Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[unbeliever]

The point convert makes is a valid one.

There was a substantial deviation from prediction in the 00's, rather too large to be consistent with the idea that CO2 is the overwhelmingly dominant factor in recent (last 50-100 years) global average temperatures.

[Flexo]

So the peak in temperature in 1998, was that also the peak in CO2 concentration?, or has it been rising since then?

 

Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. The temperature continues to rise, as you know from the graph. There is more to the equation that just CO2 levels. You are asking very basic questions.

 

To answer the subject of the thread: We're way beyond the denial stage now; the scientific consensus is overwhelming.

 

You can question climate change, but it puts you in the league of rapper BoB who questions whether the earth is round.

[unbeliever]

Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. The temperature continues to rise, as you know from the graph. There is more to the equation that just CO2 levels. You are asking very basic questions.

 

To answer the subject of the thread: We're way beyond the denial stage now; the scientific consensus is overwhelming.

 

You can question climate change, but it puts you in the league of rapper BoB who questions whether the earth is round.

 

 

Denial! Again! Straw man wearing a straw hat eating a meal of straw through a straw.

 

What is the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system?

[Flexo]

You should go learn what a "straw man" is before name calling.

[unbeliever]

You should go learn what a "straw man" is before name calling.

 

Nobody name called. You need to look up both name calling and straw man.

 

What is the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system? You don't know what that means do you?

[Flexo]

LOL name calling denial!

[convert]

Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. The temperature continues to rise, as you know from the graph. There is more to the equation that just CO2 levels. You are asking very basic questions.

 

To answer the subject of the thread: We're way beyond the denial stage now; the scientific consensus is overwhelming.

 

You can question climate change, but it puts you in the league of rapper BoB who questions whether the earth is round.

 

So, let me get this right, you are saying that the science is settled?

 

...

[unbeliever]

LOL name calling denial!

 

What is the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system?

Or is "LOL" the best you can do?

[Flexo]

So, let me get this right, you are saying that the science is settled?

 

...

 

Overwhelmingly.

 

The fossil fuel industry has been running a lot of front organisations to cast doubt and confusion with bad science.

 

You linked to http://www.climatedepot.com which is by "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow". Most of their funding comes from Donors Trust, which is a vehicle for rich conservative philanthropists and their organisations to distribute money to projects that match their ideology of low government regulation and “free markets”.

 

Donors Trust gave $125m to climate denial organisations over 3 years

 

For unethical scientists, there is a lot more money to be had from climate denial.

 

Yet the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is happening and we are already around half way to the 2C "sensitivity".

Edited February 6, 2017 by Flexo

[Robin-H]

Overwhelmingly.

 

The fossil fuel industry has been running a lot of front organisations to cast doubt and confusion with bad science.

 

You linked to http://www.climatedepot.com which is by "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow". Most of their funding comes from Donors Trust, which is a vehicle for rich conservative philanthropists and their organisations to distribute money to projects that match their ideology of low government regulation and “free markets”.

 

Donors Trust gave $125m to climate denial organisations over 3 years

 

For unethical scientists, there is a lot more money to be had from climate denial.

 

Yet the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is happening and we are already around half way to the 2C "sensitivity".

 

And as I pointed out earlier in the thread the majority of models produce warming of above 2°C for CO2 doubling. It would therefore be very risky for policy to allow a doubling of CO2, as while this could produce warming of 2°C, it could equally (with the same likelihood) produce warming of 4.5°C.

 

If therefore also follows that a 2°C of warming could be reached well before CO2 levels reach double the preindustrial levels, and so it seems prudent to me to cap levels at a lower value.