skeptical of that one. It doesn't seem like neighboring planets would have enough gravitational pull to change the Earth's orbit enough for that kind of change.

"CO_2 starts to build up, this creates additional climate forcing and the Earth moves from being an ice house to a ...[text shortened]... .025% is enough to cause a significant difference. It is actually absurd to assert that. Just silly.

Are you conveniently forgetting about methane? That gas clocks in at almost 1/5th of CO2 right now and because it is about 20 times more potent a gh gas the methane effect is about 4 times more potent a gh gas than CO2. It is of course relatively short term, like a hundred years from now it will be down but in the meantime BOTH gasses are adding to gh effects.

@sonhouse said
Are you conveniently forgetting about methane? That gas clocks in at almost 1/5th of CO2 right now and because it is about 20 times more potent a gh gas the methane effect is about 4 times more potent a gh gas than CO2. It is of course relatively short term, like a hundred years from now it will be down but in the meantime BOTH gasses are adding to gh effects.

NO!

You know fully well I have claimed methane is likely causing more AGW than CO2. How many farging times have we discussed it? Are you conveniently forgetting that???????

I created a whole bloody thread about it on this forum!!!!!