Where's that quote from? I'm not going to scour the internet for that one article.

From your 2008 NASA article:
From your Globalchange.mit article:
From your ACS article:
From your NRDC article:
All 4 sources you linked have the same message. Manmade greenhouse gasses are the trigger. Water vapor increase is a secondary source.

This is the paper you quoted from 2005:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...86-11-1571.xml

That 2005 AMS paper was a reasonably conservative conclusion (null hypothesis) for any scientific organization lacking the breath of data we have now. Here is from their website:

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cf...limate-change/


And here is there official position on climate change:

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/am...imate-change1/

What else do you need to see?

Among them are also links with different conclusions. I did read the quotes you mentioned, but you're still cherry-picking arguments in your favor. How can someone look at the same info and come to different conclusions. Either they're biased, or lack a full picture of the whole data. It goes both ways for sure.

There are also plenty of dissenting independent studies that are yet to be refuted. What do you make of that?

Although the study shows no change in catastrophic weather events, they are presupposing the global warming. In their conclusions, they're questioning the link between global warming and hurricanes, but are not questioning anything about global warming. What was that? When you read a data, you look for what's objective regardless of viewpoints, and what's preconceived subjective ideas. Nevertheless it is a data point. If you prove to me that there is no link between global warming and catastrophic weather events, then this article doesn't support my view.

Literally every argument is a cherry picked argument otherwise if it’s solid data across the board no one would be arguing. And even then, people would still argue.

This is your evidence? You were raving about reliable sources a minute ago, and now you have quoted an opinion paper about a single state’s climate changes, which even appear to support climate change, but the funny stuff was finding the source of this report. It is from the Science and Public Policy, which leads to an opinion website titled The Climategate Emails, and even more interesting was the references on page 179 (labeled 168), which quotes assassinationresearch.com (see picture below). The author of all this is John P Costella. He is not a climate scientist. His degrees are in other areas. His personal website is also…interesting.

I should add that some of his statements in that article are false like the one below. This position that China is worse really has no bearing. If your neighbor throws litter on your lawn could they say it doesn’t matter because you should focus on the other neighbor who throws more litter? No. We produce more emissions per capita by a factor of two than China that only produces more in total because they have more people, so we all need to be better.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/

http://johncostella.com/

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I’m really confused. At one moment you are quoting an organization and appealing to evidence stemming from them, and then I show you their current opinion on climate change, and you are ignoring that fact while continuing to quote their paper from seventeen years ago.

Meanwhile, your counter evidence is antiquated or dubious at best. Care to try again?

I feel like this is appropriate:

https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/230759

Irace, if you read thru my posts, I said I would post 1 article for now. Obviously I was refering to the journal article, not the opinionated web page. I have been asking you to show me the underlying data & analysis from your links. And we can look beyond the opinions and look at the data objectively, and in a civilized manner. Unfortunately you'll find bias even in the journals (both sides), so if you're willing to be unbiased, we can look at the data together.

:sigh:

Perhaps we should start here. Which of the following statements do you agree with?
1. The average temperature of Earth's atmosphere is currently increasing.
2. The rate of increase is cause for action to attempt to counteract it.
3. The cause of the increase in temperature is due to excess greenhouse gasses
4. The excess greenhouse gasses include gasses such as CO2 that are made/released due to human activity as well as water vapor.
5. The most common natural greenhouse gas, specifically water vapor has a baseline value which is required for Earth to retain enough heat to be habitable.
6. The total excess of greenhouse gasses (all types) is triggered by a phenomenon where the human made/released greenhouse gasses increase the heat stored and reflected by the atmosphere, which in turn affects the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can store.
7. The increase in water vapor adds to the effect of the manmade greenhouse gasses to further increase the heat stored and reflected by the atmosphere.
8. Humans can mitigate or reverse this phenomenon by reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses they release into the atmosphere.

I haven't actually cherry picked anything. I took the most relevant paragraph from the article that explicitly states the conclusion of experts who analyze the presented evidence. These are articles were provided by the very person who is using them as evidence of the complete opposite conclusion. It is pretty solid data across the board in this case.

You are having a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works. Hypothesis leads to studies, and when there is enough body of evidence preliminary theories begin to form, and eventually an explanatory theory forms, which is the highest level of scientific understanding. Even after a scientific theory is established, data continually adds to theories such as it has with the Theory of Plate Tectonics or the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of General Relativity or the Big Bang Theory. Asking someone to show the evidence for any one of these theories is a monumental task. While there are good examples, by themselves, they don’t illustrate the breadth of overwhelming evidence converging on the theory or the power it has for prediction.

The data supporting global warming and climate change is also monumental. There is no single study that overwhelmingly demonstrates the theory, nor are there any review papers from a single subject matter/discipline that is going to analyze cumulative data on other disciplines. Even one review paper analyzing one aspect may do a randomized review of hundreds of papers, so it is no small task to demonstrate overwhelmingly anything easily with palatable data, even for the most established theories. The type of report produced by the ICPP is a conglomeration of hundreds if not thousands of studies and presented in a congested format that is palatable for those outside the scientific community.

With that said, what do you expect to get presented here that hasn’t been already presented that would satisfy any reasonable expectations you might have?

I agree that providing evidence from the very papers used by chipmunk that he was citing as reliable is very reasonable and should be compelling to chipmunk if he is being intellectually honest.

I don’t know where Weederr stands on the subject, but what he said is true, which I illustrated above. Any single study presented would be cherry-picking. A review paper of 100+ articles on a single subject matter like economic impact, increased incidence of natural events, co2, methane, sea temperature changes, coral bleaching incidence, rise in extinction numbers, etc is still lacking the breadth of what the cumulative data demonstrates. I think Weederr might just be saying that anyone can prove anything citing a single study, while being able to ignore the 97% consensus among climate scientists. If there was 10,000 articles and 97% were affirming global warming, a person would still have 300 articles to cite in opposition to the overwhelming consensus, so citing a few studies is literally futile, despite our best efforts.

To keep it short and quick:

1. Yes
2. No, but good luck trying
3. Inconclusive data from me to make a comment
4. No (another one: https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...tivity,.2.aspx)
5. Yes
6. No
7. I am yet to see any convincing evidence on this cyclic behavior, so I don't have an opinion yet
8. No. Eventually, like all stars, sun has its clock ticking too. No point in fighting the natural course of the cosmos.

Just so everyone understands, it takes a lot of time and effort to read thru the comments, pick out legit questions, and respond. It's not like I get paid for the time spent.

Just out of curiosity, what's the plan, then? Assume this has nothing to do with human activity (neither causing it nor being able to reduce the temperature), so we should all just move further and further north/south (and inland) to stay in habitable temperatures (and not get flooded)?