Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mofongo wrote

that the previous models have all failed to be accurate.

Because things turn out to be worse than what the models predict.

but science, true science, means a willingness to question even your most deeply held beliefs when reproducable and irrefutable data contradict them.

You should take you advice instead of going deep denialism.

I've been around a while, and I see lots of blatant fear mongering and sloganeering, littered with hyperbole (the world is going to end!).

Maybe you should stop visiting propaganda sites.

Also, obviously climate change is going to cause deaths. It's causing deaths right now, due to droughts, heat waves and everything these two entails.

We stand to accomplish much more for the enviroment by simply planting trees and funding a few hundred landfill sites in Asia than any amount of 'green' technology could provide.

Yes and no. You have lots of reading to do. But let's start with a video series, I recommend you the excellent Climate Change made easy series from Potholer54:

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

4

daniel wrote

It's much easy to decieve someone than convince someone that they have been deceived. If you could point to just one experimentally reproducable model of CO2 induced atmospheric warming at ~400 parts per million I would be happy to concede, unfortunately most people are only repeating things they've been indoctrinated to from an early age and not looking objectively at the math.

Do you happen to know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?

It's 0.04% or 0.0004 out of 1. Less than one half of one tenth of one percent. As CO2 increases, what gas or gases is it displacing? Oxygen? Nitrogen? Argon?

Where would CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere accumulate and be highest?

What does the thermal satellite data show about these regions?

What is specific heat?

What is the specific heat of water?

How much of the Earth's surface is covered in water/what is the total volume of water that would need to be heated?

How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of all that water (in joules)?

Just plug in the numbers. What is the net effect of CO2 on this model at 500 parts per million? 1000 parts per million? Etc.

Most of the scientific hegemony will use a lot of "woo-woo" magical explanations about 'the disrupted jet stream" or "ocean currents" or "runaway ice melting" to explain/justify their hyperbolic prognostications; the actual physics and math completely refute that possibility, and are not reproducable experimentally.

CO2 is a red herring and a backdoor for state control over ever aspect of your life from cradle to grave.

−10

mofongo wrote

Also, visit the NASA page on global warming. Here is a handy visualization of years of hard data and the answer to several of your questions.

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

4

daniel wrote

We only have about 200 years of actual temperature records. A lot of that is piece-meal and certainly not homogenous in terms of the calibration of the instruments and locations of the readings. In terms of infrared/thermal satellite data, we only have about 60 or so years max. The rest is inferred. We can all make predictions, but none among us has a crystal ball. I think it's very premature to forcast the climate from the existing data. And I think it's very irresponsible to forcast 'the climate' which literally spans eons from such a small sample of data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum is a great place to start with space weather research.

−12

mofongo wrote

Why do you think that global warming being natural is in any way better or more acceptable than it being manmade?

4

daniel wrote

https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html I think that there are multiple feedback loops, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, etc. We are definitely fucking with the carbon cycle as humans by pulling a lot out of the ground, but I think it's a minor problem compared to the real environmental degredation, most of that is from improper disposal/release of chemicals, toxic materials, nuclear waste, ocean contamination, and household waste. The plastic, heavy metals, slag, runoff, just junk pouring into rivers and oceans... That stuff is getting people sick now. Carbon is relatively benign in comparison, you're not going to collapse the food chain by adding more carbon, removing it yes, but not adding. You will collapse the foodchain by over fishing, deforestation, insect extinction, dumping an island of trash the size of Texas into the ocean, etc. I want to focus on solutions, the most cost effective and easy to implement ones first.

−12

mofongo wrote (edited )

You're correct, all those are pressing issues. However, adding CO2 can cause environmental collapse. Simply look at ocean acidification: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification which leads to dead zones: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) like the Gulf of Oman in the Arabian Sea:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Sea

Each and everyone exacerbate the other.

4

daniel wrote

The amount of CO2 is not without effect, but the premise for it influencing climate and temperature in the concentrations discussed lacks a mechanism, and lacks experimental reproducability. The problem with planting trees and landfilling is that is helps solve the problem and doesn't allow the state to exert complete control over the people.

−11

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

daniel wrote

Not sure what kind of 'response' you're looking for... Are you saying that the Earth is not getting greener?

−12

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

daniel wrote

I've acknowledged your post three times now. What is it that you want me to say?

−13

mofongo wrote

Lol. Watch the video series i linked you. You'll get your science and experiments and hard data.

3

daniel wrote

I have personally analyzed thousands of models, not all of them climate related. Reproducable experiments are the only ones I care about. If you can demonstrate a reproducable experimental model where a change on the order of hundreds of parts per million of CO2 can somehow raise or lower the temperature of an isolated system with 21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen, and a large volume of water closely approximating the ratios of those on Earth, while the enegy input approximating that of the Sun remains constant I will gladly concede. Just the physics of it do not allow for that to happen. There is no mechanism by which that can occur. It is mathamatically impossible. The only thing capable of generating that much energy to precipitate the types of climatic changes forcast (warmer or coolor) is the Sun.

The "93%" concensus is a manufactured fabrication of the establishment. Rather than accept they are wrong, they're doubling down. And not because they care about saving the Earth, but because they stand to gain trillions. Thousands of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and people much smarter than myself have looked at the object numbers.

You have to understand the property of specific heat because it's key to the physics. Water vapor is by far and away a much more potent "greenhouse gas" than CO2 by orders of magnitude because of its specific heat.

I'm going to watch the entire series you linked with an open mind. But you have to promise to look up at the giant ball of fire in the sky and keep an eye on the solar cycles and space weather.

−12

mofongo wrote

I do and trust me when I tell you all that is taken into account. Water vapor, methane, loss of forest and phytoplankton, loss of ice mass, methane/CO2 release due to melting permafrost and continued use of coal and fossil fuel.

3