Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

daniel wrote

I'm an engineer, thanks. Also got a full ride on an academic scholarship to any state school of my choice (Edward J. Bloustein distinguished scholar). I'm also probably older than you and most of the people on this site, but glad that you asked. You can crack open a book for the answers to your other questions if you really want to know. But comparing Earth to the moon or venus has no bearing on an experimentally reproducable model in which you increase the quantity of CO2 by 0.0001 out of 1. In fact do you know how much CO2 would be required to raise a systems temperature on the scale of the Earth-Sun? Hint: it's a lot higher than 1 hundredth of one percent. How much of the Earth's heat comes from its molten core?

−1

Moltres wrote

Let's quack things a little, who has traditionally funded climate 'skepticism':

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=oil+Lobby+climate+denial+sponsor&t=fpas&ia=web

4

daniel wrote

And the list for who funds its promotion? Is there a computer large enough to contain it?

−1

Moltres wrote

Very good, Daniel! You're able to keep your previous believes despite evidence of the contrary, so scientist of you!

I just want you to know that you're a very good skeptic and very capable thinker, not at all a contrarian. It doesn't matter that your beliefs align with the establishment you hate so much, not at all. So keep it up sir/madam and godspeed.

2

daniel wrote

That's the thing about predictions, making more of them does not increase the accuracy, only the confidence. It's astonishing to see increased confidence after repeated failures of accuracy. Ignoring the hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of years of irrefutable geological records which demonstrate both much higher and much lower temperatures during times when CO2 levels are both much higher and much lower than they are presently doesn't seem to bother you or many others. Is it some logical fallacy in your thinking which allows you to ignore clear and overwhelming evidence contrary to your hypothesis or have you just seen so many predictions that your confidence in them is that high that you are unwilling to see the lack of accuracy.

0

[deleted] wrote

2

daniel wrote

There have been several periods of glaciation over the past 800,000 years. That is universally accepted. The CO2 records throughout that time does not correlate at all with the cyclical cooling and warming of record. A reasonable person can look at the data (of which there is massive amounts) and conclude that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate, furthermore its impact, contribution and sensitivy are small as is its composition of the atmosphere. Beyond that, the only true objective source global atmosphereic temperature data and to a lesser degree surface data is from satellites. There are numerous factors involved with surface temperature measurment integrity, such as the urban heat island effect and beyond that there is problems with integrity of the selection of that data. Weather anomalies are occuring constantly and should not be used at all in any context to spin the climate. It's a major sample selection bias given prior to satellites almost all surface measurements are local, not global. It's irresponsible to make predictions like that which have no testable (reproducable) basis in reality.

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

−1

Moltres wrote

You seriously don't read, do you?

Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

2

daniel wrote

Of course there is correspondence but if you look closely at the data you will see that CO2 increases after the temperature, and not the other way around. Sea water, permafrost, ice, etc. release more disolved gases as its temperature rise.

−1

Moltres wrote

You don't need to reaffirm me that you don't read, nowhere in the data sheet they measure or talk about temperature.

2

daniel wrote

Never said they did, just pointing out that the ice core data is available if you wish to do the research.

−1

[deleted] wrote

0

daniel wrote

A random GIF from a climate change org site is not a substitute for terrabytes of actual numerical data. CO2 is not the causative agent. You will see other gases concentrations increase with increased temperature as well, moreover you see wide swings in temperature over long periods of time where CO2 levels remain relatively high. When temperatures spike, more disolved gases are freed up, those gases take longer to get resequestered back into storage. They are still just trace gases, concentrations so low and diffuse that they are measured in ppm.

−1

[deleted] wrote

0

daniel wrote

Note, the data for nitrous oxide and methane also share the same trend. How shocking. I bet if you find one for argon you'll see the same thing. Surely you don't want to propose argon is the primary driver of the glaciation, despite its concentration being greater than CO2? If you are looking for data, that sites got plenty. Pick your poison. A good place to start is the 4000 years of temperature data, and cross referencing that with last 4000 of disolved gases from whereever you want. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/location?dataTypeId=7&search=true

−1

Moltres wrote

Could it be that methane and nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases as well? And that when one increases it creates a feedback loop that also raises the others (and temperature)? Could this be the reason why they correlate with each other across the record?

Why does it hurt so much to think?

2

daniel wrote

because the data doesn't coincide with that hypothesis. the dissolved trace gases follow the temperature, not the other way around.

−1

daniel wrote

The Sun is the primary driver of the climate, trace gases are not. The education system has failed in raising a generation of critical thinkers. The Earth does not revolve around the Sun, it revolves around the gravitational center of the solar system which is influenced by the orbit of the planets. Those planets also have most of the angular momentum of the solar system, their periodic (cyclical) actions influence fluctuations in the activity of the Sun and thus the climate on Earth. The Sun also has internal cyclical mechanisms the manifest in fluctuations in solar activity, which also influence climate on Earth. Space weather and solar angular momentum are much more reliable predictors of climate than are trace gases, which are only useful after the fact.

−1

Moltres wrote

Why is earth hotter than the moon?

3

daniel wrote

The moon reaches 260 degrees farenheight in the sunlight, but surely with all the CO2 we're producing on Earth that'll be a cool evening in just a few short years right?

−1

[deleted] wrote

0

daniel wrote

right, but Argon is also increasing, as are other trace gases. both the increases and decreases in temp (reglaciation) proceed their corresponding increase/decrease in gases, not the other way around.

0

Moltres wrote

Do you mean that climate is a system composed of many parts that CO^2 is nothing but a part? Then what is the importance of CO^2?

Could it be that its raise was the initial trigger event?

Could it be that is the one most easily and conveniently dealt with? Coal and oil

What sort of thing humans use that produce CO^2 that could possibly be regulated? Coal and oil

Is there any part of the establishment that could be harmed by such regulations? Coal and oil

If there are, they would have to be huge corporations with lots of money to be able to affect public policy and opinion? Coal and oil

So powerful and so entrenched in the establishment that they could convince governments to go to war for their prime matter! Coal and oil

What kind of business has such interests, such money and power? Coal and oil

NO! It's something more sinister! The sunlight panel industry! It makes sense, too! All cars run on solar panel.

3

daniel wrote

All I'm asking for is reproducable physical science, which of course refutes completely the AGW 'greenhouse gas' hypothesis and hence is never part of the discussion. Quick! More pictures of people sweating! Climate sensitivity to CO2 is nowhere near as high as claimed by AGW proponents, which is why there is no reporducable physical model which results in anything close to the predicted changes. Their models are not mathematically sound or based in objective science. You have been lied to and inculcated into a cult mindset. The amount of CO2 required to change the climate is several orders of magnitude higher than an additional 0.0001 (aka going from ~400 ppm to ~500 ppm), so much so that it is all but impossible to produce through human activity alone.

0

Moltres wrote

all but impossible to produce through human activity alone.

Only you has said that, I haven't said it, no scientist has said that, mofongo even listed lots of things that has affected the climate change we're seeing. You should look back on that.

Only two entities benefit from the belief that only CO^2 emissions cause climate change. The first is the government because they can use as an election platform, make policies that barely do anything and don't affect the bottom line of the oil giants, look as good guys and ultimately prevent any revolt. The second one are oil companies because then they don't have to deal with the other practices, say deforestation, assassination, oil spills, war, etc, etc. Of course, they can lobby down any regulation that they don't like and propose changes that they have already made for profit in disguise of "progress".

2

daniel wrote

There are at least three entities. Plants also benefit from CO2 emissions. 95% of the mass of a tree comes from atmospheric CO2.

0

Moltres wrote

But trees don't use the internet into duping people that climate change isn't real.

1

imanengineer wrote

I'm also old as fuck so you better shut your mouth tHiNkInG fOr YoUrSeLf!1

1

daniel wrote

I agree with literally everything the corporate media and establishment academia approve. I am a revolutionary. I think for myself

Seems legit.

−1

imanengineer wrote

assumes the source of my information without knowing anything else and also ignoring any evidence that doesn't neatly fall into your little sphere.

Seems legit.

1

imanengineer wrote

I'm an engineer and older than you so it's fine that I ignore anything anyone says, but because I'm an engineer and older than you I'm right!

1