It is frustrating it seems to have not sunk in with many yet.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
To recognise how life might require a stable pH value we need look no further than our own blood. We begin to feel ill if it reaches a pH value lower than 7.35 or higher than 7.45. That little window in between represents our comfort zone.
To understand how CO2 might cause an extinction level event, have a gander at the P-Tr Extinction.
Obviously the ability of an organism to survive is based upon its ability to adapt. Although absolute change is an obviously important factor the rate of that change also has an enormous effect.
To understand how CO2 might cause an extinction level event, have a gander at the P-Tr Extinction.
Obviously the ability of an organism to survive is based upon its ability to adapt. Although absolute change is an obviously important factor the rate of that change also has an enormous effect.
He's obviously either on a wind up or just plain pig ignorant at this point, why bother banging your head against a brick wall?
This shite has the ring of wattsupwiththat about it.
The guys a wum, no one’s that stupid.
i think he's serious and believes what he says.
So do I.
Full marks to him then. It’s a special talent to be so selective in what he believes on the internet, considering the enormous scientific consensus to the contrary.
Because we should all believe "intellectuals" like Greta when she says the world ends in 12 years.
Not only that, but the concern isn't about climate change in and of itself, it is that the pace and direction of change we are causing will make life on earth inviable.
Changes inside the sun (for example in its magnetic fields), and changes in earth's relationship with the sun control climate. The sun warms earth continually. Oceans act as a heat buffer. Earth will slowly warm or slowly cool depending on fluctuations of solar warming of oceans.
This is the first mistake made by CO2-obsessives - they believe earth's climate should not change (despite massive evidence of climate change in history). That our climate is in equilibrium and should be "stable". Because they claim the sun is a constant candle. Hence their slogans: "Stop climate change". As if there's something we can do to control what the sun does! The sun makes up 99.98% of the solar system mass. We are only just beginning to understand the sun. The causes of cooler, more varied periods such as the solar minimums: Dalton, Maunder, Sporer. ..., and current Eddy minimum were only worked out in the last 5 years (it has to do with sun's magnetic fields moving in and out of synch). Just this year solar physicists discovered they has under-estimated solar magnetic field strength by 90%. Solar magnetism is literally, 90% more powerful than they thought it was.
The anti-intellectuals here are the crowd of woke climate activists lying to us about carbon dioxide controlling earth's climate.
This is the first mistake made by CO2-obsessives - they believe earth's climate should not change (despite massive evidence of climate change in history). That our climate is in equilibrium and should be "stable". Because they claim the sun is a constant candle. Hence their slogans: "Stop climate change". As if there's something we can do to control what the sun does! The sun makes up 99.98% of the solar system mass. We are only just beginning to understand the sun. The causes of cooler, more varied periods such as the solar minimums: Dalton, Maunder, Sporer. ..., and current Eddy minimum were only worked out in the last 5 years (it has to do with sun's magnetic fields moving in and out of synch). Just this year solar physicists discovered they has under-estimated solar magnetic field strength by 90%. Solar magnetism is literally, 90% more powerful than they thought it was.
The anti-intellectuals here are the crowd of woke climate activists lying to us about carbon dioxide controlling earth's climate.
Indeed. Every once in a while you get a poster on here that leaves totally flabbergasted, as in wtf.
No one has ever said climate was completely stable. Stop making things up.It's your own fault for humouring him with an argument.
Maybe. But as we currently understand 'interaction', everything is connected to everything else in quite literally the most meaningful and ultimate way. And this at the same time means that nothing is connected to anything else in literally the most meaningful and ultimate way. (Law of conservation of energy) This is the conundrum - if you will - of sentience with finite computational ability. So you're right, but only half right, which throws your fundamental grasp into question.
'Positive feedback loops' are literally everywhere in nature. Literally. Depends on where and how you look and the ability of the looker. You could find them in blood-biochemistry, dung-beetle behvaiour, icicle formation etc and certainly in larger systems and also removed from association with 'life', all towards the point where one is very literally approaching ad infinitum. Literally everywhere in nature depending on the ability of the looker.
This is a function of the above 'sentience with finite computational ability' point.
Perhaps you meant to say something along the lines of 'the concept of a positive feedback loop is far too easily co-opted into the arbitrary....'
So would you argue that the current climate-changers' aggregate and well-documented concerns just so happen to coincide with unknown larger currently incalculable phenomena at work.
Not having a go. Honest question to you personally.
Exactly that.
Good to hear that someone really does understand the scale of this self inflicted problem.
He also happens to be staunch Leaver as evidenced in the Brexit thread, where he argues with the same unwavering defiance against facts and logic. Figures...
Shes a campaigner seeking to influence change. As are you, of sorts. The difference between the two of you is she largely knows what she is talking about, and any errors she makes we can put down to the passions of the young. What’s your excuse?
Changes inside the sun have been measured and compared with temperature data and the resulting trend lines have constantly and consistently been found to have diverged since the middle of the 20th century. No climate scientist believes that the sun is a constant candle, or that Earth's climate should not change, or that the sun isn't the Earth's primary radiator; these are terrible, terrible straw men. They most certainly agree that changes inside the sun and changes with the Earth's relationship with the sun control climate. One such change in this relationship is the increased abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere that allows the Earth to trap more of the sun's heat for longer. In fact it is this change, shown time and again in an almost countless array of studies, that provides far and away the best fit between cause and effect when analysing the Earth's current warming trend.
You mean woke activists like Exxon accurately predicting atmospheric co2 and average global temperatures for 2019, back in the 1980s?
You are pure gold.I think he's on the WUM, reminds me of when i tried to convince a friend i was a flat earther by reading all their material. Lots of science sounding arguments that were meaningless guff.
He's posting these from a book or reddit.
He's posting these from a book or reddit.
He's posting them from the various climate skeptic blogs that are knocking around. No need to think he's not earnest though.
Earnest but wrong!
Everything I posted was paraphrased in general terms from the first year of my Natural Sciences bachelor's degree literature I am currently doing. He called it plain wrong without having any clear understanding of what any of it meant.
Says positive feedback loops are everywhere in nature but gives no examples!
Go on then. Give us 10 examples of positive feedback loops found literally everywhere in nature.
What is this? Make crazy claims. Pretend that I said them?
Why don't you try addressing the points I made dimwit, rather than the points you imagine I made?
Do you know what a feedback loop is, never mind whether it is positive, negative or in a steady state?
The claim that 100%, or more, of modern climate change is man made is not a straw-man claim. It's what you climate consensus people say.
Did you miss the part where he already gave you 3 examples?
I literally said to you in my first proper a response that CO2 being the controlling factor in Earth's climate is a misnomer but a good place to start with the prevention of human induced global warming. You went on to argue that water vapour has nothing to do with the insulation of heat in the atmosphere.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
Even fecking NASA agrees with me, but they're probably making it up because the Earth is flat, right?
He quoted the amount of CO2 in ppm in the atmosphere pre-industrialisation and post-industrialisation and then is saying that it's not a positive feedback loop. It's utterly bizarre.
This is an insignificant effect. Like I said. Because oceans have 272 times the mass of atmosphere, and the heat capacity of water is 4 times that of air. Allowing oceans ~ 1050 times the heat storage capacity of the atmosphere. If heat is stored anywhere, it's in oceans.
Your basic climate warming model is wrong. James Hansen says:
This is the climate consensus explanation I'm quoting. Hansen said earth warms because less outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, emits to space. Is that true? What does the data say? That data says the more OLR was emitted to space since 1985 (since we've measured it).
Hansen's climate consensus explanation of how warming happens is contradicted by the facts.
This is an insignificant effect. Like I said. Because oceans have 272 times the mass of atmosphere, and the heat capacity of water is 4 times that of air. Allowing oceans ~ 1050 times the heat storage capacity of the atmosphere. If heat is stored anywhere, it's in oceans.
Your basic climate warming model is wrong. James Hansen says:
This is the climate consensus explanation I'm quoting. Hansen said earth warms because less outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, emits to space. Is that true? What does the data say? That data says the more OLR was emitted to space since 1985 (since we've measured it).
Hansen's climate consensus explanation of how warming happens is contradicted by the facts.
Bollocks. Opacity increases absorption and re-emission, not decreases. Albedo decreases absorption as it reflects. Do you actually know any of the science behind this or are you just quoting blogs you’ve read?
Please find peer reviewed papers to back your arguments from now on, not blogspot.
Both those images, above, cite peer-reviewed papers. As you ought to know. You can type the DOI number into google to find them. I think they are both open access.
When I quote peer-reviewed science in a blogspot it doesn't make it a only a blog. It's still peer-reviewed science.
Stop trying to use your model of how climate works to explain the Satellite data I posted. Instead try acting like a scientist - try to explain the past 35 years of earth's climate using the Satellite data.
The satellite data I posted show that Hansen (God / Guru of climate activists) is wrong. Try facing reality. Try thinking for yourself.
It's not really clear to me exactly what point you're making here. The Dewitte paper is basically saying the OLR correlates rather well with the temperature increase.This is an insignificant effect. Like I said. Because oceans have 272 times the mass of atmosphere, and the heat capacity of water is 4 times that of air. Allowing oceans ~ 1050 times the heat storage capacity of the atmosphere. If heat is stored anywhere, it's in oceans.
Your basic climate warming model is wrong. James Hansen says:
This is the climate consensus explanation I'm quoting. Hansen said earth warms because less outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, emits to space. Is that true? What does the data say? That data says the more OLR was emitted to space since 1985 (since we've measured it).
Hansen's climate consensus explanation of how warming happens is contradicted by the facts.
Are you saying we should see an inverse proportionality?
You're asking questions he doesn't have the answers to. It's clear by now that he doesn't actually understand any of the stuff he copies from somewhere else. Like most climate "skeptics" he's basically following a recipe, and he hopes to throw enough sciencey-sounding stuff at you that you'll a) not be able to respond to it all or b) believe that he's actually an authority on the matter.
Read the Hansen quote. Hansen explains increasing temperature on earth in terms of less OLR emitted to space. That is nonsense.
Satellite data emissions show a pause after 2003, with a spike for the 2015/2016 El Nino. But they tell me the pause is a denier myth. The pause is real, and contradicts the idea that CO2 is the agent of warming.