1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
But, thanks for the additions Mr. Moseley. They are appreciated and it fun to look at the consternation on their smug faces when you bring up actual information. WOW! Talk about a misinformation campaign, they should get an award. Lenny would be proud.
Bkmk
Bfl
Jonathon should not try to confuse the issue with fact based inquiry. For those that can’t tell that was sarcasm.
Those are much easier for someone to ask as well.
Correct thinking climate scientists are asleep at the switch.
The energy savings from even minute amounts of (what I believe is natural) Global warming are enormous. Seriously enormous.
How much exactly I don’t know. But, it is quantifiable by a person with a modest skillset and should be a talking point in every argument on climate change.
Similarly, the food production resulting from an extended growing season resulting from a fraction of a degree warming will also be a big number. A seriously big number.
I don’t know if the Planet is still warming. No new glaciation I am aware of. But whether it is or isn’t, the argument of benefits from warming has been silenced by the left without protest.
I’m still waiting for a climate “scientist” to explain the Medieval Warm Period, followed by The Little Ice Age, centuries before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
It’s probably just a coincidence that all the “solutions” to climate change just happen to be everything the bolsheviks want to achieve.
O.K. I get the rhetorical question (which I agree is legitimate). but some of the questions are not scientific and some are misleading as to the how and what of the alarmists claims.
A better and more scientific writer can ask better questions that the alarmists should have to answer.
While there is no such thing as your first question asks - what is the “correct” termperature range for the planet, looking at changes in global average temperatures over time does not require a “correct” temperature range - only speculation or scienttic inquiry as to what has been and what is. The question about the current global average temperatures, looked at periodically, is not whether or not they are “correct”, but only are they natural - have not been induced in any way by human activity, or induced in some way by huamn activity. The alramists say not only is the latter answer “true” but that it is “excessive” in its impact. Others respectfully disagree.
I could answer yo similarly with repsepct to your number 2 to 7. They are not directly germane to the alaramists claims, becuase, as I said, it is not about some “correct” condition for eacvh of those variables - evan natural variablity of them all has occurred over time. The alarmists claims are not about some hypothetical “correcT” humidity, sea level, precipation, makeup of the atmosphere, or sea ice, for all time, under all condtions. Their question and claim only relates to whether not present temperature (average year by year global temp) has been induced to some degreee by human activity. They say yes, others disagree.
The alarmists do not try to explain past glaciation except to point generally to non-human, earth-sun-cycle, geologic and atmospheric conditions in the past, for past glaciation and retreat, while sticking to their “models” that suggest (to them) that in spite of general “warming” since the end of the last significant period of expansive glaciation followed by its retreat, that human factors (CO2) are “increasing” that rate of warming now (their theory (not mine).
The human societal, economic and finacial problem is that - as some scientists suggest, that the alarmists position is one that even if it has some cedibility, it is in fact alarmist as to current and presictive results, and that alarmist position is causing economic destruction, globally, that will weaken societies and imperil our abilities to even take reaonable measures to mitigate and adjust for “climate change”, even if the alarmists are only partially correct.
Some have said that in the end it is not CO2 the biggset forces behind the climate alarmists want to control - that climate alarmism is a wedge issue to invoke globalist-socialist control of everything.
#27 and #28 - Anthony Watts did a survey of weather stations and it was amazing how many are situated near heating sources, airports, concrete - things that influence temperature.
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/SurfaceStations.pdf