Hurricanes

>Chaos Theory thread?
(Deterministic) Chaos (popularly called Butterfly effect) is when:
Small change in input variables can led to a huge change in the final output leading to unpredictable results.
Even when the initial system is deterministic (not probabilistic), the system outcome become unpredictable.
Chaos Theory is the study of such dynamical systems that have such Chaos.
Called popularly "Butterfly effect" in Pop Science because the PopSci meme "butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas".
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Chaos shows up in Climate. Climate is Chaotic.
>Initially deterministic but with the outcome cannot be predicted with accuracy after a long time.
Because tiny changes in inputs can generate radically different outputs.

Kek is the God of Chaos
God of Chaos Theory.
Praise Kek.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. He does not speak for science.

Look, when you realize how fake it all is; the football, the basketball, the Lady Gaga, the Justin Bieber—you know, who gives you these carbon tax messages... They tell your kids they gotta love Justin Biebler, and then Biebler says "hand in your guns", "pass the Cyber Security Act", and "the police state is good", and then your children are turned into a mindless vassals—who now, they look up to some twit, instead of looking up to Thomas Jefferson, or looking up to Nikola Tesla, or looking up to Magellan; I mean, kids, Magellan is a lot COOLER than Justin Bieber! He circumnavigated with one ship the entire planet! He was killed by wild natives before they got back to Portugal! And when they got back there was only like eleven people alive of the two hundred and something crew and the entire ship was rotting down to the waterline! That's destiny! That's will! That's striving! That's being a trailblazer and explore! Going into space! Mathematics! Quantum mechanics! The secrets of the universe! It's all there! Life is fiery with its beauty! Its incredible detail! Tuning into it! They wanna shutter your mind, TALKING ABOUT JUSTIN BIEBER!!! IT'S PURE EVIL!!! They're taking your intellect, your soul, and giving you Michael Jordan and Bieber. Unlock your human potential! Defeat the globalists who wanna shutter your mind!—Your doorways to perception!—I wanna see you truly live! I wanna see you truly be who you are!!

I'm gonna steal your pasta, poat it on facebook and get hundreds of likes

>attributes cause to rare event
>uses event as justification to reallocate resources
Better sacrifice some animals to the sea god/invest lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

No, weather is chaotic

>ugh, you're so ignorant, this is a wakeup call!
It is this sort of attitude that generates a knee jerk reaction from people.

I am sure if you did nothing but drop raw facts and logic in a concise well structured manner and addressed common criticisms instead of whine this wouldn't even be an issue. How is an average person supposed to see the connection between increased hurricanes and climate change?

Instead the prevailing view among, dare I say it, leftists is that your emotional wishy washy bullshit is somehow magically better than boring STEMlord nerdy mansplainy science.

By doing some as practise, obviously

Oh totally wrong thread, but fuck you

The climate changes, it has always changed.
No one denies climate change.

I agree. Al Gore ruined the environmental movement. He overly polarized it and generally made any scientist involved in it look like an overly dramatic faggot.

This guy gets it.

You can't offer someone reason in one hand and an insult in the other hand and still expect them to accept your reason.

>The Climate is changing
Yes
>Climate is changing only because of human activity. Implying that before us climate was static
No
>This change is being accelerated by Human activity
Maybe
>Clean skies and healthy biomes look pretty
Yes

Why doesn't anyone adress the fact that climate has gotten way hotter in the past? I know that it would give ammo to deniers, but misleading people is just wrong

>Humans are the problem
seems like this is a problem that will solve itself

>I am sure if you did nothing but drop raw facts and logic in a concise well structured manner and addressed common criticisms instead of whine this wouldn't even be an issue.

People have tried this in other subjects with far more public credibility than climate change. The truth is, It rarely works without an overabundance of tangible proof or a series of horrific disasters following afterwards.

Black Swan events regardless of subject matter rarely get the needed universal respect it deserves in public or leadership because there either isn't enough demonstrated history or the public/leadership is not well-informed/ will not allow itself to be informed in the matter.

Experts in the fields of science, finance and security have bitched about this for years. It isn't a leftist issue it's an ignorance issue where non-experts reject expert opinions on predicted events and then look dumbfounded when said events come about.

csoonline.com/article/3211442/security/how-do-you-predict-cyber-attacks-listen-to-your-cassandras.html

bigthink.com/videos/richard-a-clarke-how-some-people-predict-disasters-before-they-happen

I'm 20 years and every winter is hotter than the last in Florida

IF I SEE THAT FUCKING CAT DENY CLIMATE CHANGE ONE MORE TIME...

Well, guys, anecdotal subjective evidence is good enough for me! I will freeze to death in the dark from now on.

>Humans have never survived in winter enviroments, especially with the time to adapt long-term

this is true. I live in miami and I remember a few years ago when it used to get cold enough for frost to form on cars. nowadays we get a few days of 70 degree weather and maybe 1 or 2 60s for the whole winter

Your argument is this:
Forest fires existed before humans, therefore it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires.

At no point in time have scientists claimed that it's hotter than it's ever been, or that nature can't alter the climate on its own only that right now climate change is being accelerated by human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

I know that, but for a normie the way that the news are given gives the impression of complete global catastrophe. Such a cartoony vision only makes denying a bit more normal.
But maybe that's what normies need to get up their asses

The problem is that Climate Change has poor and tainted marketing.

Politically, ecological policies need to be reframed as economy-driven. People are sick of hippy crap, the faster that association is ditched the easier it goes.

>Wanting to stabilize the environment and maintain low pollution is ""hippie crap""

How is it that only Americans think this way? Is it because they aren't living in a early 1900's smoke filled, water tainted shit hole style similar to Chinese and Indian cities anymore?

It was only a century ago they where choking on their own local air supply. Do the fucks not read their own history books and listen to the documented horror stories of working in sparsely regulated factories? Did Americans forget they use to force their own children to work in dangerous factory/ mining conditions like the African and Chinese kids do for pennies on the dollar?

How is it that Americans need to be tricked into following climate change habits through capitalistic means like some 2 year old kid and a shiny object?

Does the average American even know what an "Okie" is?

>It was only a century ago they where choking on their own local air supply. Do the fucks not read their own history books and listen to the documented horror stories of working in sparsely regulated factories? Did Americans forget they use to force their own children to work in dangerous factory/ mining conditions like the African and Chinese kids do for pennies on the dollar?
People were selling fresh air balloons to breathe in back in the 50s

That just makes it worse...I was going to go on another rant but I think enough has been said.

I would contend that issue lies in corporations and conservative deep red states. Right now, most of the climate change policy is being pushed by Democrats, and the Democratic agenda is toxic to Republicans in an increasingly polarized political climate. Corporations are also lining the pockets of politicians (both blue and red) to turn the other way when it comes to passing bills on carbon emissions, etc..

People aren't going to change anytime soon. Humans can be stupidly stubborn and resistant, and also greedy. That isn't new.

And that's why I think the solution is that we reframe the issue.

You don't even know who you just said that to. Science is the shit. Being one of billions manipulated by use of it's raw incredible power is not cool at all dude.

And it doesn't snow in England anymore.

How can you actually call yourself science savy and suggest that Atlantic hurricanes show a clear connection to global warming.

NOAA says: "It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)."

gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

One or two local extreme weather events is not enough to show global warming. What is important is the long term global trends, which in fact show anthropogenic global warming.

>>This is echoing the scientific community.
if it is, then you best post some citations bucko.
here's some of mine:
public.wmo.int/en/media/news/wmo-expert-team-statement-hurricane-harvey
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/09/why-extremes-are-expected-to-change-with-a-global-warming/#more-20607

Somebody better fucking kill that butterfly in Cape Verde then

im sorry, what were you saying?

The real political issue is that people are wasting time trying to mitigate environmental damage when it's too late. We should've done it 20 years ago. Now we need to focus on damage control, alternative farming, refugee preparation, teaching kids to eat bugs etc. I don't see humanity handling the coming crash well. I believe we are truly fucked.

Both of you are wrong. That's not enough data to prove anything, and basing your evidence for climate change happening/or not on the current weather is just as asinine. That said we're all fucked and our children are gonna starve to death.

>wind recorded is not data

Yeah but Terence McKenna predicted the world would end in 2012, and we all still believe that it is going to happen any day now.

Big-business-lobbied politicians deny climate change for the same reason leftists deny racial differences in IQ and aggression: Because it increases their power and pleasure in the short or medium term.

Here is my take on this. I believe in climate change, but I believe humans have extremely small impact on it. The earth heats and cools on its own over hundreds and even thousands of years, sometimes, can be a bit quicker at times. It believe it is natural, but nothing for everyone to scream "apocalypse" about.

>scientist model effects of climate change
>predicts more frequent destructive hurricanes in the caribbean/gulf
>wow how cud this appen

>humans pump billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air that wouldn't naturally be there

>herp derp humans aren't causing global warming because hey yo theres nothing we can do about it

I'll address this obvious fucking bait. Climate is way bigger than humans putting gas into the air. Its global cycles over time, involving Earths rotation and or bit, the sun, the moon, etc etc.

If every fucking car and factory disappeared over night, climate would still be getting messed up. Its long term cycles.

Pleb.

What is happening now is what should be happening over the course off 500 years.

Except somehow we've accelerated it to just 200 years. Please tell me what has changed in the last 200 years that would cause this temperature to increase faster than at any point in history, oh expert climatologist. I mean sure 95% of scientist point to the fact that we've dug up hydrocarbons and polluted the air but surely you and 5% of other scientists know much better

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750) have produced a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 406 ppm in early 2017.

Read this faggets and get it into your neanderthal brains

Take a look at Dr.Roy Spencer's work on meteorology and his thoughts on global warming. The CO2 we put out is so little compared to the rest of the atmosphere.

>hurricane pass throught the gulf stream
the most heated up place on earth with a constant water temp of 22c
>random user thinks its climate change the a hurricane literally fuels up because of the gulf stream

the planet itself has produced over 4000 ppm at some point
what is really your point?
if you wanna see what will happen to earth check venus
hint the water vapor cause a lot more problems than any greenhouse gas there it made the atm so dense that the pressure went insanely high causing the planet to create more co2 to balance out but ultimately trapped everything in a china smog look like thing

>the planet itself has produced over 4000 ppm at some point what is really your point?

GHG in the atmosphere has never risen in such rate as the current AGW. Global temperature has never risen in such rate as the current AGW.

>hint the water vapor cause a lot more problems than any greenhouse gas there it made the atm so dense that the pressure went insanely high causing the planet to create more co2 to balance out but ultimately trapped everything in a china smog look like thing

Water vapor is #1 greenhouse gas in term of infrared band reflectance. Your statement imply that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, and show how ignorant you are. Despite being the most potent greenhouse gas, there's nothing we can do about water vapor because it is a function of temperature only. 80% of Earth's surface is ocean, you can't put a lid over the ocean to stop the ocean from equilibrating with atmosphere and produce water vapor

water vapor is not a greenhouse gas water vapor is worse than every single green house gas

>Why doesn't anyone adress the fact that climate has gotten way hotter in the past?
Because we didn't have to worry about our coastal cities and farming abilities in the past.

No one is saying "hey we need to stop polluting and clean up the climate and then we will have blue skys, calm weather and rain at night and no storms".

We just don't want to be having three concurrent hurricanes landing.

High IQ here (no Freeman Dyson but pretty similar in terms of constitution and reasoning).

We do not deny climate change. Climate changes all the time, and is influenced by too much factors to account for. Because of the nonlinear bahavior and still many unkown coefficients, we would not be able to make a prediction of earth's climate even without human interference.

What we DO deny is the claim that the supposed climate change is entirely caused by human C02 emissions. The most straightforward argument for this arises if you take a look at to what extend C02 makes up the athmosphere (300 ppm), how little effect it has on the warming compared to water vapor (clouds) and how little C02 is emitted by humans compared to natural emissions (iirc it was only around 5% human emissions).

What is undeniable though is the political instrumentalisation of this debate and the deep influence of the outcome on third world industries.

Thus the only answer to human climate change that is grounded in reality is, we know too little but likely humans play only a minor part in it.

>The most straightforward argument for this arises if you take a look at to what extend C02 makes up the athmosphere (300 ppm), how little effect it has on the warming compared to water vapor (clouds) and how little C02 is emitted by humans compared to natural emissions (iirc it was only around 5% human emissions).
...That's not an argument though. An augment needs to actually connect its premise to it's conclusions.
"Look how small X is, it can't possible cause Y" is just intuition-based hand-waving. And in this case, it's wrong.

Do these hurricanes really have anything to do with it? I know global warming is a problem and all, but its effects aren't projected to continue to be this extreme.

The problem is the *climate*, which is a measurement of all weather, everywhere, over a certain period of time.

>Because of the nonlinear bahavior and still many unkown coefficients, we would not be able to make a prediction of earth's climate even without human interference.
>we know too little but likely humans play only a minor part in it.

Your own argument undermines your proposed conclusion. If we are unsure of what the Earth's climate would be without humans then how are you proposing a likelihood of humans only playing a "minor" part in it?

"Global warming" has a wide range of effects.

It can even cause more severe winters in places. It's not just "oh the world is warming so all the seasons will be warmer" which is why they generally use the term "climate change" now, because people are dumb.

But can these hurricanes be attributed to that? I'm thinking we're just having bad luck this year; it'll be a decade before we see another record-breaker.

nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

>The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Hurricanes/

>hurricanes (tropical cyclones) have warm air over their centers. To change into a tropical cyclone, the cold air over an extratropical cyclone must change to warm air. This change can happen if thunderstorms occur near the cyclone center. The thunderstorms form along the frontal boundary as warm air rises over the colder air mass. As the air rises, it cools, and water vapor condenses into clouds. The heating released by condensation then helps to warm the air, and eventually the extratropical cyclone transitions into a tropical cyclone.

>vapor
>H2O (g)
not gas

get fucked dumb denier

I expected there to be climate change denialists here on Veeky Forums. Is that a bad thing?

Water vapor accounts for most of the greenhouse gas. Have you ever been to a desert at night? It gets chillingly cold, because there are no cloud layers to save the warmth. Allright if you wish, I can structure my sentense to appear more to your understanding of what an argument has to look like:
Carbon dioxide plays only a miniscule part as a driving force behind climate change, and we can attest this by our understanding of the composition of the athmosphere, our observation of water vapor causing a much stronger greenhouse effect and of our understanding of the rations of manmade and natural carbon dioxide emissions.

Well, I just follow the reasoning behing anthrolopologic climate change saying it is caused by a rapid increase of C02 from the first industrial revolutions (mostly due to cumbustion engines) until today. However, if you look at historic data (glacier/arctic drills), both the levels of C02 and the average temperatures have been much higher and much lower during different times of earth's history, and share much stronger correlations with other variables besides greenhouse gas (have a look at Milankovitch cycles). The minor comes from the second part of my comment, referring to around 5 gt of C02 by humans compared to 50 gt natural emissions, iirc.

*greenhouse effect, first sentense

>We just don't want to be having three concurrent hurricanes landing.

There's no way to stop that. You can't seriously believe that anthropogenic climate change is the only reason we have multiple hurricanes at the same time. I get it, we as humans like to think we can play god and should be able to control things like the weather, but that just isn't going to happen anytime soon.

>And in this case, it's wrong.
Wrong is the right word here. It's just as "wrong" as the other side of the arguement. Both rely on "faith", that is, neither has enough proof to believe in what they are believing. What the other user was trying to say though was that we know for a fact what the one arguement is gaining from "winning" the debate, and that is enough reason to question their position.

>climate change denialists

Is this the new way of making "deniers" sound retarded? "Climate change" isn't the issue. So either you are retarded, or you're doing your part to make "deniers" look bad. Either way you're not helping the debate.

>Carbon dioxide plays only a miniscule part as a driving force behind climate change, and we can attest this by our understanding of the composition of the athmosphere, our observation of water vapor causing a much stronger greenhouse effect and of our understanding of the rations of manmade and natural carbon dioxide emissions.
That's completely wrong. Water vapor gets cycled through the atmosphere quickly and in massive amounts. So without CO2 emissions the amount of warming from water vapor doesn't change much. Any additional warming causes a positive feedback loop, since warming leads to water vapor and CO2 being released from the oceans. So changes in the climate are driven by whatever increases warming to start this feedback loop. in the past, this was initiated by increases in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth due to orbital eccentricity. This is why interglacial periods begin with rapid warming and end with slow cooling. Today, instead of increased sunlight, we are warming the Earth even faster than interglacial warming by adding massive amounts of CO2. The fact that water vapor provides a large baseline of warmth does not in any way imply that CO2 cannot be the main driver of climate change, and is necessary to understand how it is the primary driver since one of its effects is to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

If CO2 is not driving global warming, what is?

>However, if you look at historic data (glacier/arctic drills), both the levels of C02 and the average temperatures have been much higher and much lower during different times of earth's history, and share much stronger correlations with other variables besides greenhouse gas (have a look at Milankovitch cycles).
The correlations are explained by causation. Why does warming cause CO2 to increase? Why does warming cause water vapor to increase? How does this help your claim?

>The minor comes from the second part of my comment, referring to around 5 gt of C02 by humans compared to 50 gt natural emissions, iirc.
You're forgetting that nature absorbs even more carbon than it emits. Humans do not.

How exactly is the effect of CO2 as determined by climatologists based on "faith"? Your attempt to drag empirical science down to the level of political wishful thinking is rather pathetic.

Chaos theory?
lol wit? The climate is for dynamic systems, and complexity bud

Our current ecological systems are not adapted to the changing climate, adaptation does not happen fast, especially with the state biodiversity is in, it won't happen at all, the parameters that give the world order are eroding and life will continue to disenigrate into entropy.

lel ur gay

>That's completly wrong...
You are following the common reasoning behind the ipcc-approved models, which all fail to make reliable prognoses. The details of why this is so have been discussed countless times, and the general consensus is: because we do not understand climate well enough. What we do understand is CLOUDS have a much stronger effect on average temperature than anything else. Again, have a trip to a desert and observe the rapid difference of not having a layer of clouds...

>If CO2 is not driving global warming, what is?

Some have suggested it is global warming driving CO2 levels. Also solar activity, dust concentration, and again, cloud formation all work together in ways we currently do not understand.

Then why has there been CO2 levels 10x as high compared to today?

>You are following the common reasoning behind the ipcc-approved models, which all fail to make reliable prognoses.
They ALL fail? Can you show me all these failed models?

Then show me the successful models based on your claims.

>The details of why this is so have been discussed countless times, and the general consensus is: because we do not understand climate well enough.
Well it's not so, and the general consensus is described by the IPCC.

>What we do understand is CLOUDS have a much stronger effect on average temperature than anything else.
Clouds are one of the less understood parts of the climate, since they both block sunlight and trap it via the greenhouse effect. You're seriously misinformed.

>Again, have a trip to a desert and observe the rapid difference of not having a layer of clouds...
It has nothing to do with clouds though. It's because (1) dry ground does not retain heat (2) there is less greenhouse effect from water vapor. Do you think water vapor is the same thing as clouds?

So are you arguing that global warming is caused by a global decrease in clouds? Because I have seen no evidence of this.

>Then why has there been CO2 levels 10x as high compared to today?
Such high CO2 levels were caused primarily by extreme volcanic activity and subduction. Unfortunately for your argument, there hasn't been such extreme subduction over the entire course of recorded history. The only source currently increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is humans.

It's the over-reaching that is "faith" based. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and yes, humans have been releasing ever increasing quantites for over a century now while removing a good amount of the land sinks (forests, wet lands, etc), but the conclusion that our activities are the reason for current weather "problems" isn't justified, and the majority that are so adamant that it is are just as bad as the ones who completely ignore all facts. Worse yet, those who are so willing to believe in "science" are also the ones without any solutions to these "problems", but are willing to try and fuck with our current system because why? Because they are generally terrible human beings without purpose in life and are seeking for purpose by fucking with current establishments that keep people alive and society functioning. If they truely wanted to help reduce our footprint then they'd get involved in an industry/technology that is aiming to do such, and stop whining to people who are just trying to keep the lights on and food in the market.

>but the conclusion that our activities are the reason for current weather "problems" isn't justified
Warmer sea surface temperatures produce more intense hurricanes.

>Worse yet, those who are so willing to believe in "science" are also the ones without any solutions to these "problems", but are willing to try and fuck with our current system because why?
The solution is simple. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions will mitigate future damage and net massive savings. As long as people like you deny the problem exists, this solution will not be carried out.

You are putting words in my digital mouth that i have not spoken and assume things I do not assume.

>They ALL fail? Can you show me all these failed models?

They all expect much higher average temperature increase we have yet to observe.

>Well it's not so, and the general consensus is described by the IPCC.

General consensus betwee IPCC and deniers.

>Clouds are one of the less understood parts of the climate, since they both block sunlight and trap it via the greenhouse effect. You're seriously misinformed.

ALL of climate is not well understood, that's why weather predictions further away than a week tend to almost always we inaccurate. However, the trapping is the important, real world effect, as the swing is increadible and much stronger than some 0.something anomaly.

>It has nothing to do with clouds though. It's because (1) dry ground does not retain heat (2) there is less greenhouse effect from water vapor. Do you think water vapor is the same thing as clouds?

We are talking about air temperature, not ground temperature. Of course, water vapor = clouds. Same molecules, different phases.

>So are you arguing that global warming is caused by a global decrease in clouds? Because I have seen no evidence of this.

I DONT KNOW. It might be the case, it might be because of other factors that I mentioned earlier, to varios certain degree, or something else altogether. The system is too complex to make predictions, but water vapor has a much stronger effect in the greenhouse model, compared to CO2.

>Such high CO2 levels were caused primarily by extreme volcanic activity and subduction. Unfortunately for your argument, there hasn't been such extreme subduction over the entire course of recorded history.

Big vulcanic eruptions have been documented in the last 1000 years, mostly in the 13th/15th century, some even causing small "ice ages" in europe, most likely due to the resulting ash layer.
youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

>I-I'm not pregnant just because a guy came in me! They do it all the time and I never got pregnant before now! You can't say it's the reason!
Any other questions?

>You are putting words in my digital mouth that i have not spoken and assume things I do not assume.
Like what?

>They all expect much higher average temperature increase we have yet to observe.
Again, show me these models. I don't believe you.

>General consensus betwee IPCC and deniers.
That's like saying the general consensus between doctors and homeopaths. That's not how a scientific consensus works. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, it means that there is general agreement in the published research.

>ALL of climate is not well understood, that's why weather predictions further away than a week tend to almost always we inaccurate.
The reason weather predictions are innacurate is because weather is chaotic, while climate is less so, since much of the variation gets averaged out. The study of climate is a completely different field from meteorology. What is understood in meterorology has little to do with what is understood in climatology. Again, you are misinformed.

>However, the trapping is the important, real world effect, as the swing is increadible and much stronger than some 0.something anomaly.
Again, how are clouds causing the trend? Clouds fluctuate randomly due to weather and ENSO. This is a feedback effect, not a forcing, so it can't replace CO2 as a cause even if the effects were massive, which they aren't.

>We are talking about air temperature, not ground temperature.
LOL, ground temperature affects air temperature. If the ground cannot retain heat, there is nothing to warm the air at night. The reason the desert is cold at night is because (1) the dry ground can't retain heat from the day and then emit heat at night and (2) the dry air cannot trap what heat there is in the air during the day into the night.

>Of course, water vapor = clouds. Same molecules, different phases.
>different phases
So then they aren't the same thing...

>I DONT KNOW.
Yes, I realize you don't know, yet you are trying to tell me you know better than climatologists. Yet you keep making false claims, like clouds being the most important factor.

>It might be the case, it might be because of other factors that I mentioned earlier, to varios certain degree, or something else altogether. The system is too complex to make predictions, but water vapor has a much stronger effect in the greenhouse model, compared to CO2.
Again, this doesn't respond to the point being made. The question is not which forcing has the biggest effect, the question is which forcings are to blame for global warming. Has the forcing from water vapor changed? No. So it can't explain the global warming trend. Contrary to your baseless assertions, climatologists do understand the forcings well enough to know that CO2 is the primary cause. There are hundreds of papers proving this. They are readily available. you have no excuse to ignore them.

>Big vulcanic eruptions have been documented in the last 1000 years
Yes, so what? Volcanic activity has not been the source of increasing CO2 throughout the period of global warming. What is your argument here?

That's not how a scientific consensus works. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, it means that there is general agreement in the published research.

Oh I know that's not how scientific consensus works, but that's how reality works. If you think scientific consensus somehow represents reality, you will be in for a very rude awakening. For example, when all the models fail. Take a look a pic related.

>The reason weather predictions are innacurate is because weather is chaotic, while climate is less so, since...

Where does weather end and where does climate start? They are both the same to me. What use is to make predictions for the next 20 years, if we cannot predict even several months? Maybe there are constant transient effects...

>Again, how are clouds causing the trend

Read about greenhouse effect and water vapor.

>LOL, ground temperature affects air temperature.

Have you ever been to a desert? Can you walk on the sand with your bare feet at midday? What about midnight?

>So then they aren't the same thing...

We are comparing chemical elements, C02 to H20, so they are the same thing, just different phases. Ice is still water, only a different phase of it...

>Where does weather end and where does climate start? They are both the same to me.

Jesus look at this brainlet. Spend 5 seconds googling the difference and get back to me.

You don't know either, and many people much smarter than you and me don't know, and don't pretend otherwise, as this violates academic integrity.

>They are readily available. you have no excuse to ignore them.

Of course I have, imagine me running a country that has to decide to cut thousands of jobs because otherwise the planet will melt down. Now if i look at the data, I see a change of +/- 1 Degree deviation most models propose, and almost no deviation for the past 15 years, with ongoing increase of CO2. The simple suggestion that more CO2 = warmer does not seem to hold, yet critical discussion is not beign published. What are you supposed to conclude from this?

>Yes, so what? Volcanic activity has not been the source of increasing CO2 throughout the period of global warming. What is your argument here?

There are forces on earth that have a much stronger and drastic effect on climate change than CO2, which has a such a low concentration we might aswell forget about it. You seem to quote my lines without understanding what they tell you. Vulcano ash, water wapor, solar activity, sand, glaciers, ocean temperature, streams, wind activity - the climate is too difficult for us to predict.

You live in a world full of definitions, relationships, clear causal chains, and peer review. It might be a cushy world, but you're living in a bubble, and you'll know this when you have to solve real world problems aka "What is the weather going to be six months from now?"

Oh, btw, if you get this wrong, you're fired.

>The solution is simple. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions
But the largest human producers of CO2 are tied to basic power consumption, and we are only getting more and more dependent on electricity. It's not the cars that are the problem; they are a small dent.

>Oh I know that's not how scientific consensus works, but that's how reality works.
Ah so reality is between standard medicine and homeopathy. If you think this is how reality works, you will be in for a very rude awakening.

>For example, when all the models fail. Take a look a pic related.
LOL, you're a bit behind the curve. The temperature data used there has been admitted to be incorrect by the very person who made that chart:

forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#57ae454e6189

>Where does weather end and where does climate start?
I don't think anyone except for you has trouble seeing that the average temperature across the entire globe is climate, not weather.

>They are both the same to me.
Then you have no idea what you're talking about, as I've already shown.

>What use is to make predictions for the next 20 years, if we cannot predict even several months?
I don't what's so hard to understand about the fact that different factors dominate different timescales. So far everything you've posted is just an argument based on your confusion of your own lack of understanding for a universal lack of understanding.

>Read about greenhouse effect and water vapor.
I have. Don't be obtuse.

>Have you ever been to a desert? Can you walk on the sand with your bare feet at midday? What about midnight?
I don't see how this responds to what I said. Without moisture and vegetation, the ground retains less heat. Without water vapor, the air traps less heat. Yes or no?

>We are comparing chemical elements, C02 to H20, so they are the same thing, just different phases.
No, we are explaining why hot, dry deserts do not retain heat at night. It's funny that you accuse me of putting words in your mouth while you continuously try to twist the argument. Clouds and water vapor have different effects on the atmosphere, so your argument makes no sense anyway.

One acronym...

HAARP

>You don't know either, and many people much smarter than you and me don't know, and don't pretend otherwise, as this violates academic integrity.
So almost every climatologist, the ones who say CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming, is violating academic integrity? Or are they are just dumber than you? You tell me.

>Of course I have...
I don't see the excuse anywhere, I just see you ignoring the scientific consensus and replacing it with your own fantasy version of reality. It's really pathetic.

>There are forces on earth that have a much stronger and drastic effect on climate change than CO2, which has a such a low concentration we might aswell forget about it.
You just keep repeating the same fallacy. Let me repeat what I've said already since you've conveniently ignored it:

The question is not which forcing has the biggest effect, the question is which forcings are to blame for global warming.

>Weather predictions are a crapshoot
>We've been able to reliably predict climate years into the future for over 2000 years

Really activates those almonds

>But the largest human producers of CO2 are tied to basic power consumption, and we are only getting more and more dependent on electricity.
Then we should use nuclear power and renewable sources. Why is this a problem? Yes it will cost money to replace infrastructure, but much more money will be saved by avoiding future damage from climate change, which threatens our agricultural infrastructure, ecological infrastructure, and coastal infrastructure.