Climate change

i don't know where your source come from but i doubt a real climate expert would have made such claim.
People can indeed doubt predictions for future (but given that scientist are actually NOT in power i doubt there will be any change in the current trends) but observed facts are observed facts, unless you think most of scientists over earth have invented the rise in temperature observed, the regression of artic ice caps and mountain ice caps, the already observed migration of species due to temperature, the increase in frequency/intensity of dramatic meteorological/climatic events ect ect. As a biologist you exactly remind me the narrative of creationists, whose more worn argument is to accuse real scientists of faking truth while they are the ones making pseudo science by twisting facts in order to fit the narrative of their book
 

Attachments

  • 15_co2_left_040518.gif
    15_co2_left_040518.gif
    19.5 KB · Views: 25
  • co22tempgraph.jpg
    co22tempgraph.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 27
Zach Smith said:
Global warming is not a scientifically established fact, it is a speculative conclusion based on computer models programmed by government funded ideologues seeking power. Theirs is an untestable hypothesis, I.e., in 100 years the earth's temperature will rise 1 degree Celsius. Complete BS. But give us total power over your life, reduce your standard of living while we jet around the world to conferences where we congratulate ourselves on being superior beings and eat Kobe beef. Amazing that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would fall for this, but I guess our "educational" system has done its job.
Click to expand...

what is your take on added fluoride in our drinking water good sir?

p.s. Even if its a "hoax", polluting less is just a respectable thing to do common sense wise.
 
papymandarin said:
i don't know where your source come from but i doubt a real climate expert would have made such claim.
People can indeed doubt predictions for future (but given that scientist are actually NOT in power i doubt there will be any change in the current trends) but observed facts are observed facts, unless you think most of scientists over earth have invented the rise in temperature observed, the regression of artic ice caps and mountain ice caps, the already observed migration of species due to temperature, the increase in frequency/intensity of dramatic meteorological/climatic events ect ect. As a biologist you exactly remind me the narrative of creationists, whose more worn argument is to accuse real scientists of faking truth while they are the ones making pseudo science by twisting facts in order to fit the narrative of their book
Click to expand...


I am having difficulty understanding the point of your 2nd graph. Maybe as a pseudo creationist I am beyond comprehending graphs.
But in most of those years, where the red line (CO2 output) stays stagnant there is vast fluctuations in baseline temperatures.
Even in years when it is claimed that CO2 PPM is increasing, there are still many years where your baseline temperatures
decrease?:eek:

I have made models of epidemics, sales forecasts etc. that take one point of data to skew the results one way or another...but it does not
make that the truth or what really happens in the real world.:confused:

Perhaps....and just maybe Carbon Dioxide is not correlated or related at all to fluctuations in climate.:mad:
As a sworn advocate of science you should look at other factors that may be causing fluctuations in climate.
The best scientists ask the best questions and seek to understand.

As everyone I agree pollution is bad, and we should seek to be good stewards of the planet.
And since you are all bonsai fanatics go get 10 more trees to suck up the remaining portion
of your individual carbon footprints.;)
 
From what I see the graph on the left shows the spike beginning in and around 1950, the post war years and a huge spike in global industrialization. So the best way to fix this is to take your life off the grid. Use no more fossil fuels, no wood burning, no cooking with natural gas, eat no foods via mechanized farming, nor being trucked or delivered by rail or flown around the world. Use no electricity from fossil fuel sources and only run an electric car. Good luck plugging that bitch into a non fossil fuel electric source. Go back to using candles for light as long as that lasts, cause even that leaves a carbon foot print. Now the first one willing to do that will be a real hero. It would be extra special if it was a save the planet type!!!

Sounds like human progress to me. I thought the doo good liberal types like to be called progressives. Guess that backfired.
 
Unfortunately there's just too many people on our planet. And those people are burning too many fossil fuel. Nothing a windmill or solar panel can change. Less people is less polution.
And no I'm not moving to Jupiter.... for now...
 
Yoppyx said:
what is your take on added fluoride in our drinking water good sir?

p.s. Even if its a "hoax", polluting less is just a respectable thing to do common sense wise.
Click to expand...
Fluoride is toxic and causes immense harm. It has no use in the human body, and is reputed to adversely act on a part of the brain that allows us to resist the control of others (!).

Emitting CO2 to the atmosphere is not polluting, as this molecule is one of a few key building blocks of life. CO2, N2, O2, and H2O are absolutely vital to sustaining life on the planet (bonsai, too!), as they are made into proteins, fats and carbohydrates in living organisms. Green plants convert CO2 to sugars and thence to starches, which is the primary metabolic fuel sustaining all of us. The power-mad, along with their jackass useful idiots, actually want to store vital CO2 underground so it can be of no use to the biosphere! Talk about damaging the environment, which of course they claim to love.
 
Fonz said:
Unfortunately there's just too many people on our planet. And those people are burning too many fossil fuel. Nothing a windmill or solar panel can change. Less people is less polution.
And no I'm not moving to Jupiter.... for now...
Click to expand...
Are you going to take the first step in curing this problem? Or are you not one of the "excess" people?
 
While we're on the topic of excess population, you can fit everyone on the planet in the state of Texas, allowing a generous 1,000 square feet of space apiece. Yes, but what about resources? We've been running out of everything since at least Thomas Malthus's time (1766-1834). We've run out of oil in the U.S. several times in my lifetime, and as I recall it was either Al Gore or Prince Charles or some other climate scientist who said the planet would be uninhabitable by the year 2000. It really sucked when everything burned up back then.
 
I
Zach Smith said:
Fluoride is toxic and causes immense harm. It has no use in the human body, and is reputed to adversely act on a part of the brain that allows us to resist the control of others (!).

Emitting CO2 to the atmosphere is not polluting, as this molecule is one of a few key building blocks of life. CO2, N2, O2, and H2O are absolutely vital to sustaining life on the planet (bonsai, too!), as they are made into proteins, fats and carbohydrates in living organisms. Green plants convert CO2 to sugars and thence to starches, which is the primary metabolic fuel sustaining all of us. The power-mad, along with their jackass useful idiots, actually want to store vital CO2 underground so it can be of no use to the biosphere! Talk about damaging the environment, which of course they claim to love.
Click to expand...

Everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to stopping pollution. We are all consumers. But good sir be a nice lad, maybe dont idle your car, maybe don't eat a steak every night or maybe don't use plastic bags when grocery shopping. Bottom line is wether u believe in climate change or not trying to keep a low impact is a good thing regardless of your political views.
 
Yoppyx said:
I


Everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to stopping pollution. We are all consumers. But good sir be a nice lad, maybe dont idle your car, maybe don't eat a steak every night or maybe don't use plastic bags when grocery shopping. Bottom line is wether u believe in climate change or not trying to keep a low impact is a good thing regardless of your political views.
Click to expand...
For some of us this has more to do with common sense than it does with politics
 
Bananaman said:
For some of us this has more to do with common sense than it does with politics
Click to expand...

with complex things that are not fully understood common sense says its better to be safe than sorry. But what ever man ur locked in ur belief. But do you agree that consuming less is probs a good thing?
 
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

that being said, i never said either that i believe we will be able to do something about it, the reactions of people here clearly show that humans are not ready to leave their comfort to ensure a safe future, CO2 emissions are still increasing while we should already drastically decrease them to hope to limit somewhat the warming. So i'm convinced humans will have to learn the hard way (and i'm quite happy there not to have any descent). And as aways it's those who pollute the less that will suffer the more.
As someone else said, we are simply too numerous (and this topic of global demography control is never adressed in summits about climate which is a shame), we are already consuming in 8 months what earth can produce in a year, and in future we expect a 2-3 billions more people in an environment that will be even more wrecked....but sure there will be no hard consequences...no environments crashes, no desertification, no war over vital ressources , no epidemics....
i'm not a climate specialist, i'm a biologist, so what i know is how environment and trophic chains and organisms work, i just know that when a tumor, virus or any other kind of parasite over exploit its ressouces/host, the host end dying. So far, we only have one host to exploit, earth. i also know history of life on earth and what happened when rapid and important CO2/other warming gases amounts were released in the atmosphere in the past (and actually it happened much more slowly than it is now), it's the main factor that led to several massive extinctions (including the permian one, known as"the great extinction" that eradicated 95% of species).
 
kakejiku said:
The best scientists ask the best questions and seek to understand.
Click to expand...

How true!

The graphs Papymandarin posted are from hundreds of studies by the best scientists all over the world.

Do you understand?

???
 
kakejiku said:
I am having difficulty understanding the point of your 2nd graph. Maybe as a pseudo creationist I am beyond comprehending graphs.
But in most of those years, where the red line (CO2 output) stays stagnant there is vast fluctuations in baseline temperatures.
Even in years when it is claimed that CO2 PPM is increasing, there are still many years where your baseline temperatures
decrease?:eek:

I have made models of epidemics, sales forecasts etc. that take one point of data to skew the results one way or another...but it does not
make that the truth or what really happens in the real world.:confused:

Perhaps....and just maybe Carbon Dioxide is not correlated or related at all to fluctuations in climate.:mad:
As a sworn advocate of science you should look at other factors that may be causing fluctuations in climate.
The best scientists ask the best questions and seek to understand.

As everyone I agree pollution is bad, and we should seek to be good stewards of the planet.
And since you are all bonsai fanatics go get 10 more trees to suck up the remaining portion
of your individual carbon footprints.;)
Click to expand...
You seem to be failing to spot when the graph is showing random fluctuations and when it's showing a clear trend. Also consider that there's a delay between increase in CO2 levels and warming, so you wouldn't expect to see a one to one correlation for each of those small fluctuations. The end of the graph shows a clear trend that's completely different to the previous hundreds of years indicating that something significant has changed.

You're right to say that a correlation doesn't imply causation. This is good science. However, as you can see from my previous post, scientists knew about the effect of increased levels of CO2 as far back as 1912. It's a fact that CO2 levels are increasing due to burning of fossil fuels. It's a fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere creates an insulating effect that causes more heat to be retained (more difficult to prove to you but as I said was known by science more that 100 years ago). It's a fact that global temperatures are changing (easy to measure). So we have a clear correlation and also know the mechanism by which that correlation is happening, so we can confidently infer causation.
 
Yoppyx said:
I


Everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to stopping pollution. We are all consumers. But good sir be a nice lad, maybe dont idle your car, maybe don't eat a steak every night or maybe don't use plastic bags when grocery shopping. Bottom line is wether u believe in climate change or not trying to keep a low impact is a good thing regardless of your political views.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you didn't mean to sound condescending. We are indeed all consumers. Many of us have great advice for everyone around us, as you suggest. Hypocrites are annoying; it's the ones with guns and clubs that we have to watch our for.
 
papymandarin said:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

that being said, i never said either that i believe we will be able to do something about it, the reactions of people here clearly show that humans are not ready to leave their comfort to ensure a safe future, CO2 emissions are still increasing while we should already drastically decrease them to hope to limit somewhat the warming. So i'm convinced humans will have to learn the hard way (and i'm quite happy there not to have any descent). And as aways it's those who pollute the less that will suffer the more.
As someone else said, we are simply too numerous (and this topic of global demography control is never adressed in summits about climate which is a shame), we are already consuming in 8 months what earth can produce in a year, and in future we expect a 2-3 billions more people in an environment that will be even more wrecked....but sure there will be no hard consequences...no environments crashes, no desertification, no war over vital ressources , no epidemics....
i'm not a climate specialist, i'm a biologist, so what i know is how environment and trophic chains and organisms work, i just know that when a tumor, virus or any other kind of parasite over exploit its ressouces/host, the host end dying. So far, we only have one host to exploit, earth. i also know history of life on earth and what happened when rapid and important CO2/other warming gases amounts were released in the atmosphere in the past (and actually it happened much more slowly than it is now), it's the main factor that led to several massive extinctions (including the permian one, known as"the great extinction" that eradicated 95% of species).
Click to expand...
Mother nature will eventually restore balance, one way or another. It may be through global warming, or it may be a new virus that we have no defense against, or perhaps another big meteorite or comet impact. It's just sad that we seem to be doing everything possible to hasten our own demise.
 
This is the last time I will waste on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Science gets it wrong sometimes...And when I worked in a Biotech company the engineers and
biologists held the opinion that climatologists were skewing the data especially in regards to
carbon dioxide...Hell I even read an article in a science journal that this Hockey Stick phenomenon was the result
of the research team specifically leaving out ice core samples from certain time periods. When the science
team was asked why they left out that data...because it would have lessened the effect of the Hockey Stick...

I have read some things that says the program called HAARP is what is causing the climate
to change so drastically...If that were true Carbon Dioxide is a great Red Herring don't you think.

As for me, I ride my bike when feasible, do not turn on my AC or heater during Spring and Autumn,
and probably consume way less than most of you who claim and are so adamant, I (and US citizens in general)
am the cause of destroying the environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom