I'll play.wxmanX said:
why oceans warming so fast then?
Whaaaa? Could that be the basis of El Nino & La Nina weather patterns?ShinerAggie said:
You and I both know that these idiots have the tail wagging the dog. The oceans drive atmospheric temperatures, not the other way around.
So how much has the temperature of the oceans risen? You stated this as fact, so please share it.wxmanX said:
This is about science and fact.
This is the most confidently incorrect reply I have seen on this website. Ice core data only measures co2 levels before the 1950s. Since 1950 we have just used the regular atmosphere to collect data, and we can see that c02 is rising unprecedently with no natural events that can explain it.StrickAggie06 said:DarkBrandon01 said:
and 100,000 other scientists believe in man made climate change. this means nothing. when you burn fossil fuels that energy has to go somewhere, it just doesn't disappear. it is the ONLY explanation. there are no other natural factors that account for the rapid increase of greenhouse gases.
Scientists of what? The majority of articles I read that claim that "the vast majority of scientists" believe in significant man made climate change are climate scientists. As mentioned in my first post, climate scientists aren't actual scientists, plus OF COURSE climate scientists are going to believe their own studies.
Occasionally, some theoretical physicists throw their names into the mix. Unfortunately, their insights are often misguided, as they don't deal with large quantitative data sets, and don't consider the statistical flaws present in climate data. I've found they are particularly susceptible to having "tunnel vision" and just blindly believing studies put out by academics in other fields. But how many non-physics STEM researchers with backgrounds in big data and advanced statistics do you see speak out regularly? I rarely see engineers, biologists, or chemists loudly banging the climate change drum.
And did you not read my post at all, or just not understand it? Increases in greenhouse gasses don't automatically cause an equally corresponding temperature increase, and how we've measured them has changed over time. Again, correlation doesn't equal causation. If greenhouse gasses go up 30%, how much does the temp increase? You can point to the correlation all you want, but without an actual controlled study (which I'm not convinced is possible even with a a very complex artificial microclimate), you simply can't prove that one causes the other. And that "rapid" increase in greenhouse gasses uses ice core data as its early data points. As previously mentioned, ice cores are extremely unreliable for producing accurate data. There's also inconsistencies with the sites for data collection. You're taking early data from ice cores located at the poles vs newer data points located closer to civilization where CO2 emissions will be higher. This creates a significant positive bias in the trend.
Also, calling CO2 a greenhouse gas is disingenuous at best. CO2 encourages plant growth, which in turn reduces atmospheric CO2 levels. The Earth is essentially a living breathing organism, and like all organisms it strives for balance (homeostasis). CO2 levels also naturally increase as the Earth warms, so how much of that rise is due to the cyclic warming period we are? How does it correlate to the number of volcanic eruptions each year, which dump FAR more CO2 in the atmosphere than all of humanity does in an entire year?
Finally, you are still looking at a very very limited data set in historical terms. You simply can't claim unequivocally that greenhouse gas levels are at an all time high due to mankind and the sole driving factor of temp increases, without being able to accurately and comprehensively compare them to prehistoric times. Doing so violates the core mission of science.
Finally, any scientist that claims their findings are absolute facts is a fraud. Every climate report I've read does this. Actual scientists know there is ALWAYS uncertainty in the results, even with a 99%+ confidence interval. Valid publications use words like "could, might, plausible, etc" to describe their results, not definitive terms.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that man made climate change is 100% not real. My point is that we don't have the data to say one way or another. It's logical that humanity has had SOME effect on the climate. But how much? It could be a lot or it could be negligible. Should we really declare an emergency and bankrupt the country for a complete unknown, when it wouldn't make a significant difference anyway? There are positive, effective ways to move us away from fossil fuels, but the government refuses to pursue them.
A science based on consensus rather than contention and debate regarding data and conclusions is not a science at all. It is a religion.wxmanX said:
co2 blocks IR, limits radiation out to space thus oceans and land warm with time, this is a proven scientific fact.
1 gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of co2---> go look it up, it easily to calculate with basic college chemistry. We are producing way too much for plants to absorb, thus it goes up with time.
It that F simple, a 5th grader can figure this out.
Again, if we had no co2, our planet would be frozen solid, or about 255K.
This isn't about liberals; I don't like them either.
This is about science and fact.
That one sentence tells us you don't have a clue how science works.Quote:
Also, just because we cant fully understand the climate doesn't mean we cant draw conclusions on what is going on
wxmanX said:
It that F simple, a 5th grader can figure this out.
Yes, simple jack, I took chem 101. What's your point?wxmanX said:
I can't believe no one believes this. It just so simple.
Did any of you guys take chem 101?
climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html
To add to this, we only been measuring the ocean's temperature with accuracy for about 20 years now. The ARGO program uses diving bouys to sink into the water column and slowly surface while recording data. 20 years of history is kind of meaningless in data set of 4.3 billion years.agent-maroon said:I'll play.wxmanX said:
why oceans warming so fast then?
How much have they warmed? How much energy would be required to raise the 321 million cubic miles of ocean water by that amount? Why wasn't the land surface of the Earth incinerated to bare dirt during the time lag that it would take to transfer that amount of atmospheric heat to the water?
Yes. That's where I learned that if you want to measure the temperature of a solution then you use a thermometer rather than monitoring the CO2 level.Quote:
Did any of you guys take chem 101?
Are you familiar with the works of Dunning and Krueger?wxmanX said:
I can't believe no one believes this. It just so simple.
Did any of you guys take chem 101?
climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html
wxmanX said:
And?
Can you please highlight on this picture how much recorded data we have on earths "climate", please? You are saying all-time high, after all. All-time is....well, all of time.Quote:
wxmanX said:
BC Canada all-time record high yesterday.
42C = 108F!
Wow. LOL. What a dumb*****wxmanX said:
planting trees won't solve it either, humans emit way too much carbon.
Remember, each gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. Think hard about how much you put into the atmosphere each year. There are 1 B autos on this planet now.