FFS! Someone tell Trump what causes Climate Change

[kenneal - lagger]

According to this article Trump doesn't know what causes Climate Change. He seems to think that its just dirty air!! He hasn't been told/doesn't understand how carbon dioxide causes warming of the atmosphere.

[woodburner]

As you know there are some hypotheses about what causes climate change, but even waaaayyyyy before these hypotheses had the circumstances which could be viewed as the cause, the climate was changing, and always has been. So technically, much as I hate to say it, trump is making what appears to be an honest statement in this case.

[kenneal - lagger]

Looks like Trump has a friend. And yes you can take that personally, woodburner.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

According to this article Trump doesn't know what causes Climate Change. He seems to think that its just dirty air!! He hasn't been told/doesn't understand how carbon dioxide causes warming of the atmosphere.

And the Sun. And even more importantly than CO2, water vapor.

[kenneal - lagger]

..........And the Sun. And even more importantly than CO2, water vapor.

But it is the human caused increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning vast amounts of fossil fuels, millions of years of stored carbon in a couple of hundred years, that has put what was once a rough equilibrium out of balance. That increased CO2 has warmed the climate causing an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere which is causing even more warming. The climate scientists know more than you can tell them, RGR.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

..........And the Sun. And even more importantly than CO2, water vapor.

But it is the human caused increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning vast amounts of fossil fuels, millions of years of stored carbon in a couple of hundred years, that has put what was once a rough equilibrium out of balance. That increased CO2 has warmed the climate causing an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere which is causing even more warming. The climate scientists know more than you can tell them, RGR.

CO2 in the past hasn't come just from humans. And in the future after we're gone, it won't come from us either. But the Sun, and that water vapor, and geologic processes...well....talk about the REAL culprits in the geologic history of our planet.

All of our complaining seems to come from an overinflated sense of importance. Like the planet cares at all about what the apex predator of the week is.

Oh, and I know that climate scientists know more than I do about climate stuff. Do you think it was the smart climate scientists who created this kind of data sampling location, or the dumb ones? Because even a scientist in another specialty understands GIGO, regardless of the specialty.

[woodburner]

Looks like Trump has a friend. And yes you can take that personally, woodburner.

That’s interesting, who is this friend of trump to which you refer?

[kenneal - lagger]

.......CO2 in the past hasn't come just from humans. And in the future after we're gone, it won't come from us either. But the Sun, and that water vapor, and geologic processes...well....talk about the REAL culprits in the geologic history of our planet.

But we aren't talking about the past or the future we're talking about now and the huge injection of CO2 that man has put into the atmosphere by burning all that stored carbon over a period of a few hundred years.

All of our complaining seems to come from an overinflated sense of importance. Like the planet cares at all about what the apex predator of the week is.

No the planet doesn't give a shit but I would like my children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy some form of life. Is that an overinflated sense of importance?

Oh, and I know that climate scientists know more than I do about climate stuff. Do you think it was the smart climate scientists who created this kind of data sampling location, or the dumb ones? Because even a scientist in another specialty understands GIGO, regardless of the specialty.

That was probably put there by some dumb weatherman who supports the oil industry view that we should just keep on making "loadsa" money until the day that the grim reaper comes for us and then we can take it to our graves in our coffins to enjoy in the next life.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

.......CO2 in the past hasn't come just from humans. And in the future after we're gone, it won't come from us either. But the Sun, and that water vapor, and geologic processes...well....talk about the REAL culprits in the geologic history of our planet.

But we aren't talking about the past or the future we're talking about now and the huge injection of CO2 that man has put into the atmosphere by burning all that stored carbon over a period of a few hundred years.

Well, that's what you are talking about. I'm quite happy paying close attention to geologic processes because what some insignificant biologic happens to be doing at this moment is just what some insignificant biologic happens to be doing. Human hubris is the only reason folks get all torqued up about current events.

Oh, and I know that climate scientists know more than I do about climate stuff. Do you think it was the smart climate scientists who created this kind of data sampling location, or the dumb ones? Because even a scientist in another specialty understands GIGO, regardless of the specialty.

That was probably put there by some dumb weatherman who supports the oil industry view that we should just keep on making "loadsa" money until the day that the grim reaper comes for us and then we can take it to our graves in our coffins to enjoy in the next life.

Maybe. But science is science, the scientists don't get to blame others for their bad data collection, it is one of the core principles they are supposed to understand and if they want to take shortcuts, use data that is obviously biased, they don't get to blame weathermen for them not doing their job correctly. I have gone over only 1 or 2 climate science reports to determine for myself how that kind of work stacks up against the scientific rigor I am familiar with and was disappointed. I would have been fired, or at the very least subject to a national academy review of every piece of work I had ever done or participated in if my conclusions were directly correlated with a correction factor or assumption I decided "hey! This seems reasonable, lets just drop it in there!" . Even more so if that correction itself rearranged the entire warming profile of a large area, which in this case is exactly what happened. And don't even get me started on models "proving" things.

Not that it matters in the long run, humans having apparently made up their mind that adapting to whatever the climate change is their plan.

[kenneal - lagger]

Perhaps you could show us which data set and which studies that weather station was used in then RGR and how many other such badly sited weather stations have been used to grossly exaggerate warming.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Perhaps you could show us which data set and which studies that weather station was used in then RGR and how many other such badly sited weather stations have been used to grossly exaggerate warming.

No.

While happy to fight with peak oilers all day long over what they didn't know, thought they knew and got wrong, and how to do it right (not that they ever really cared) in the future, I have no desire to discuss climate change particulars, the science behind it (regardless of quality), the history of it, or much of anything else.

I freely admit that the climate has changed, is changing, and will change in the future. I freely admit that humans polluting everything they can get their hands on is a bad behavior, and that our emitting greenhouse gases through our bad behavior has to have some effect somewhere on someone at some time.

Beyond that, I will get behind any idea, process or system that seems capable of creating a concrete and real world effect. I have determined that the answer to the following question will decide that for me, "Will the scale of this change of behavior, fuel use, lifestyle, or governing change the slope of the time series data of atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa from positive to negative."

If the answer to that question is yes, I'm in, no questions asked, on whatever the change is, under the theory that it is better to be safe than sorry. If the answer is no, then I'm along for the ride with a majority of others who don't give a tinkers damn, just like everyone else.