[alancalverd]

Another retreating glacier made the news last week. Some Italian archaeologists found a cave in which Austrian troops had hidden during WWI. Obviously they were lying because that would mean that the glacier wasn't there 100 years ago, which would be uncomfortable for anyone who preaches that glacier retreat is a recent phenomenon.

[Bored chemist]

which would be uncomfortable for anyone who preaches that glacier retreat is a recent phenomenon.

Only if they were dumb enough to think it's a monotonic process.
Anyone with the brains to realise that the weather varies a bit would see that there isn't a problem with one observation, in one place, being different.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Nope that is very ambiguous

If you think that's ambiguous, then I don't know what else to tell you.

and diversive.

How? https://www.badasstoysforbadassboys.com/diversive.html

Divisive .  What exactly, from your moral and scientific impervious Ness is your point about?

[Kryptid]

What exactly, from your moral

I don't see what morality has to do with it.

and scientific impervious Ness is your point about?

I also don't know what imperviousness has to do with it. Nothing about science is "impervious". Science is always amenable to change when new evidence is uncovered.

My point is that it is unlikely that 97% of experts in a given field would be in denial about evidence that they are aware of. That might be plausible if you were saying that only a handful were in denial, but almost all? Highly improbable.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

What exactly, from your moral

I don't see what morality has to do with it.

and scientific impervious Ness is your point about?

I also don't know what imperviousness has to do with it. Nothing about science is "impervious". Science is always amenable to change when new evidence is uncovered.

My point is that it is unlikely that 97% of experts in a given field would be in denial about evidence that they are aware of. That might be plausible if you were saying that only a handful were in denial, but almost all? Highly improbable.

You seem to be attacking the question rather than answering it again. Very devicive.

[Kryptid]

Sorry, but I don't think I can phrase it any more clearly.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to be attacking the question rather than answering it again. Very devicive.

The question was utterly stupid.

Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?

And you wend downhill from there.

[alancalverd]

You're aware that climate change data goes back well over a decade, aren't you?

I've gone back a page, not to pillory friend Kryptid, but to make a much bigger point. Reliable climate data goes back at least 400,000 years in the Vostok ice cores, and what has been observed over the last 100 years is, on the basis of previous temperature cycles, completely unremarkable and even exactly to be expected as yet another ~100,000 year cycle reaches its peak.

Much as I have enjoyed disagreeing with puppypower over the years, we concur on this: it is very dangerous to draw a line through one point, and where the data is inherently noisy, even drawing a line through a hundred points may do little more than demonstrate just how noisy it is.   

97% consensus is pretty normal among experts, who in the course of scientific history would have agreed that there are four elements, heavy objects fall faster than light ones, the sun goes round the earth, caloric, phlogiston, aether, Bohr orbits, and the undeniable fact that "there is no conceivable military use for the airplane". Fortunately human knowledge does not advance by consensus but by the curiosity of mavericks, and the fact that the planet has been here several times before, and the arctic was considerably warmer within recorded history, should not be forgotten when making climate predictions or attempting to determine a mechanism from recent data.

It is comforting to think that human activity can have a significant impact on climate. But nature is indifferent to our comfort and will not necessarily respond to our efforts.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.

Go on have, another go Kryptid.

[Kryptid]

Go on have, another go Kryptid.

If you couldn't parse the content of my sentences before, I don't know why I should try.

[Bored chemist]

Much as I have enjoyed disagreeing with puppypower over the years, we concur on this: it is very dangerous to draw a line through one point,

It would be.
Thankfully, nobody did it.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Go on have, another go Kryptid.

If you couldn't parse the content of my sentences before, I don't know why I should try.

Well there we are then.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Something you will not find great thunder harping on about. Nor the widespread media.

www.euronews.com/amp/2021/09/29/iceland-hit-by-earlier-than-normal-snowstorm

Damn global warming.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

https://planetski.eu/2021/10/27/huge-snowstorm-hits-california-ski-areas/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-59243836

Damn you global warming.

[Zer0]

To be honest...You lot of geniuses is starting to confuse me a little now.

Y'all are simply having a cordial discussion on here, & other places(OPs) about the " Various " Reasons that could be feeding or acting as a catalyst towards climate change & global warming, Right?

You folks Obviously are Not suggesting that perhaps, there ain't No Global Warming happening?
(Natural or human caused)

Obviously, global climatic trends are changing, Correct?

Ps - Sorry for such a stoopid query, just felt i should ask, that's all.
✌️

[Origin]

Something you will not find great thunder harping on about. Nor the widespread media.

www.euronews.com/amp/2021/09/29/iceland-hit-by-earlier-than-normal-snowstorm

Damn global warming.

It must be confusing living in your simplistic world. 

If there is an unusual cold spell somewhere in the world then you think global warming must wrong.  So of course if there is a hot spell somewhere in the world global warming must be right.  If there is an unusual hot spell and an unusual cold spell in the world at the same time then you are probably just completely befuddled.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Something you will not find great thunder harping on about. Nor the widespread media.

www.euronews.com/amp/2021/09/29/iceland-hit-by-earlier-than-normal-snowstorm

Damn global warming.

It must be confusing living in your simplistic world. 
  If there is an unusual hot spell and an unusual cold spell in the world at the same time then you are probably just completely befuddled.

Where as you know the above is global warming, and can produce a reason in lightning speed that supports it as such given your genius as you testify too yourself!

[Origin]

Where as you know the above is global warming, and can produce a reason in lightning speed that supports it as such given your genius as you testify too yourself!

The reason is temperatures vary.  Really difficult!

Edit to add an example:
Winter is coming.  That doesn't mean that every day will be colder than the previous day until mid January.  The day to day temperatures vary.  I hope this isn't to nuanced for you understand.

[puppypower]

One consideration that is not included in the man made climate change analysis is the impact of supercritical water on organic materials.

Years back, I was a development engineer geared toward developing new environmental remediation technologies. While doing research for a different project, I read an article about a team that developed a technique to get rid of cancer causing organic chemicals. They used supercritical water; hot and high pressure water. Water at these conditions is not only a good organic solvent, but in their technology, it broke down these nasty organic chemicals all the way to CO2.

This made me think, was it possible that the earth is breaking down fossils fuel resources, all the way to CO2 using supercritical; hydrothermal water, deep in the earth. This type of organic decomposition reaction could be contributing to the CO2 rise we see, and it is not in the current equations.

Another problem I have with the climate change models is they are based on obsolete earth science, that does not include some very provocative new earth discoveries. The main discovery is the iron core of the earth is rotating faster than the surface. This discovery suggests the core is dragging the mantle and crust along via visco-plastic friction. This means heat generation that is not in any of the models.

Another discovery was the earth magnetic field periodically wanders over the earth and reverses polarity. This was easier to explain when the earth was a uniform ball. But the rotating core discovery; always one direction, makes it harder.

It was also discovered that there is an ocean of water, the size of the Arctic Ocean, in the mantle  just below the crust, in SE Asia. There was another parallel discovery of a scar on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean where the mantle was exposed. Combined these two discoveries suggests mantle water can periodically breach the crust and add water and heat to the oceans. These discoveries are not part of the climate change models. The current earth science used did not anticipate any of these things. 

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Where as you know the above is global warming, and can produce a reason in lightning speed that supports it as such given your genius as you testify too yourself!

The reason is temperatures vary.  Really difficult!

Edit to add an example:
Winter is coming.  That doesn't mean that every day will be colder than the previous day until mid January.  The day to day temperatures vary.  I hope this isn't to nuanced for you understand.

There's the reason.