Global warming is NOT a science

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 4364
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Climate Restoration is NOT a science

Post by Walker » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:25 pm

Walker wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:25 pm
Climate Restoration sounds like a Boomerish combination of house makeover and nostalgia.
Get with the program.
It's now Climate Restoration.

Global Warming is Obsolete.
Climate Change is Obsolete.
Global Cooling is Obsolete.
(Twilight Zone, Burgess Meredith)

Climate Restoration is the New World Order.
It's probably been focus-grouped.
Restoration is a trigger word.
Restorative yoga, restore fine art, restore to the way things should be, and so on.

For that reason, this is the label that might really stick in the zeitgeist.

Climate Restoration is a political movement.

Science Fan
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Science Fan » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:41 pm

Walker: You can deny science all you want, but the wonderful thing about science is it's true, even if you refuse to believe in it because it conflicts with a political ideology. The planet is going to get hotter and sea levels are going to continue to rise. Social media conspiracy theorists and science deniers do not provide a solid foundation to reject science.

Serendipper
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Serendipper » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:34 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:41 pm
The planet is going to get hotter and sea levels are going to continue to rise.
If it does, it will have .04% to do with co2 :lol:

And 99.96% to do with something else.
Social media conspiracy theorists and science deniers do not provide a solid foundation to reject science.
Yet you cannot refute any of it by scientific means, but only by resorting to ad homing with stigmatizing labels.

All you're doing is parroting what you're told and demonizing anyone who doesn't follow your lead as you've no understanding of the science underlying any of it. If you cannot describe the exact mechanism by which co2 interacts with light, you have no justification to even have an opinion on the matter.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by attofishpi » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:12 pm

If you think that releasing millions of years worth of stored CO2 in a period of two hundred years or so, is not going to affect the climate...well you are as dumb as a turd.

A star
from afar
or so close
this one i boast
does power my car
i run afar
places never guilt
now its coated in silt
aeons of fury
nature my judge and jury
but i feel so fine
its running all the time
to take me nowhere
why should i care
noone ever does
whats all the fuss
fuck it any way
the Earth can suck it all day
millenia of energy
stored up and exhaled
in a spliff of a century
someone said to me
take your foot off the peddle
with the balance you've meddled
but we say back
fuck nature, fuck that
fuck everything we're a new breed
im human i need
oh planet?
we never planned it!

GREED IS THE POWER NOW

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Necromancer » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:14 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:12 pm
If you think that releasing millions of years worth of stored CO2 in a period of two hundred years or so, is not going to affect the climate...well you are as dumb as a turd.
What is exactly "millions of years worth of stored CO2"? How can you claim that the CO2 is "worth millions of years"? I think this is simply wrong. It surely is unfounded. To the contrary, my New Crust Formation Theory says that one is simply emptying CO2 that has been there, by and large, since Earth has been created. The CO2 levels are something entirely new to the history of the Earth and I don't think we know yet what it all amounts to...

Precision: the CO2 isn't stored in the Earth's crust like that, but rather as oil and gas. However, the emptying of hydrocarbons implies a kind of emptying of CO2. :D

Agree?

Link, New Crust Formation Theory: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/20 ... y-and.html

Serendipper
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Serendipper » Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:12 am

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:12 pm
If you think that releasing millions of years worth of stored CO2 in a period of two hundred years or so, is not going to affect the climate...well you are as dumb as a turd.
I used to believe that as I watched camp fires burn and wondered where the heat went, but now I've realized that the heat simply radiates off into space and the carbon released is not enough to budge the paltry 0.04% that exists now since plants will readily gobble-up as much as they can and even more if the temperature rises too.

The sun dictates the temperature of the earth which determines the amount of O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere. The hotter it gets (to a point, obviously), the more O2 and CO2 will result from plant and animal activity. Ice ages do not generate much organic activity to support large concentrations of these gases, but heat does. In the dinosaur days: temps, co2, and o2 were all higher than today, which favored the large animals of the time.

Anyone who believes the GW mantra is either gullible as a turd or dumb as a turd or both. Most people have no business even having an opinion on the matter because they're ignorant as a turd of the science underlying the mechanisms. First go educate yourself and then realize justification to opine and call others dumb.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by attofishpi » Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:22 am

Necromancer wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:14 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:12 pm
If you think that releasing millions of years worth of stored CO2 in a period of two hundred years or so, is not going to affect the climate...well you are as dumb as a turd.
What is exactly "millions of years worth of stored CO2"? How can you claim that the CO2 is "worth millions of years"? I think this is simply wrong. It surely is unfounded. To the contrary, my New Crust Formation Theory says that one is simply emptying CO2 that has been there, by and large, since Earth has been created. The CO2 levels are something entirely new to the history of the Earth and I don't think we know yet what it all amounts to...

Precision: the CO2 isn't stored in the Earth's crust like that, but rather as oil and gas. However, the emptying of hydrocarbons implies a kind of emptying of CO2. :D

Agree?
Sure, should have used the term 'hydrocarbons'.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by attofishpi » Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:33 am

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:12 am
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:12 pm
If you think that releasing millions of years worth of stored CO2 in a period of two hundred years or so, is not going to affect the climate...well you are as dumb as a turd.
I used to believe that as I watched camp fires burn and wondered where the heat went, but now I've realized that the heat simply radiates off into space and the carbon released is not enough to budge the paltry 0.04% that exists now since plants will readily gobble-up as much as they can and even more if the temperature rises too.

The sun dictates the temperature of the earth which determines the amount of O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere. The hotter it gets (to a point, obviously), the more O2 and CO2 will result from plant and animal activity. Ice ages do not generate much organic activity to support large concentrations of these gases, but heat does. In the dinosaur days: temps, co2, and o2 were all higher than today, which favored the large animals of the time.

Anyone who believes the GW mantra is either gullible as a turd or dumb as a turd or both. Most people have no business even having an opinion on the matter because they're ignorant as a turd of the science underlying the mechanisms. First go educate yourself and then realize justification to opine and call others dumb.
I stand by my statement -on correction to use stored 'hydrocarbons', the CO2 being released from man's activity over the past 100-200 years via burning millions of years worth of stored hydrocarbons at the current rate required for our energy requirements, is obviously going to affect our climate. Do you expect me to do scientific experiments in my shed to comprehend how increased amounts CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect? I don't think I need to, the unbiased not $$$ hungry scientists have made the case and I'm happy to stick with their overwhelming evidence. The cuckoo science of the deniers is based on a dollar\political agenda.

Serendipper
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Serendipper » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:33 am
I stand by my statement -on correction to use stored 'hydrocarbons', the CO2 being released from man's activity over the past 100-200 years via burning millions of years worth of stored hydrocarbons at the current rate required for our energy requirements, is obviously going to affect our climate.
Obvious? Is it obvious because the co2 concentration of the atmosphere may increase from 0.04% to 0.05%? Since it's so obvious, describe for me how such a minuscule amount of gas could have any measurable effect against that of the sun, which can hold 1.3 million earths and is only 8 light-minutes away.

What's obvious is what's plain as day: the sun. I mean, what the hell? We're sitting around a giant fire arguing about minuscule amounts of gas floating around as explanation for why we're hot! That's about the dumbest thing since that guy was riding the ass he was searching for.

If I'm hot next to a fire, I'm not going to begrudge the 0.04% of wool in my shirt... I'm going to move away from the fire because I'd have to be dumb as a turd not to.
Do you expect me to do scientific experiments in my shed to comprehend how increased amounts CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect?
That right there shows how little you know because if you knew anything you'd know to study the physics of how electromagnetic radiation affects molecules in effort to understand how co2 allows visible light to pass, but absorbs IR light and you don't need experimentation to educate yourself, but only time spent reading.

I'd start here https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/prima ... th-GG.html

Then head over to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
I don't think I need to, the unbiased not $$$ hungry scientists have made the case
How do you know anyone has made a case if you cannot personally verify it? You're being gullible.
and I'm happy to stick with their overwhelming evidence.

That you haven't examined, and certainly not given it an objective examination, I'm sure.
The cuckoo science of the deniers is based on a dollar\political agenda.
Even if that were true, it's irrelevant.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by attofishpi » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:32 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:33 am
I stand by my statement -on correction to use stored 'hydrocarbons', the CO2 being released from man's activity over the past 100-200 years via burning millions of years worth of stored hydrocarbons at the current rate required for our energy requirements, is obviously going to affect our climate.
Obvious? Is it obvious because the co2 concentration of the atmosphere may increase from 0.04% to 0.05%? Since it's so obvious, describe for me how such a minuscule amount of gas could have any measurable effect against that of the sun, which can hold 1.3 million earths and is only 8 light-minutes away.
You do understand that what the Sun does is out of our control right?
On that point:- Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun's radiative output has not increased since then, so the warming that occurred in the past 40 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.

According to an EPA scientific study published after 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane had increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.
Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
I don't think I need to, the unbiased not $$$ hungry scientists have made the case
How do you know anyone has made a case if you cannot personally verify it? You're being gullible.
Trusting in unbiased widely verfied scientific studies renderes me gullible does it?

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
and I'm happy to stick with their overwhelming evidence.

That you haven't examined, and certainly not given it an objective examination, I'm sure.
Who are you to claim I have not examined the scientific studies?
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
The cuckoo science of the deniers is based on a dollar\political agenda.
Even if that were true, it's irrelevant.
No it's not since I and my offspring have got to share the damned planet with a bunch idiots that think increasing the use of 'fossil fuel' is having no bearing on climate change.

Serendipper
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Global warming is NOT a science

Post by Serendipper » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:10 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:32 pm
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:33 am
I stand by my statement -on correction to use stored 'hydrocarbons', the CO2 being released from man's activity over the past 100-200 years via burning millions of years worth of stored hydrocarbons at the current rate required for our energy requirements, is obviously going to affect our climate.
Obvious? Is it obvious because the co2 concentration of the atmosphere may increase from 0.04% to 0.05%? Since it's so obvious, describe for me how such a minuscule amount of gas could have any measurable effect against that of the sun, which can hold 1.3 million earths and is only 8 light-minutes away.
You do understand that what the Sun does is out of our control right?
Yes, of course, we cannot tax the sun into submission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on-Sp0UPN1Q
On that point:- Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun's radiative output has not increased since then, so the warming that occurred in the past 40 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.
TSI data back to the 1600s http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/fil ... tion-1.png

There you can see a dip that coincided perfectly with the little ice age.

But you have to understand that there are many other large variables at play, such as our position within the galactic arms which determines cosmic ray bombardment, the earths waning magnetic field strength of late, and ozone depletion which blocks UV rays that are 40x more energetic than IR for which co2 is responsible.

CO2 is the most insignificant of the lot, both because it's in such minute concentration and because it affects only low-energy IR light.
According to an EPA scientific study published after 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane had increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.
That sounds really scary, but co2 concentration is 0.04%.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[2] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

So if it has increased by 100%, then it used to be 0.02%. Whoop-de-doo!

Double it again to 0.08% and it's still nothing.
Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.
Yup, and it's still insignificant.

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
I don't think I need to, the unbiased not $$$ hungry scientists have made the case
How do you know anyone has made a case if you cannot personally verify it? You're being gullible.
Trusting in unbiased widely verfied scientific studies renderes me gullible does it?
How do you know the studies are verified if you haven't verified it? Yes, you're gullible.

Most publish research is wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

A couple top comments:

Kai Widman
1 year ago
I feel like everyone in the world needs to watch this video. There's so much crap out there an no one ever thinks past what they want to hear. This should help.
888 upvotes

NurseKillam
5 months ago
Interesting. I am adding this video to my research courses. My students don't always understand why we need to be critical of research.
120 upvotes

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
and I'm happy to stick with their overwhelming evidence.

That you haven't examined, and certainly not given it an objective examination, I'm sure.
Who are you to claim I have not examined the scientific studies?
The only way you can maintain your position is if you have not examined the research.
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
The cuckoo science of the deniers is based on a dollar\political agenda.
Even if that were true, it's irrelevant.
No it's not since I and my offspring have got to share the damned planet with a bunch idiots that think increasing the use of 'fossil fuel' is having no bearing on climate change.
Motivation is irrelevant to truth.

If I made a lot of money proclaiming smoking is bad, does that mean smoking is good because I have a profit incentive? Drug companies are making more money than the GDP of small countries, so does that mean drugs are bad? Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of the scientific mechanisms at play, but you are also showcasing your inability to think logically and critically. I hope somehow your kids are able to outgrow what you're teaching them.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2994
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:37 pm

Human-driven climate change is all about the gigatons of carbon human industry has released into the atmosphere, which itself has an estimated mass of 5.15 × 106 gigatons, yes?

In essence: a drop of arsenic fell into a lake and now, cuz of that drop, the lake is dangerous or in danger of dyin'.

I'm guessin' there's a bridge in Brooklyn you'll be wantin' to sell me too... :|

Serendipper
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re:

Post by Serendipper » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:07 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:37 pm
Human-driven climate change is all about the gigatons of carbon human industry has released into the atmosphere, which itself has an estimated mass of 5.15 × 106 gigatons, yes?

In essence: a drop of arsenic fell into a lake and now, cuz of that drop, the lake is dangerous or in danger of dyin'.

I'm guessin' there's a bridge in Brooklyn you'll be wantin' to sell me too... :|
Who are you addressing? Anyway, gigatons of carbon or carbon molecules? Did you know a giant oak tree weighing many many tons is almost all air (water vapor, oxides of carbon and nitrogen)? Only about 0.5% by weight of the live tree will be ash once burned and the rest will be released as gas into the atmosphere which other plants happily gobble up.

Fire is part of the lifecycle of the lodgepole pine which requires fire to release the seeds and to fertilize the ground. Once the trees grow large and viciously compete with each other, they get weaker and susceptible to the beetle which kills nearly all of them. Then lightning sets the whole forest on fire and new trees grow from the rubble. Check it out, it's pretty cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24zxOYwhAys

It's no secret that dumping tons of fertilizer on plants makes them grow bigger, so an abundance of elements causes plants to be more prolific than under conditions of scarcity, and that is especially so if conditions are warmer. My hobby is the management of a small forest and I sincerely wish there were more carbon in the atmosphere as I wouldn't have to worry so much about the health of my trees. I'd gladly take all the carbon you could give me, whether it be diamond, graphene, graphite, compost, wood chips, co2, whatever. Carbon is precious.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2994
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:00 am

"Who are you addressing?"

All the folks who think human industry is directing/ruining the climate.

These folks -- based on nuthin' -- would have me believe human industry is the ruination of everything.

These folks would have us retreat to thatch huts.

My arsenic example is the summation of their stance, not mine.

I'm with you: carbon is friggin' fantastic.

Now, let's wait for the inevitable 'science denier' to get foisted up.

Wait for it, wait for it...

Serendipper
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re:

Post by Serendipper » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:53 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:00 am
Now, let's wait for the inevitable 'science denier' to get foisted up.

Wait for it, wait for it...
Probably won't have to wait long. In the mean time we can enjoy some George Carlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest