Third such storm...Is anyone thinking more about global warming? (averages, city)

[srfoskey]

Originally Posted by groovamos

That's because 'climate change' is an amorphous, meaningless term scientifically, because you can make it mean anything. You know like people are so sure that 'climate change' caused Harvey to not wander inland and instead stay in place transporting gobs of moisture to a small area. I mean what a laugh, pure politics, something that can cause floods and droughts. Can cause a plethora of hurricanes, and a dearth of hurricanes. Can cause ice to recede in the Arctic and ice to advance in the Antarctic; polar bears to die off and have a population boom. Whatever happens - can prove 'climate change' hee hee. It's like true believers cannot make up their minds on important details, which is what happens with false religions especially this one with its media-driven echo chamber.

Also there is no way to EVER prove that civilization affects the global climate. Period. This is something that is outside the realm of empirical science. Don't be alarmed - most things and experiences we have are outside the reach of empirical science. Examples: why do songbirds sit on a branch and just sing away in such beautiful fashion? Why do babies cry (or adults for that matter)?

Science cannot grasp something amorphous like 'climate change' so-called. It is a politically driven idea. So if I'm wrong, someone show the proof. Argument from authority won't do it either.

Science isn't about proving everything 100%. It is about providing creating hypotheses and attempting to falsify them. Temperatures have been warming globally. We've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over a century. We know CO2 levels have been rising for over a century. We know combustion of fossil fuels results in adding CO2 to the atmosphere. We can calculate the amount of CO2 produced by human industrial activity by looking at the amount of fuel burned. And we have yet to find another way CO2 levels would have risen by ~140 ppm over the past ~200 years, especially considering it was relatively constant for the 10,000 years prior.
All that being said, the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic right now or recently doesn't have much, if anything to do with global warming; such things have happened before and will happen again. I'm more worried about rising sea levels.

[groovamos]

Originally Posted by srfoskey

Science isn't about proving everything 100%. It is about providing creating hypotheses and attempting to falsify them. Temperatures have been warming globally. We've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over a century. We know CO2 levels have been rising for over a century. We know combustion of fossil fuels results in adding CO2 to the atmosphere. We can calculate the amount of CO2 produced by human industrial activity by looking at the amount of fuel burned. And we have yet to find another way CO2 levels would have risen by ~140 ppm over the past ~200 years, especially considering it was relatively constant for the 10,000 years prior.
All that being said, the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic right now or recently doesn't have much, if anything to do with global warming; such things have happened before and will happen again. I'm more worried about rising sea levels.

We also know that the planet has a built-in positive feedback loop, warmer ocean temps release more CO2 which should warm the oceans more etc etc. So why would a planet be designed that way without negative feedback?

What these so-called climate models try to do is account for everything, which they cannot. There is another compound, H2O which can exist in the atmosphere in 3 phases, CO2 only exists in one phase. The H2O influence extends way beyond the greenhouse gas effect into the reflective, refractive influence on solar radiation over a much broader spectrum than the absorption spectra of all the other greenhouse gases existing in one phase. Why would this not be a component of an overarching negative feedback loop? An increase in temperature causing more reflection of solar radiation back into space? Why would this not be ideal from a design standpoint for allowing civilization to access all the energy it needs? You can't falsify the premise just like I can't falsify APG. Touche - non-falsifiability according to Popper is a reason to reject a proposition posing as science.

That's the bottom line for this whole shenanigan - it is not falsifiable. There is no such thing as a "global temperature(s)", if there were you could go look it (them) up and quote it (them).

[slingshot]

No global warming. No climate change. It's simply just the weather.

[Grizzly Addams]

Climate is always changing.

[EverBlack]

In a nutshell:

Some people say the climate is not changing and weather agencies are manipulating the data.
Some people say the climate IS changing:
- Because it's a natural cycle, like it always had been for billions of years
OR
- Because we are polluting and destroying our planet.

You're welcome.

[slingshot]

Originally Posted by Dopo

When Galveston is under water .... I'll have 100 years to sell my house in North Houston and move to higher ground

Galveston has already been under water once in 1900. They raised it and kept truckin. Wasn't blamed on anything but the weather.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane Killed 6,000 to 12,000 people.

[RWood]

Originally Posted by slingshot

No global warming. No climate change. It's simply just the weather.

Utter drivel.

[Ethereal]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams

Climate is always changing.

I'm on that bandwagon.

Climate will always change. There was climate change in 1400s, just as there is one now.

With that being said, Sydney will not be like Brisbane in 2050. Actually, we just don't know...Hell, Sydney might be cooler for all we know in the next 50-100 years. As said, there will always be warm and cool epochs.

[slingshot]

Originally Posted by RWood

Utter drivel.

That's all you've got?

[klaucka]

I believe that human beings behavior could and probably will destroy our planet, and I am totally on board with doing what we can to slow that destruction. However, people just arent willing to get real about impactful change - which is getting a handle on our population growth problem.