New Category suggestion. Climate change.

It's not a matter of making up their minds. The evidence is out there for you to find it for yourself.
Forget the climate science just have a look at what is happening in the world today. Take into account some basic physics, like 75 % of the worlds surface area being ocean, that increased sea temps generate greater evaporation ( with warmer atmosphere) and work it out for your self. I doesn't actually matter what the scientists are predicting. It is what you are predicting given all the evidence you have that does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is a source I've found useful https://bravenewclimate.com/about/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I mentioned above that the practical response would be to counter the evidence, not the poster.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What evidence?

 

Here is one entry-level source https://www.popsci.com/evidence-climate-change-is-real

 

"Your honour, the opposing sides are attempting to argue their case - here - in your chambers."

 

Quick summary -

Experiments proving that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases
Instrumental temperature record
Measurements of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere
Receipts showing how much fossil fuels we have burned
IPCC models being validated in the real world over time

 

'cepting the line about the models
I find nothing to be invalidated.

Long ago I studied with bucky fuller who cautioned:
The map is not the terrain

The models are not the climate
And, they have failed to adequately account for observed paleoclimate data.
James Hutton had a similar problem when he valued field work over theory.

When pondering "greenhouse gasses" do you reflect on bands of opacity?
for your consideration:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Correct. They are merely models of the climate. They have some utility in that they can tell us (to some limit of accuracy) what will happen in the future.

Nor do they attempt to. They model modern climate and use a lot of input data to do so. Often, that input data (i.e. accurate measurements of temperature and insolation) are not available for half a million years ago. Without that data, the models aren't all that useful.

Of course. That's fundamental to the greenhouse effect.

 

But try to navigate the terrain without the map.
The blueprint of a house is not the house, but it sure comes in handy when you're building a house.
The photograph is not the face, but it's useful for identifying a particular face.
That's what images are for.

 

Whatever the deniers present as evidence.

 

That's also what I assumed you meant. Did Sculptor willfully misunderstand?

(except I took "posters" to include all posters in addition to the posters heroically imagined by Sculptor as "branded heretics")

 

Well, there's posting, pouncing, and gotchas. I presume the poster is playing it straight until shown to be doing otherwise.

 

Yeh but, a map of Saskatchewan ain't gonna help you much in Kentucky.....
And, of course, scale becomes important.

 

That's why they put labels. And those little subdivided inches/centimeters in the lower right corner. And the compass icon. And a grid with notation in the margins, marked off in degrees. Marvellous things, maps!
Like any representation, you have to look at the right one and understand what it's about. If you can't figure out the relationship of the model to the thing it represents, the model won't be useful to you. So, go to some other explanation that you can follow.

 

Am I to understand of your stance that recent, dramatic climate change is not scientifically evidenced?

 

speleothems

Why would you choose to "understand" that?

 

Let's look at your favored model. (whatever that happens to be)
Does it have a precise projection for a specific climate change in a given region?
Let us consider different temperature changes.
May we start off with a 5 degrees C (9 degree F) increase in the high latitudes?(evident in eemian proxies)

If we follow the equable climate models then extrapolate temperature differences from the high latitudes to lower latitudes what approximations will we find?

 

Exactly. And today's models won't help you figure out what happened a million years ago.

Nope. Nor are maps precise renderings of the territory. Both give you approximate information. Maps help you find places; models help you plan for the future.

OK. That, of course, is an _output_ of a model, not a starting point.

We do not have climate models that allow you to make a step change in the temperature in a large section of the planet and then predict what happens from there. We have climate models that start from a set of given conditions (i.e. today's climate) and extrapolate what will happen in the future.

However, if you work on such a model, I'm sure it would be worth publishing in a journal such as Nature.

 

OK
Here's the thing:
If a climate model is designed to predict climate changes for various latitudes with a given temperature rise,
and, we already have the information of what happened in the past with a similar temperature rise, then the model should be able to "predict" a zonal climate that already existed and is verifiable.

How else would you determine if a climate model has any veracity?

Some of thee models I've perused predict climate change out to 2100--------that is untestable.
If an hypothesis is put forth that is untestable, do you think that it has value?