Explain yourselves

Reminder: there is literally no evidence showing a causal link between human activity and the Earth's climate.

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

Because science education to layman is at an impass right now because they don't want to admit it's impossible that the public grasp certain models without some backround on other more fundamental topics. So they do stupid memes to fool themselves into thinking that "this meme way is going to make people understand hard topics". The problem is that this approach gives layman the notion that they actually know what the fuck they are talking about (as you can see with all the pop sci retards who talk out of their ass), but teaching layman just to "trust scientists" it's also a shit way as it can lead to bad problems were people cannot distinguish between charlatans and real scientists. I mean, at the end you cannot blame them too much as no matter how many times
has been refuted, people ignore evidence.

>The problem is that this approach gives layman the notion that they actually know what the fuck they are talking about (as you can see with all the pop sci retards who talk out of their ass)
Popular science is intended to make you believe that you understand a thing which actually you don't understand, and to gratify what I believe to be one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science.

>no evidence of causal link between human activity and climate change
Besides basic thermodynamics and CO2 level measurement you ultimate brainlet

>our models are just so complicated and full of variables that can't even begin to cover a system as complicated as the climate of a planet so we choose variables to input into our models and can omit ones we don't yet understand and then we can alter the variables with different data over and over until we get the results we are looking for that show we need more money for funding or the world will end and this is too hard to explain to the uneducated masses whose tax dollars pay for us to do junk science that creates junk policies that further expand government while giving us job security as the new priesthood
Nearly all climate models that were the basis for the theory of global climate change due to human CO2 production were completely wrong and there has still been no evidence of any accuracy in predicting what effect the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will have on the climate.

>gets absolutely correct and reasonable answer to his question
>"you're lying!"
Wow, I bet this will be a constructive and worthwhile thread

>basic thermodynamics is enough to model a system as complicated as the Earth's climate through a univariate analysis of CO2 levels

Earth scientist here
>he thinks the only reason we believe man made climate change is computer models

Ok. Then will you please explain the following

Why is CO2 in the atmosphere rising?
Why is O2 in the atmosphere falling?
Why is C-13 in the atmosphere falling?
Why is the surface temperature of the Earth rising while the sun's output is weakening?
Why are animals migrating toward the poles or higher in altitude?
Why are plants migrating toward the poles or higher in altitude?
Why is global snow cover falling?
Why is global glacial cover receding?
Why are the ice caps shrinking?
Why are sea levels rising?
Why is the ocean increasing in acidity?
Why are the polar regions rising in temperature faster than the temperate and tropical zones?
Why is night rising in temperature faster than day?
Why is winter rising in temperature faster than summer?
Why is the stratosphere cooling while the troposphere is warming?

What theory do you have which explains all this?

>Earth scientist here
lol

I agree that we should work on making everyone more knowledgable about topics, but a fundamental aspect of learning is understanding your shortcomings. If I have a lot of trouble teaching, hell, even a chemist about modern physics, teaching it to people who have no formal backround on any scientific topic is almost impossible, so thete should be always a "footnote" explicitly saying that all what was presented is a massive simplification of the actual theory and that for anyone who wants a more comprehensive view on the topic, should motivate himself to learn from proper texts. This so that when they open an introductory textbook, they will understand how difficult it's actually to understand these topics and that's why people get PhDs.

Also, in debates, stop bringing science educators without formal training and demand that the opposing view talk at the level it is intended. Brian Cox id a good example (when he limits himself to physics), as he said people should ask Deepak Chopra how to solve Schrodingers equation in a spherically symetric potential (a basic problem in QM) to expose how he knowd nothing about QM, instead on engaging them at their layman level.

The idea that a single theory can explain all of this is at best wishful thinking of scientists, and at worst a scam.
CO2 in the atmosphere is almost certainly caused by human activity. There is no evidence that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing to levels it has previously been at with colder and warmer climates is enough to change the ecosystem of Earth in such a drastic way as to bring about the end of humanity. There is no evidence that CO2 levels is a driver of climate. A higher level of CO2 allows plants to conserve water, and we are seeing global biomass increasing. while CO2 levels have increased, the ratio of CO2 to the other gasses in or atmosphere has been negligible.
We don't have any model or any theory that can accurately predict the way a system as complicated as the Earth's climate combined with it's ecosystem will change due to measuring a single variable out of millions.

upboated

Or you could umbrella many theories under one.

They didn't.

> in such a drastic way as to bring about the end of humanity
I never said it would. Where are you getting that from?
>no evidence that CO2 levels is a driver of climate
Basic physics
>A higher level of CO2 allows plants to conserve water, and we are seeing global biomass increasing
And? Plants have been unable to keep up with the sheer volume of CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere
>while CO2 levels have increased, the ratio of CO2 to the other gasses in or atmosphere has been negligible
lie
>We don't have any model or any theory that can accurately predict the way a system as complicated as the Earth's climate combined with it's ecosystem will change due to measuring a single variable out of millions.
also a lie

Climate is a lot simpler than you think. The variables which drive climate are not the same variables which drive weather. You are confusing the two. There are not millions of variables changing the climate there are the following.

The Millankovitch Cycle
Well understood, basic astronomy, physics, and math. So basic we've known about it since the mid 19th century although the math wasn't complete till the early 20th simply because the measurements were not finished till then.

The relative positions of the continents.
These don't change over timespans humans concern themselves over.

Solar irradiance.
This changes on a large scale over enormous geological times although a very lesser small scale rhythm is charted and has nothing to do with modern warming see
>Why is the surface temperature of the Earth rising while the sun's output is weakening?

Arosols
Short term. Can be large scale but doesn't last more than a couple years. Pollution goes here.

CO2
The big daddy. We can accurately chart long term large scale changes in climate directly to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Minor fluff
Things like solar wind's interactions with high altitude clouds and cosmic rays go here. Things that do very little to influence the climate.

>There is no evidence that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing to levels it has previously been at with colder and warmer climates is enough to change the ecosystem of Earth in such a drastic way as to bring about the end of humanity.
Nice strawman.

>There is no evidence that CO2 levels is a driver of climate.
Except for basically everything known about the climate... such as the greenhouse effect, interglacial warming, and direct measurement of the radiative forcing of CO2 in the atmosphere via spectroscopy. Why do people like you come to a science board and pretend to know what you're talking about? Are you knowingly lying in order to troll or are you so pigheaded that you think you know what you've never even tried to study?

> A higher level of CO2 allows plants to conserve water, and we are seeing global biomass increasing.
That's great as long as you have water and other resources necessary for plant growth to begin with. Unfortunately, warming from CO2 is causing droughts and water shortage in many of the world's agricultural centers. Look at California's climate for example.

>while CO2 levels have increased, the ratio of CO2 to the other gasses in or atmosphere has been negligible.
Negligible relative to what? This is a complete non sequitur. The vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere goes towards keeping the Earth from being a ball of ice (oh wait, you deny that too since CO2 is not a climate driver). It's the relatively small changes from that baseline that determine changes in the climate. So the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to anything else tells us nothing. It's the actual effect which tells us something, but of course you ignore that completely.

>We don't have any model or any theory that can accurately predict the way a system as complicated as the Earth's climate combined with it's ecosystem will change due to measuring a single variable out of millions.
This is another retarded strawman. Climate models have many variables, it's simply an empirical fact that CO2 is the primary driver over this timescale. And they have been remarkably accurate.

realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

Again, why are you lying? Stupidity or trolling?

"They" were actually coal lobbyists looking for a phrase less scary than global warming.

That's the claim by those who propose massive government and global policies.
Basic physics show that co2 is a greenhouse gas. Basic physics cannot show that the amount of co2 put in the atmosphere by humans will have a drastic effect on climate.
Plants having an abundance of co2 means they live longer, need less water, and as I said, we have been seeing an increase in global biomass even with all of the deforestation going on. Plants being able to retain more water is leading to arid regions becoming greener, which then can compound to reverse desertification. This would mean a very larger increase in plant growth. There is no way to predict how large because we cannot accurately model a system as complicated as Earth's ecosystem with enough variables.
How much has the ratio of co2 in the atmosphere changed from before humans to today?
Climate is not as simple as you say, and you're being very disingenuous by claiming it is. If human activity over a few hundred years is enough to drastically change climate, you would need to account for every living thing and ecological process that influences the makeup of the atmosphere.

>why did (((they))) suddenly decide
two C's, duh

>If human activity over a few hundred years is enough to drastically change climate, you would need to account for every living thing and ecological process that influences the makeup of the atmosphere.
No I wouldn't. Plants and animals are very poor at getting to trapped reservoirs of underground carbon. Carbon doesn't drastically change that much over time unless something profound happens. Humans have put more carbon into the atmosphere in 150 years than nature could do in 20,000 years.

Here's a video, it's made for kids so it should be understandable to you.
youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4

>Basic physics cannot show that the amount of co2 put in the atmosphere by humans will have a drastic effect on climate.
But they can and they do.

>Plants having an abundance of co2
True, but the thing is that an increase which is enough to warm the Earth isn't an increase which is enough to impact plants in any way. Adding 100ppm to the atmosphere will fuck our climate, but only raise C02 levels by something like .001%.

>there is literally no evidence showing a causal link...
>That's the claim by those who propose massive government and global policies.

Well, there we go. From rejection of science to politically-motivated conspiracy theories in four posts. I wish I could say that was some kind of record for AGW threads, but it's not.

>change the terminology

Think of a bath tub with water. Height of water at a certain spot is analogous to the temperature at a certain spot on earth.

Global warming = average height of water
Climate change = how splashy the surface is

the terms aren't conflicting, you can have a local cold snap even if there is a faucet pouring more water into the tub, raising the global average water level.