Scientists discover evidence for past high-level sea rise

Scientists discover evidence for past high-level sea rise
A closeup of the bulbous stalactitic feature of a phreatic overgrowth on speleothems (POS). Credit: University of New Mexico

An international team of scientists, studying evidence preserved in speleothems in a coastal cave, illustrate that more than three million years ago—a time in which the Earth was two to three degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial era—sea level was as much as 16 meters higher than the present day. Their findings represent significant implications for understanding and predicting the pace of current-day sea level rise amid a warming climate.

The scientists, including Professor Yemane Asmerom and Sr. Research Scientist Victor Polyak from The University of New Mexico, the University of South Florida, Universitat de les Illes Balears and Columbia University, published their findings in today's edition of the journal Nature. The analysis of deposits from Artà Cave on the island of Mallorca in the western Mediterranean Sea produced sea levels that serve as a target for future studies of ice sheet stability, ice sheet model calibrations and projections of future rise, the scientists said.

Sea level rises as a result of melting ice sheets, such as those that cover Greenland and Antarctica. However, how much and how fast sea level will rise during warming is a question scientists have worked to answer. Reconstructing ice sheet and sea-level changes during past periods when climate was naturally warmer than today, provides an Earth's scale laboratory experiment to study this question according to USF Ph.D. student Oana Dumitru, the lead author, who did much of her dating work at UNM under the guidance of Asmerom and Polyak.

"Constraining models for sea level rise due to increased warming critically depends on actual measurements of past sea level," said Polyak. "This study provides very robust measurements of sea level heights during the Pliocene."

"We can use knowledge gained from past warm periods to tune ice sheet models that are then used to predict future response to current global warming," said USF Department of Geosciences Professor Bogdan Onac.

The project focused on cave deposits known as phreatic overgrowths on speleothems. The deposits form in coastal caves at the interface between brackish water and cave air each time the ancient caves were flooded by rising sea levels. In Artà Cave, which is located within 100 meters of the coast, the water table is—and was in the past—coincident with sea level, says Professor Joan J. Fornós of Universitat de les Illes Balears.

The scientists discovered, analyzed, and interpreted six of the geologic formations found at elevations of 22.5 to 32 meters above present sea level. Careful sampling and laboratory analyses of 70 samples resulted in ages ranging from 4.4 to 3.3 million years old BP (Before Present), indicating that the cave deposits formed during the Pliocene epoch. The ages were determined using uranium-lead radiometric dating in UNM's Radiogenic Isotope Laboratory.

"This was a unique convergence between an ideally-suited natural setting worked out by the team of scientists and the technical developments we have achieved over the years in our lab at The University of New Mexico," said Asmerom. "Judicious investments in instrumentation and techniques result in these kinds of high-impact dividends."

"Sea level changes at Artà Cave can be caused by the melting and growing of ice sheets or by uplift or subsidence of the island itself," said Columbia University Assistant Professor Jacky Austermann, a member of the research team. She used numerical and statistical models to carefully analyze how much uplift or subsidence might have happened since the Pliocene and subtracted this from the elevation of the formations they investigated.

One key interval of particular interest during the Pliocene is the mid Piacenzian Warm Period—some 3.264 to 3.025 million years ago—when temperatures were 2 to 3º Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels. "The interval also marks the last time the Earth's atmospheric CO2 was as high as today, providing important clues about what the future holds in the face of current anthropogenic warming," Onac says.

This study found that during this period, global mean sea level was as high as 16.2 meters (with an uncertainty range of 5.6 to 19.2 meters) above present. This means that even if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes around current levels, the global mean sea level would still likely rise at least that high, if not higher, the scientists concluded. In fact, it is likely to rise higher because of the increase in the volume of the oceans due to rising temperature.

"Considering the present-day melt patterns, this extent of sea level rise would most likely be caused by a collapse of both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets," Dumitru said.

The authors also measured sea level at 23.5 meters higher than present about four million years ago during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, when global mean temperatures were up to 4°C higher than pre-industrial levels. "This is a possible scenario, if active and aggressive reduction in green house gases into the atmosphere is not undertaken", Asmerom said.


Explore further

Scientists find stable sea levels during last interglacial

More information: Constraints on global mean sea level during Pliocene warmth, Nature (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1543-2 , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1543-2
Journal information: Nature

Citation: Scientists discover evidence for past high-level sea rise (2019, August 30) retrieved 15 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-evidence-high-level-sea.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
3227 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 30, 2019
"The authors also measured sea level at 23.5 meters higher than present about four million years ago during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, when global mean temperatures were up to 4°C higher than pre-industrial levels."

Another inconvenient truth for the climate alarmists. What caused the temperature rise then? Aliens living on earth and generating green house gasses? Man can adapt to a changing climate, and it doesn't require government taking control of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Aug 30, 2019
deer forfeeblemining
guess you're the next sap up to the plate?
head up! here comes the pitch...

lets do a little thought experiment
pretend we are standing at a beach on a day the incoming waves are immoderate

as you approach the water?
a wave knocks you down
the undertow drags you out
into deeper water
as big waves crash down on your hapless body

before a random wave contemptuously spits you
back onto the shore

would you agree that this is a perfectly natural phenomena?
repeated thousands of times a day around the world

look out!
here comes a fast ball
with a bit of attitude on it to shave you back

as you crawl away from the water's edge trying to get to your feet?

i step up swinging my surfboard with violent intent
sending you flying back into the ocean

when again you try to crawl back to land?
i gleefully jump onto your quivering body
smash your face into the froth & sand

not a natural event?
rather a man-made addition to natural event?

bet you still blame the waves


Aug 30, 2019
Well, this will certainly get a "rise" out of the ignorant Chicken Littles.

It is estimated that as the Mediterranean flooded, water gushed in at 100 million cubic metres per second, about a thousand times the largest river on Earth today. So, it just couldn't be that this surge, engulfed those caves, just long enough, for these eager AGW Cult idiots...er...excuse me..."scientists" to come along and "discover" sea levels were 16 meters higher.

Aug 30, 2019
"The authors also measured sea level at 23.5 meters higher than present about four million years ago during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, when global mean temperatures were up to 4°C higher than pre-industrial levels."

Another inconvenient truth for the climate alarmists.


People who are alarmed about the crisis of madness, corruption, and wanton psychopathy that has wrongfully seized and occupied our liberal democratic system, sewn such endlessly worthless cognitive dissonance, and subverted shields to swords snuffing out life on this planet via the sixth mass extinction and through anthropogenic climate change that wrongfully denies humanity and nature the right to exist and prosper -- these people are awake and responding correctly. The rape of planet by psychopaths must be stopped, and psychopaths and their apologists alike must be punished witheringly as a warning to posterity that their deplorable brand of sickness will never again be welcome in civilization.

Aug 30, 2019
Another inconvenient truth for the climate alarmists. What caused the temperature rise then?


climate inputs are multi-variant, no one has suggests otherwise.

Worried?

Plant trees
Paint all artificial sky facing surfaces a reflective color.
Instruct your political and social betters to stop fly chartered jets.

Aug 30, 2019
@ForFreeMinds.
"The authors also measured sea level at 23.5 meters higher than present about four million years ago during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, when global mean temperatures were up to 4°C higher than pre-industrial levels."

Another inconvenient truth for the climate alarmists. What caused the temperature rise then? Aliens living on earth and generating green house gasses? Man can adapt to a changing climate, and it doesn't require government taking control of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Natural events cause fluctuations in CO2 levels as well as Methane levels in atmosphere. That is not the problem NOW. The CO2-inputs to atmosphere now are due to burning fossil fuels; this is human activity, not natural. And the suddenness of this CO2 increase/warming is not like the gradual natural variations in the past. It is this un-naturally sudden/man-caused increase in CO2 and warming that is costing us dearly because we cannot adapt quickly enough. Ok? :)

Aug 30, 2019
high as 16.2 meters '' (with an uncertainty range of 5.6 to 19.2 meters) '' above present.

we will publish anyway , makes a good alarmist news

Aug 30, 2019
@RealityCheck

You realize that a lot of scientists consider humans as part of the Earth's ecology right? We're not separate from it, we're as legit a reason for global change as a microbe or a volcano. Microbial life produced all of the oxygen that we use to survive, they altered the planet immensely themselves. In fact, many times have particular species had enormous impacts on the planet's ecological position, so to place humans in a separate bracket it inaccurate I believe. We're a species, we have a wide-ranging impact, and we'll either adapt or go extinct. I believe we have the ability to control, to some extent, out environs but really, you're placing too much faith in humanity if you think the large majority of us even care. Plus, rapid CO2 increases have happened before, and the planet has definitely been hotter in recent geological history so I think people are being alarmists.

Aug 30, 2019
@QuestionableDuck.

I appreciate your measured tone, mate. Should be more of that on science sites. :)

Now to your points, respectively...

We are a species unlike any other in Earth's history/environment because we have INDUSTRIALISED processes; and THINKING and PROJECTING capabilities that allow us to predict and/or modify both our individual/collective social behaviour as well as our individual/collective industrialised activities. Acknowledging and studying such human behaviour/activity via the SCIENTIFIC METHOD allows us to be aware of consequences. No other 'natural' species on earth has that 'tool' at its disposal in order to FORESTALL possible catastrophe/extinction. You're quite correct that many humans are not fully appraised of the dangers facing us. Objective science/communication is our best hope to change awareness levels, especially in the face of Russian/GOP/Fossil/Nuclear vested interest lies/obfuscations to delay action for motives of power/profit. We care. :)

Aug 30, 2019
ps @QuestionableDuck.

Responding to your further points:
Plus, rapid CO2 increases have happened before, and the planet has definitely been hotter in recent geological history so I think people are being alarmists.
Yes, and the consequences to the species at those times was catastrophic, needing a long time to adapt/recover from. Moreover, those times did NOT have modern HUMANS, nor in the population numbers of today. So while the natural variations/swings do occur (as I have always acknowledged) it behoves us not to lose perspective that THIS TIME it's man-made, too sudden to adapt/absorb costs and/or to 'relocate somewhere else' (since now Earth's humanity is already occupying much of the sustainable/productive lands which will be adversely affected by the transition instabilities in current temps/patterns in oceans and atmosphere. Being sanguine because nature has changed things in the past is a recipe for extinction of humanity that did not exist then. We do care. :)


Aug 30, 2019
@shootist

"Plant trees
Paint all artificial sky facing surfaces a reflective color.
Instruct your political and social betters to stop fly chartered jets."

You don't need that third one, you need "use technology to eradicate waste in industry, transport and home." Things like smart stoplights that direct vehicle speed and smart highways -faster greener transport through minimizing action - home insulation guidance etc., and you've got a set of things that will make voters happy, get them around faster, and save them money. Also fights climate change. No reason for Republicans to not be moving these forward and doing some good.

Aug 30, 2019
But, humans have caused the rise in earth's temperature, this is a fact based on solid observations. The sea level will rise this time too. I do not deny that the temperature cannot rise without human influence. Anything can happen in the nature, human don't fully understand its mechanism yet.

There have been FIVE mass extinction events in the earth's history when more than 90% species vanished, but life is still thriving on the earth.

It is not about adaptation to the prevailing environment, it is about why humans are contributing to it when they can choose not to do it.

Aug 30, 2019
Stop burning coal. That comes first.

Aug 30, 2019
alarmists
Standard climate troll rhetoric blocked on sight. Bye now.

Aug 31, 2019
The current increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely faster than at any time in the history of the planet.

It is more than 100 times faster than any natural increase in the last 450,000 years, and that is probably true for the last 800,000 years, according to ice core data.

Humans increased CO2 by over 80ppm in 58 years

Humans increased CO2 by 130ppm in 138 years
------

Nature caused CO2 increases over the last 450,000 years, from ice core data

80ppm increase -- took 50,000 years
110ppm increase -- 25,000 years
120ppm increase --- 20,000 years
60ppm increase --- 20,000 years
90ppm increase --- 15,000 years
100ppm increase --- 24,800 years

The numbers for 800,000 years would be similar, based on a graph going back that far.


Aug 31, 2019
The world is warming much faster than when it came out of the last glacial period, at least 10 times faster.
It took 11,000 years to warm by 5 C. That averages 2,200 years for each 1 C warming.
Global average temperature has increased by 1 C in the last 138 years. Do the simple arithmetic. I got 16 times faster now.
----------
This is by no means the first study to find 2-3 warmer temperatures and many meters of sea level rise during the Pliocene.
-----------
"The last time carbon dioxide levels reached 400 ppm was 3-5 million years ago, in the mid-Pliocene era.
During that period, global mean surface temperatures were 2–3°C warmer than today, ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica melted and even parts of East Antarctica's ice retreated, causing the sea level to rise 10–20 m higher than that today," the WMO bulletin said."

https://www.scien...in-2016/

-------------------------

Aug 31, 2019
high as 16.2 meters '' (with an uncertainty range of 5.6 to 19.2 meters) '' above present.

we will publish anyway , makes a good alarmist news

--------------
If I'm not mistaken, those uncertainties are probably just what lies outside of 95% certainty - what is by common usage considered statistical significance. It there wasn't some statistical significance the paper would most likely not have been published
Would have to read the actual research paper to know for sure.

At any rate, it is much more honest than the never ending twisting of facts into denier lies, that is so so common

Aug 31, 2019
QuestIonable Duck
"Microbial life produced all of the oxygen that we use to survive, they altered the planet immensely themselves"

But those microbes did not consciously KNOW that they were altering the planets atmospheric chemistry. We do

Aug 31, 2019
another reference to earlier study of Pliocene climate

"f global warming continues unchecked, Earth in 2030 could resemble its former self from 3 million years ago, according to a study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds.
During that ancient time, known as the mid-Pliocene epoch, temperatures were higher by about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) and sea levels were higher by roughly 20 meters (almost 66 feet) than today, explained Kevin D. Burke, lead author of the study and a researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison."

https://www.cnn.c...dex.html

Aug 31, 2019
At the rate we are going we are going to have to seriously consider the geoengineering options. In fact we should already be conducting serious experiments. Thanks to all the idiot denialists out there it is too late to rely on emissions reductions alone.

Aug 31, 2019
I live on a strong sandstone ridge above a 'soft' coast with significant tides. That coast is already subject to significant, historic storm erosion. Even a metre sea-level rise would destroy the meta-stable beach, dunes, salt-marsh etc, swallow the coast road, inundate unto the modest levees some distance inland, one being a railway embankment. Two metres would re-write the map, storms, salination and changing water table changing much residential, commercial and agricultural land to a w-i-d-e, almost estuarine expanse of salt-marsh. Beyond the rail line, there's the inland road. It's a 'national route' worth defending, convenient for building a dyke. Beyond that, the formerly marshy coastal plain is really, really flat for a dozen miles, bar a few places with Medieval 'dry-foot' names...

Happens I'm 'High & Dry' to thirty metres rise, but I'd rather not trade my neighbours for a sea view...

Aug 31, 2019
Happens I'm 'High & Dry' to thirty metres rise, but I'd rather not trade my neighbours for a sea view...


you and everyone you know will be dead dead dead long before any of this happens to a sea shore near you.

Aug 31, 2019
alarmists
Standard climate troll rhetoric blocked on sight. Bye now.''

so nothing to be alarmed about , thats good


Aug 31, 2019
Ouch. That is a factor 10 higher than early estimates of what we are doing to the planet.

And, still surprising, the US politics of denying this is a problem trolls the thread, not a question nor an attempt to serious discussion in there.

inconvenient ... for the climate alarmists


If not the observation that global warming is 1+ degC compared to pre-industrial levels and that 2-3 deg C gives 20 m increased sea level is cause for "alarm" ... But it isn't alarmist, it is an observation.

I skip the discussion of man made global warming, that is now a secure observation too [ https://en.wikipe..._warming ] - and had nothing to do with the science we should discuss.

- tbctd -

Aug 31, 2019
- ctd -
you're placing too much faith in humanity if you think the large majority of us even care


Except we have observed that too, the Paris Agreement representing all nations was unanimous at the time - end even the renegate US has its majority accepting the facts and caring according to statistics.

As for the ludicruous fact denialism that ends that comment, I discussed that above.

Come on anti-scientists, make a serious comment critiquing the actual science. I can come up with one obvious problem: this was one cave, and the island is the result of a fault region between two meeting plates just a few million years earlier [ https://www.earth...et-stone ; I'm sure there is more in the paper].

But the ocean is global (with some continents in it), so if they can find another cave like it we can trust the result was not a one off. For now, I accept it - it *is* worrying!

Aug 31, 2019
"sea level was as much as 16 meters higher than the present day."

Or the land was 16 meters lower?

Aug 31, 2019
But it isn't alarmist, it is an observation.

it *is* worrying!

given alarm = worry , u sound like potholer54


Aug 31, 2019
more than three million years ago—a time in which the Earth was two to three degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial era...

...a time in which thermometers were everywhere to measure the temperature...

Aug 31, 2019
@Shootist.
Happens I'm 'High & Dry' to thirty metres rise, but I'd rather not trade my neighbours for a sea view...


you and everyone you know will be dead dead dead long before any of this happens to a sea shore near you.
You disappoint me, mate; I thought you were better than that. Or didn't you realise that what you said comes across as selfish and insensible to the actual dangers faced by all humanity in one way or another sooner or later depending on where one lives/works and on what environmental resources/amenities they depend on which will be increasingly adversely affected long before the final 'new normal' climate system establishes. If you were just trying for levity, please realise that this evolving climate crisis is too serious and immediate a problem to be the subject of smart-aleck levity. Try instead to be constructive and serious, like an intelligent objective sensible human being cognisant of evolving dangers should be. Ok? Good luck to us all. :)

Aug 31, 2019
@aksdad.
more than three million years ago—a time in which the Earth was two to three degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial era...

...a time in which thermometers were everywhere to measure the temperature...
Your flippancy betrays your ignorance of the fact that geochemistry, plant-growth conditions and tree-rings/species etc etc are indicators of temps/water levels/seasons and interconnectedness within the local ecosystem in which the studied factors were present. You obviously have no clue about anything worth knowing about the climate science or the geochemistry or biology etc etc clues which have been accessed by drill-coring and studying of fossils of all kinds. Please do humanity a favour and just deny yourself into oblivion while scientists and the rest of intelligent/informed humanity get on with studying/facing the imminent threat which AGW represents. You and your paymasters are an insult to intelligence and a blight on humanity, @aksdad. Pity.

Aug 31, 2019
@RealityCheck

We're not separate from it, we're as legit a reason for global change as a microbe or a volcano.


Since you mention volcanoes, which is more likely this century: Global warming increases temperatures by 2º C, or a volcano or volcanoes result in global cooling by 2º C?

Sort of a trick question, Not all VEI 6 volcanic eruptions are enough to reduce global temperatures by 2º Celsius, but the larger ones are. On average there are several VEI 6 eruptions per century, and "the pause" in global warming (at least according to the climatistas it was just a pause) was due to the VEI 6 eruption of Mt Pinatubo. Are there larger explosive eruptions? Sure. The eruption of Mt Tambora in 1815 was known as the year without a summer (in 1816) or 1800 and froze to death. I disagree with whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry. I think that it takes a large VEI 5 or greater to put ash in the stratosphere. Anyway, the VEI 7 Tambora eruption caused a global famine.

Sep 01, 2019
"...four million years ago during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, when global mean temperatures were up to 4°C higher than pre-industrial levels."

What caused the temperature rise then?
ForFreeMinds

Irrelevant. No one denies that climate change can be natural and no one was burning vast amounts of coal back then so everyone presumes it was natural back then. That doesn't imply the current climate change must all be natural.

Man can adapt to a changing climate,
Right, but when that change is itself man made then it might be easier and less harmful to us to adapt by reducing the amount of change we cause and thus be forcing ourselves to adapt to. This would be a very sensible option to consider. So what's your point?

Sep 01, 2019
"The authors also measured sea level at 23.5 meters higher than present about four million years ago during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, when global mean temperatures were up to 4°C higher than pre-industrial levels."

Another inconvenient truth for the climate alarmists. What caused the temperature rise then? Aliens living on earth and generating green house gasses? Man can adapt to a changing climate, and it doesn't require government taking control of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.


It is difficult to overemphasize the willful ignorance of this statement. You see evidence of sea levels rising 15 to 25 meters, matched to elevated atmospheric CO2, yet you shrug it off as no big deal. You acknowledge that the rise was due to increased atmospheric CO2, yet you ignore that those levels are here, now, and that current trends point to far greater increases in CO2.

Well over half the world's population lives near sea level. Your kids will war for living space.

Sep 01, 2019
You see evidence of sea levels rising 15 to 25 meters, matched to elevated atmospheric CO2, yet you shrug it off as no big deal


Correlation does not equal causation.

The scientists in question made huge assumptions based on little evidence (findings from ONE cave) about what global sea levels and climate conditions were like three million years ago, comparing them with those today, and then jumping to utterly baseless conclusions that pin all the blame on CO2.

The scientists don't stop to consider the possibility that sea levels could be higher, but CO2 NOT be to blame for it. Their minds, it seems, were already made up long before they even decided to go out to this cave. They never stop to think "maybe it's something else we haven't considered".

Where's the objectivity? Where's the scientific rigour? Where's the scepticism?

Sep 01, 2019
"The interval (3.264 to 3.025 million years ago, when temperatures were 2 to 3º Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels) also marks the last time the Earth's atmospheric CO2 was as high as today, providing important clues about what the future holds in the face of current anthropogenic warming"
- University of South Florida geoscience professor Bogdan Onac.

No it doesn't. Again, I'll say it: Correlation does NOT equal causation. All one can draw from the findings is that Earth, 3 million years ago, MAY have had higher global sea levels. One cannot conclude (other than by PURE speculation) that CO2 was the primary factor behind those higher sea levels. Furthermore, one cannot conclude (again, other than by PURE speculation) that Earth 3 million years ago was identical in all relevant characteristics to Earth today.

Sep 01, 2019
@Kordane.
Correlation does NOT equal causation. All one can draw from the findings is that Earth, 3 million years ago, MAY have had higher global sea levels. One cannot conclude (other than by PURE speculation) that CO2 was the primary factor behind those higher sea levels. Furthermore, one cannot conclude (again, other than by PURE speculation) that Earth 3 million years ago was identical in all relevant characteristics to Earth today.
It's not as simplistic as you make out, mate. It's a complex feedback system we are talking about. CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases that contribute to and trigger other feedbacks. If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that more of it in atmosphere retards heat loss to space more than when less of it is in atmosphere, then you must also realise that the warmer temps will cause melting/shifting of ice reservoirs to contribute to sea levels. Experimental causation/correlation was there to see long before it all became politicised. Ok? :)

Sep 01, 2019
@RealityCheck

I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming, because I just haven't seen any direct cause & effect.

What I do see is people assuming that correlation equals causation; that if CO2 is increasing and something else increases too (eg. global temperatures), therefore CO2 must be to blame for it.

You can see this in the article here, where higher sea levels 3 million years ago are automatically blamed on CO2. Why? BECAUSE CO2 BAD!!!

NO consideration is given to the possibility that other factors may be to blame. Literally anything "bad" that happens with the weather or climate is automatically blamed on CO2. It honestly reminds me of the mindless "orange man bad" mentality that some people have.

Sep 01, 2019
@Kordane.
I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming, because I just haven't seen any direct cause & effect.
You're effectively admitting to being totally unaware of the many scientific studies with varying atmosphere CO2 concentrations in controlled experiments done by many and varied researchers. That is quite alarming in itself, mate! For the sake of your own reputation/future survival you urgently need to read/study properly the relevant body of science/literature to avoid making any more such ill-informed opinions/assertions on the matter.
Literally anything "bad" that happens with the weather or climate is automatically blamed on CO2.
That is a patently ignorant and biased assertion based on your own biased/ill-informed stance on the matter, mate. The reality is what it is; and the reporting of it is what it is; with the most obvious climate change correlated events/trends reported as such; and not just "anything bad that happens".

Wake up, mate. :)

Sep 01, 2019
@RealityCheck

I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming, because I just haven't seen any direct cause & effect.

What I do see is people assuming that correlation equals causation; that if CO2 is increasing and something else increases too (eg. global temperatures), therefore CO2 must be to blame for it.

You can see this in the article here, where higher sea levels 3 million years ago are automatically blamed on CO2. Why? BECAUSE CO2 BAD!!!

NO consideration is given to the possibility that other factors may be to blame. Literally anything "bad" that happens with the weather or climate is automatically blamed on CO2.
......planet Venus' atmosphere is 95% CO2, is that enough for you? Planet Mars is also 95% CO2, oops, cold place.

Well what the hell, let's just say Mars offsets Venus & that's just a co-incidental wash, so just deal with Earth. So, what with planet Earth's CO2 content at 0.04%, that is what is called teetering on "causation"? 95%-0.04%=94.96

Sep 01, 2019
@Benni.
planet Venus' atmosphere is 95% CO2, is that enough for you? Planet Mars is also 95% CO2, oops, cold place. Well what the hell, let's just say Mars offsets Venus & that's just a co-incidental wash, so just deal with Earth. So, what with planet Earth's CO2 content at 0.04%, that is what is called teetering on "causation"? 95%-0.04%=94.96
Being facetious like that leads you into simplistic error and rightly deserved ridicule from your usual detractors, mate. I long ago explained that the atmosphere determines the net-net heat-budget 'balance' of whatever the INPUTS are; includes external insolation as well as internal heat inputs. I even gave an example: Mercury planet has no atmosphere, yet despite baking in the ferocious insolation so close to the sun, its NIGHTSIDE drops to CRYOGENIC temps! See? It's the combination of all the factors that determines the situation. And we know that ONE factor (CO2 in atmosphere) has its proportionate effect. It's NOT a game, mate!

Sep 01, 2019
You see evidence of sea levels rising 15 to 25 meters, matched to elevated atmospheric CO2, yet you shrug it off as no big deal


Correlation does not equal causation.

The scientists in question made huge assumptions based on little evidence (findings from ONE cave) about what global sea levels and climate conditions were like three million years ago, comparing them with those today, and then jumping to utterly baseless conclusions that pin all the blame on CO2.

The scientists don't stop to consider the possibility that sea levels could be higher, but CO2 NOT be to blame for it. Their minds, it seems, were already made up long before they even decided to go out to this cave. They never stop to think "maybe it's something else we haven't considered".

Where's the objectivity? Where's the scientific rigour? Where's the scepticism?
says Kordane

Of course their minds were already made up. It's the old "Publish or Perish" syndrome that motivates best.

Sep 01, 2019
Here is a little test to see if water level rise is true or false. Ocean level rise is said to be ___feet at present. Record that measurement at the same spot for several years. At the same time, go to an inland lake or pond and measure the depth of the lake or pond from its bottom to the surface of the water and record that. Then the following year around the same time go back to the same lake or pond and do the same measurements again and record that. It has to be a secluded lake or pond with no water going into or out of it, except for rain which can be measured. Do the same at a given spot in the ocean
After a few years, compare the depth of the water in the lake or pond. allowing for the measured rainfall/snow, and compare the depth from the bottom to the surface of the lake or pond to the rise in the depth of an ocean from the ocean bottom to its surface which you have been measuring and recording for several years. See if there is any difference in the lake and the ocean.

Sep 01, 2019
Of course, the ocean is going to be deeper than the lake or pond, so that it is important to have the precise measurement on both to see if there has been a rise in the depth of either one after several years.

Sep 02, 2019
Measuring Water Level

The hype is on this straight and level
SEU> Of course, the ocean is going to be deeper than the lake or pond, so that it is important to have the precise measurement on both to see if there has been a rise in the depth of either one after several years.

When is rising water levels, falling land levels
When is falling water levels, rising land levels
Foreth
When is rising sea levels, in rising land levels, apparently quasi-neutral
For this earth has a 4000 mile radius where water sinks into these depths
Every time a volcano rises, from this earthly sea bed, this water level rises
This varies, depending on this time of day, in this solar lunar cycle

The moral of this fishy watery tale
Water lapping at your ankles
Could simply be, this Moonchine, playing lunar tricks

Sep 02, 2019
Kordane
I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming, because I just haven't seen any direct cause & effect
Because you have not read any science. Here - just one quick primer - https://skeptical...fect.htm

Any how - here is a quick temperature graph - presented to us by the scientists studying the climate - https://simple.wi...ison.png

As with good science - if you want to refute the current understanding of the cause a specific observation - perhaps you could provide an alternative hypothesis - with the data and reasoning to support that hypothesis.

Sep 02, 2019
Kordane I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming, because I just haven't seen any direct cause & effect Because you have not read any science. Here - just one quick primer - https://skeptical...fect.htm

As with good science - if you want to refute the current understanding of the cause a specific observation - perhaps you could provide an alternative hypothesis - with the data and reasoning to support that hypothesis.
......and you are clueless with regard to figuring out WHAT IS CAUSATION.

Mars & Venus are 95% CO2, Earth is 0.04% atmospheric content but YOUR phony chemistry claims to know that 0.04% is teetering on the edge of runaway greenhouse effect.

OK, mister wizard of smarts, if all the CO2 on planet Earth were formed into a band to encircle the planet one foot above the surface, how thick of a blanket would that make? Here, I'll save you the suspense of searching for it: 1/10".


Sep 02, 2019
Benni - you're off your meds again. Just because C02 is only a small percentage of our atmosphere - does not mean it can't affect the atmosphere. Shit that is very basic science.
https://www.scien...makes-u/

Hey - the ball is in your court - Mr. wizard of nothing - give us a credible science site that says that a tiny percentage of a substance - cannot cause a large change in another substance...

Sep 02, 2019
@RealityCheck
You're effectively admitting to being totally unaware of the many scientific studies with varying atmosphere CO2 concentrations in controlled experiments done by many and varied researchers


- A controlled experiment in a laboratory is not the same thing as the planet Earth and its cosmic environment. Simply put: It's a case of apples and oranges.

The reality is what it is; and the reporting of it is what it is; with the most obvious climate change correlated events/trends reported as such; and not just "anything bad that happens"


Yes, reality is what it is, but the reporting of it is frequently non-objective, because just as we see with professor Bogdan Onac, he took the opportunity to engage in biased speculation about CO2 being the cause of higher sea levels 3M years ago. Objectively speaking, he doesn't know that for a fact (he wasn't there, for starters), since other (unknown) factors may be to blame, and so he is just guessing!

Sep 02, 2019
@RealityCheck

I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming
Kordane

Then you don't know the first thing about basic physics.

Sep 02, 2019
Kordane
A controlled experiment in a laboratory is not the same thing as the planet Earth and its cosmic environment
Very true - but you exhibit a child like mis-understanding of how we conduct science on something as complex as our earth. So - here is the data - https://en.wikipe...ison.png

So we see the temperature spike of the past 130 years. We have to hypothesize about possible causes for that spike. We look for possible candidates. Could be increased solar radiation. Maybe Milankovich cycles. Could be changes in atmospheric content. Do you have any other possibilities?

Then we proceed to develop techniques for validating or eliminating those candidates. No we can't build a solar system - and tweak variables. But we can build models, and we can do things like measure solar radiation.

The scientists who specialize in all this stuff - tell us that with a high degree (cont.

Sep 02, 2019
cont. of certainty - the candidate they have been able to validate - is increased levels of green house gases in our atmosphere. They have ruled out increased solar radiation, sun spots, milankovich cycles etc. But hey - if you believe you have an alternative hypothesis - that can withstand the rigors of scientific scrutiny - please present your paper - and get it published. We await your giving us a link.

Sep 02, 2019
@humy
Then you don't know the first thing about basic physics


No, I'm just being objective and sceptical about the claim, and rightly so, because the claim is NOT absolute truth, contrary to many of its fanatical advocates; it is merely a THEORY, and I shall take the time to remind you that theories CAN indeed be wrong, particularly if they haven't taken ALL factors into account.

There are such things as "unknown unknowns"; things that you don't know that you don't know. Nobody can be certain they've considered every possible factor into their theory, because nobody is omniscient and nobody understands exactly how the universe works.

People who are objective and sceptical in science should be praised, not condemned and insulted. The proper approach in science is to be objective and sceptical; always expecting a better answer; never to say "we KNOW the absolute truth", like some religious zealot.

Shame on you for not learning this.

Sep 02, 2019
@greenonions1

So we see the temperature spike of the past 130 years. We have to hypothesize about possible causes for that spike. We look for possible candidates. Could be increased solar radiation. Maybe Milankovich cycles. Could be changes in atmospheric content. Do you have any other possibilities? Then we proceed to develop techniques for validating or eliminating those candidates. No we can't build a solar system - and tweak variables. But we can build models, and we can do things like measure solar radiation


My issue of contention is not with the method of elimination you laid forth, but is with the religious zealots out there (like professor Bogdan Onac & others on this site) who claim to KNOW, as a matter of absolute truth, that CO2 is the leading driver of climate change. As I said to humy above, there may very well be unknown unknowns; things that you don't know that you don't know. It's sheer arrogance to claim otherwise. I just want some objectivity & scepticism.

Sep 02, 2019
@greenonions1

There is a competing theory, which I'm currently waiting for further research into, about the climate changing primarily as a result of a lack of cosmic radiation, since without that radiation, fewer low clouds will be seeded (cloud condensation nuclei) by that radiation, and so less sunlight will be reflected back into space, thus resulting in more warming. If you've never considered such a possibility (ie. it's an unknown unknown), then it could very well be that the dominant theory (CO2 did it all) is wrong, and that the heating ascribed to CO2 is actually the result of the lack of cosmic radiation and the consequences thereof. I've asked for a rebuttal of the theory on this site before, but nobody gave one; they basically just dismissed it because not enough research has been done on it (yet).

However, I don't go around saying this theory is the absolute truth that all must accept. I remain objective and sceptical about it too, and shall always do so.

Sep 02, 2019
Kordane
who claim to KNOW, as a matter of absolute truth, that CO2 is the leading driver of climate change
I don't know who professor Onac is - but you should take that issue up with professor Onac. The problem I have with your post - is that you said this
I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming, because I just haven't seen any direct cause & effect
So you declare that it is NOT green house gases - cuz you personally have NOT seen any cause and effect. I do not say - and neither does the climate community - that there is 100% certainty on the relationship between warming and ghg. However - at this point - the climate community feels that there is a very high degree of certainty regarding the relationship - and if you want to disagree - do your due diligence - and find an alternative. Just saying it is cosmic radiation - without any research to back up your assertion - is dumb.

Sep 02, 2019
Kordane
there may very well be unknown unknowns; things that you don't know that you don't know. It's sheer arrogance to claim otherwise
I don't know any one who says there are not unknown unknowns - about anything. But we can only work with what we do know - can 't we? So the science is pretty clear about what is happening with our climate. No - it is not certain. BUT - if you want to disagree with the current consensus - you better know what you are talking about. Here is a good primer on the certainty/uncertainty issue.
https://www.ucsus...nty.html

Sep 02, 2019
@Kordane.
A controlled experiment in a laboratory is not the same thing as the planet Earth and its cosmic environment. Simply put: It's a case of apples and oranges.
You obviously ARE unaware of all the experiments IN THE FIELD as well as the lab, mate. Not a good start from your end. You seriously need to widen your information base in order to avoid compounding the embarrassment your ill-informed attacks and opinions/assertions are heaping upon your username so far.

As for the reality being reported, we are LIVING IT as we speak, ie: record breaking drought of unprecedented severity/extent/persistence; unprecedented flooding of unprecedented severity etc; unprecedented storms and unseasonal events of particularly destructive nature; and the rest, globally.

Latest reports: increasingly extreme HURRICANES/TYPHOONS (currently "DORIAN" making it an unprecedented FOUR YEARS IN A ROW that Cat-5 Hurricane formed in the Atlantic).

Wake up; go look/learn from reality NOW. :)

Sep 02, 2019
Kordane
I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming, because I just haven't seen any direct cause & effect
Because you have not read any science. Here - just one quick primer - https://skeptical...fect.htm

As with good science - if you want to refute the current understanding of the cause a specific observation - perhaps you could provide an alternative hypothesis - with the data and reasoning to support that hypothesis.
says green onions

One of the things in science that we are all well aware of is "POPULAR CONSENSUS". There, I capitalised the term so that you can't possibly miss it. Popular Consensus comes about when a group of scientists with one idea in mind decide that their own take on any given science project is THE right one, and all other opinions/theories have to be wrong. After all, THEY have made all the graphs, statistics, computations, maps on the advice of their colleagues.

Sep 02, 2019
-contd-
'On the advice of their colleagues' is a crucial motivating factor that can only empower the scientists to continue in their quest for ONLY THEIR THEORY to be upheld and heavily pushed forward, with certain possible enticements to bring future colleagues into the fold so that any and all opposition will be taken by the public as a 'joke' and the opposers laughed at, vilified and referred to as deniers. This occurs mostly in the "Climate Change" and AGW religion, where if one doesn't believe in these doctrines, they are nothing more than heretics, and as heretics must be castigated and removed from the 'polite society' of climate scientists and their aficionados.
Climate scientists are all of one mind - to get the paying public to BELIEVE that the Earth is becoming so warm that humans will have no future and will all die - UNLESS they stop warming themselves in winter and cooling themselves with A/C in the hot summer. No room for comfort anymore.

Sep 02, 2019
-contd-
So, in spite of all the science and technology available to humanity, humans will have no more respite from the cold or the heat, if climate scientists (and their cheering squads) have their way about it.
Oh, woe is us, they shout. That 1/10th of an inch of CO2 in the atmosphere around the world is going to drown our lungs. We must stop the drilling now or we will all perish within 20 years.

And yet, the Al Gores of the Climate Change/AGW religious fundamentalists are STILL flying in their jet-fueled airplanes and driving around in expensive cars with motors filled with FOSSIL FUELS, with smug looks on their faces - thinking to themselves, "ha ha ha, we've got them where we want them. Just LOOK at the rabbits run". Panic city.

Sep 03, 2019
@humy
Then you don't know the first thing about basic physics

No, I'm just being objective and sceptical about the claim,
Kordane

A claim you cannot have a rational opinion on because you don't know the first thing about basic physics.

Sep 03, 2019
TrollianRealityCheck in Armageddon

Kordane:
A controlled laboratory experiment
is not the same thing
as planet Earth
and its cosmic environment

RealityCheck:
You obviously ARE unaware
of all the experiments IN THE FIELD
as well as the lab
mate
Not a good start from your end
You seriously need to
widen your information base
in order to avoid compounding
the embarrassment
your ill-informed attacks
opinions
assertions
are heaping upon your username so far
As for the reality being reported
we are LIVING IT
as we speak
i.e. record breaking drought of unprecedented severity
extent
persistence
unprecedented flooding of unprecedented severity etc
unprecedented storms
and unseasonal events
of particularly destructive nature
and the rest
globally

Latest reports
increasingly extreme HURRICANES
TYPHOONS
currently DORIAN
making it an unprecedented
FOUR YEARS IN A ROW
that Cat-5 Hurricane formed in the Atlantic

Wake up
go look
learn from reality NOW

your bridge beckons, TrollianRealityCheck

Sep 03, 2019
@greenonions1

I do not say - and neither does the climate community - that there is 100% certainty on the relationship between warming and ghg. However - at this point - the climate community feels that there is a very high degree of certainty regarding the relationship


When people go around calling it "settled science", then yes, they are basically saying that they are 100% certain about it. Also, the frequent reference to a "consensus" (which is highly disputable, given that Margaret Zimmerman's survey, which originated the famous "97.4% consensus", was complete bunk) is an argument from intimidation, which I see frequently from AGW advocates in order to compel acceptance. The only "high degree of certainty" they can have is about their data. When it comes to their conclusions about said data, I call BS that they can have a "high degree of certainty" about said conclusions, given the massive complexity of the system, and the high probability of unknown unknowns.

Sep 03, 2019
TrollianRealityCheck in Armageddon through the Looking Glass

Kordane> A controlled experiment in a laboratory is not the same thing as the planet Earth and its cosmic environment. Simply put: It's a case of apples and oranges

RealityCheck:
You obviously ARE unaware
of all the experiments IN THE FIELD
as well as the lab
mate

TrollianRealityCheck, since when has this term "mate" been used as a form of abuse!

concerning experiments
in this field
and in this laboratory

seeing as, TrollianRealityCheck
planet earth
does not, conduct experiments

planet earth
with this assistance
our sun

our sun
warms this water
on planet earth

where
these rising air currants
create hurricanes

which
each year
bring rain and wind over these tropics

fore, TrollianRealityCheck
all this energy
required for your Armageddon

simply
comes
from that yellow orb

that
our
earthly earth, orbits in this sky

Sep 03, 2019
@greenonions1
So the science is pretty clear about what is happening with our climate. No - it is not certain. BUT - if you want to disagree with the current consensus - you better know what you are talking about


The science isn't even "pretty clear"; it's a THEORY, and a highly questionable one at that, particularly because none of the models actually work at accurately predicting heating/cooling over long periods of time. Objectively, I can't say that I "know" what I am talking about with respect to climate change, because NOBODY "knows", since nobody has the omniscience to "know" anything. If you're honest, you'd admit that all one can do is guess (yes, an educated guess or an intelligent guess, but a guess all the same).

What annoys me is the feverish push to deindustrialise the entire world's economy, tyrannise countless people, and waste tens of trillions of dollars on a highly questionable theory/guess which may actually be wrong.

Sep 03, 2019
@RealityCheck

You obviously ARE unaware of all the experiments IN THE FIELD as well as the lab, mate


So what if they took the experiment outdoors - it doesn't change the fact that they're still not replicating Earth's conditions.

As for the reality being reported, we are LIVING IT as we speak, ie: record breaking drought of unprecedented severity/extent/persistence; unprecedented flooding of unprecedented severity etc; unprecedented storms and unseasonal events of particularly destructive nature; and the rest, globally


You cite Dorian as unprecedented, even though stronger storms have happened in the past. Furthermore, we were told that we'd experience a greater frequency of violent weather events (hurricanes), and yet it has been relatively peaceful for many years now; a relative lull in such events.

I live in Britain. Your doom/disaster rhetoric makes me laugh, because it reminds me of the "Project Fear" rhetoric over Brexit; total unhinged fear-mongering.

Sep 03, 2019
Armageddon through the Looking Glass
Kordane> When people go around calling it "settled science", then yes, they are basically saying that they are 100% certain about it

When people go around
calling it
settled science
then yes
they are basically saying
that they are 100% certain about it

fore a science
that is done
and dusted
a science
where all this energy
this energy
that our planet
planet earth requires
to energise
all these biological processes of life
that inhabits planet earth
our sun
this giver of life
this power source in this vacuum
this vacuum
that our earthly earth exists
as it orbits our sun

for all these solar detractors
when our sun shuffles this mortal coil
when this last photon leaves our sun

when this last photon reaches planet earth
when these icy fingers of this vacuous vacuum reach planet earth
then all this house be still

TrollianRealityCheck, your Climatically Open Air Bridge awaits, cures all known finrot anxietie

Sep 03, 2019
@humy
A claim you cannot have a rational opinion on because you don't know the first thing about basic physics


Remaining objective and sceptical about climate change theories is the rational thing to do, regardless of one's knowledge of the subject matter. The irrational thing to do is declare, like a faith-based religious zealot, to possess absolute truth; to "know"; to be "certain", as if you are like a god endowed with omniscience.

The levels of proof are:
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Clear And Convincing Evidence
Preponderance of Evidence
Probable Cause
Prima Facie Evidence
Total Lack of Evidence

Right now, AGW theory falls firmly under "Probable Cause", or at absolute best, falls under "Preponderance of Evidence". Quite frankly, that's just not good enough for me to even begin to accept their "solutions" (involving radical transformation of the entire global economy). I need to see the highest level of proof, or else I walk.

Sep 03, 2019
Settled Science or Brexit
Kordane> I live in Britain. Your doom/disaster rhetoric makes me laugh, because it reminds me of the "Project Fear" rhetoric over Brexit; total unhinged fear-mongering

Climate change
this settled science
and
then
we have Brexit
Brexit, a democratic process
that
requires
a majority view to enact
where
in this house
600 representatives
think their view
overrides the view of the democratically voted majority

for
this
sounds
all to familiar
the climate change aficionado's
are by no means this overriding view

where as
Brexit versus Remain
The Brexiters have it, the brexiters have it

Sep 03, 2019
@humy
A claim you cannot have a rational opinion on because you don't know the first thing about basic physics


Remaining objective and sceptical about climate change theories is the rational thing to do, regardless of one's knowledge of the subject matter.
Kordane

Wrong. Being objective is what you should be but if you have no relevant knowledge of the science then you cannot rationally be sceptical about it and your only possible rational position on it would be one of no opinion. I have a qualified opinion on it because I have done physics at university passing with reasonable grades + actually studied the theory and evidence in great detail behind it. Have you done all the same?
I am

Sep 03, 2019
My above misedits;

delete "I am"

and replace

"...rational position on it would be one of no opinion. "

with

"...rational position on it would be one of either no opinion or at least the opinion that whatever the science says is probably correct is probably correct, because, given science is based on the evidence, it usually is + our technology would work it all science is wrong. ..."

Sep 03, 2019
My above misedit
" + our technology would work it all science is wrong"
should be
" + our technology wouldn't work if all science is wrong"

Sep 03, 2019
@Kordan.
So what if they took the experiment outdoors - it doesn't change the fact that they're still not replicating Earth's conditions.
They went to nature IN SITU and made controlled experiments varying the various natural inputs and observed/correlated the results. You can't be more "Earthly" than that without constructing a whole new planet Earth, mate---the character "Slarty Bardfast" from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" came to mind just then! :)

You cite Dorian as unprecedented, even though stronger storms have happened in the past
No. Please re-read what I said: the unprecedented part is that it's the FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW that a cat-5 has formed in the Atlantic. Got it?

...it has been relatively peaceful for many years now;
What planet do you inhabit, mate? :)

I live in Britain.
My sincere condolences, mate. Hope sanity returns there sooner than later. Keep an eye out for reality; it tends to bite even harder once you start denying it. :)

Sep 03, 2019
@Kordane.
Right now, AGW theory falls firmly under "Probable Cause", or at absolute best, falls under "Preponderance of Evidence".
The same geophysics/geochemistry that allowed us to work out the Hydrologic Cycle, Plate Tectonics and Continental drift etc was employed to work out the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and observed warming/destabilising of previously tolerable (for human agriculture/health/sustainability etc) range of climatic dynamics/patterns. So, your level of denialism and ill-informed opinion would have it that neither plate tectonics nor the hydrological cycle are established objective scientific theories/realities. Not a good look, mate. :)

for me to even begin to accept their "solutions" (involving radical transformation of the entire global economy).
No. That's a strawman. We should transition away from coal/oil for more reasons than just AGW. It's more economic, sustainable, equitable, secure, clean and safe; now and in the long run. :)

Sep 03, 2019
Kordane
If you're honest, you'd admit that all one can do is guess
Wrong. And a great deal is known about the climate. And the models have proven quite useful, and their predictions quite accurate. https://e360.yale...r_is_yes

Of course - that probably wont be of any interest to you - because it comes from a reputable science site - and I notice you never actually give us links to science sources.
What annoys me is the feverish push to deindustrialise the entire world's economy
Really? Please give us references to see who is making this feverish push. I am not a ware of it. I don't advocate deindustrialization - and I don't know any one who does. I am an advocate for renewable energy - but that is progress - I am very much an advocate for technological advancement. Any way Kordane - can we see those links?

Sep 03, 2019
However - at this point - the climate community feels that there is a very high degree of certainty regarding the relationship - and if you want to disagree - do your due diligence - and find an alternative. Just saying it is cosmic radiation - without any research to back up your assertion - is dumb.


Sigh! As a statistician I get furious when people use the statistical methods they know, not the correct ones for the situation. (If all you have is a hammer...) I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that, but if you apply time series analysis tools which can deal with non-independent series, you find out that the increase in temperature precedes CO2 increases by ~200 years. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It is probably due to outgassing of permafrost and methane clathrates.

I worry for our children not due to global warming or sea level rise, but that humans evolved in very low CO2 conditions, and the rise in CO2 may be causing the increase in childhood asthma

Sep 04, 2019
eachus
you find out that the increase in temperature precedes CO2 increases by ~200 years
Maybe you could elaborate eachus. I don't see a 200 year gap here.

https://wol-prod-...0002.png

https://en.wikipe...ison.png

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
Being objective is what you should be but if you have no relevant knowledge of the science then you cannot rationally be sceptical about it and your only possible rational position on it would be one of no opinion


You can hold no opinion & yet be a sceptic; they're NOT mutually exclusive, because having doubts is NOT the same thing as having an opinion. If you disagree with that, then you clearly want people to have no opinion, while mindlessly accepting whatever they're told.

I have done physics at university passing with reasonable grades + actually studied the theory and evidence in great detail behind it. Have you done all the same?


It doesn't matter whether I have or have not, because I'm not on here advocating or refuting ANY particular theory. I'm on here consistently calling for objectivity and scepticism. You should understand the need for that in science, because science is NOT religion; ANY theory CAN be wrong. Be objective. Be sceptical. ALWAYS.

Sep 05, 2019
@RealityCheck
They went to nature IN SITU and made controlled experiments varying the various natural inputs and observed/correlated the results. You can't be more "Earthly" than that without constructing a whole new planet Earth, mate


Firstly, I'll point out (again) that correlation does not equal causation. Secondly, I'll point out that going into a field, with a jar of CO2 (for example), observing the "controlled" heating effects, is NOT the same thing as happens on an entire planet with its own hugely complex biosphere that reacts organically to change & on a massive scale that dwarfs anything you might do on your pitifully small scale (even more massive if you include the cosmos and its effects on Earth too).

Sep 05, 2019
@RealityCheck
The same geophysics/geochemistry that allowed us to work out the Hydrologic Cycle, Plate Tectonics and Continental drift etc was employed to work out the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and observed warming/destabilising of previously tolerable (for human agriculture/health/sustainability etc) range of climatic dynamics/patterns


Again, correlation does not equal causation. How many times must I repeat this? How is it "denialism" to say "be objective and sceptical"? I'm neither denying it nor agreeing with it. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone, knows whether the CO2 theory is true or not. All anyone can do is speculate.

What causes warming/cooling on Earth is a LOT more complicated a question than what causes the hydrological cycle, plate tectonics and continental drift, because there's a LOT more factors involved. You're comparing a few easy questions to an insanely difficult one, and saying all questions must be as easy as them.

Sep 05, 2019

You can hold no opinion & yet be a sceptic;
In this case being "a skeptic" means having an opinion that its wrong or can credibly be wrong despite it being science thus backed up by real evidence analyzed by people who know much more about it than you and you know next-to nothing about the science thus cannot rationally know the science can credibly be wrong let alone know it is wrong. So in this case, you cannot hold no opinion & yet be a sceptic without contradiction.

I'm not on here advocating or refuting ANY particular theory.
Wrong; you advocate the theory that the man made global warming theory can creditably be wrong when you do not know it can creditably be wrong because you haven't studied the science to see it credibly can be wrong. I HAVE studied the science to see it credibly can be wrong and concluded it cannot be.

Sep 05, 2019

Again, correlation does not equal causation.
You keep saying that but its irrelevant because causation has in this case already been proven. Basic physics tells us that more atmospheric CO2 would CAUSE, i.e. not merely 'correlate' with, a general increase in average global annual temperatures. Then correlation has been backed up by real world observations were that correlation cannot be explained by anything other than CO2 causing it i.e. there is no known alternative theory that conforms to the know laws of physics and can explain that correlation thus we know that correlation is from a cause.

Sep 05, 2019
@greenonions1
a great deal is known about the climate. And the models have proven quite useful, and their predictions quite accurate. https://e360.yale...r_is_yes


Quote: "To model the climate accurately, you have to account for all of these factors. Unfortunately, says James Hurrell, who led the NCAR's most recent effort to upgrade its own climate model, you can't. "Sometimes you don't include processes simply because you don't understand them well enough," he says. "Sometimes it's because they haven't even been discovered yet.""

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sep 05, 2019
my above misedits;
"Then correlation has been backed up ..."
should be
"Then a correlation was observed that has been backed up ..."

And
"I HAVE studied the science to see it credibly can be wrong ..."
should be
"I HAVE studied the science to see if it credibly can be wrong ..."

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
You keep saying that but its irrelevant because causation has been proven. Basic physics tells us that more atmospheric CO2 would CAUSE, i.e. not merely 'correlate' with, a general increase in average global annual temperatures.


That's a big fat lie. Causation hasn't been proven at all. Only a correlation has been demonstrated. Yes, CO2 can cause warming IN A JAR IN A LAB, but that's far from being a substitute for the entire planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos it inhabits.

As for your other comment, having doubts is not the same thing as having an opinion. You don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction. Also, your constant appeals to authority & ad hominems are extremely tedious and unbecoming of someone from a scientific background.

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
correlation has been backed up by real world observations were that correlation cannot be explained by anything other than CO2 causing it i.e. there is no known alternative theory that conforms to the know laws of physics and can explain that correlation thus we know that correlation is from a cause


Just because you aren't aware of any alternative theory, nor of any unknown unknowns that explain climate change, DOESN'T mean that the one you advocate has been "proven". The flaw in your logic is obvious. You've totally abandoned any semblance of objectivity. I expected better from someone with a degree in physics.

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
You keep saying that but its irrelevant because causation has been proven. Basic physics tells us that more atmospheric CO2 would CAUSE, i.e. not merely 'correlate' with, a general increase in average global annual temperatures.


That's a big fat lie.
No, its something call scientific fact.
Yes, CO2 can cause warming IN A JAR IN A LAB,
...and since the laws of physics in the lab are the same as those for the entire planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos it inhabits, that proves the same proven physics in the lab should apply to entire planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos it inhabits.
Just because you aren't aware of any alternative theory,
I am aware of several alternative theories that have been explored but then dismissed by science due to conclusive evidence against them.

Sep 05, 2019
-continued-
...nor of any unknown unknowns that explain climate change,
"any unknown unknowns"? You think valid science cannot ever rule out a theory as being credibly false (note here I don't say "credibly false" and not just "false" else my implied claim would be wrong) ? Well, lets see what we got here;

1, Basic physics, as proven in the lab shows, assuming the laws of physics in the lab are the same as those everywhere else in our cosmos, more CO2 should cause climate to warm.

2, Alternative theories have been considered to, as far as we can judge, exhaustion, and every one of those alternatives have been proven false by the evidence.

3, All the evidence outside the lab is consistent with CO2 causing climate to warm and nobody has come up with an alternative explanation for that evidence that has got passed peer review and then shown to be a better theory.

If that's not enough then I guess you also believe the Earth can credibly be flat. Do you?

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
No, its something call scientific fact


It's very much still a theory, not a fact. Even relativity is still just a theory, in spite of heaps of evidence supporting it. Calling CO2 global warming a "fact" is like calling string theory a "fact". You gonna do that too, huh?

If you think it's a fact, then go ahead and PROVE it. Hint: You can't. All you can do is show a mere "correlation". Big deal. You can't show direct causation. Your jar of CO2 in a lab is not the same thing as the planet Earth, because the planet Earth has a COUNTLESS number of additional factors to consider, which a jar of CO2 in a lab does not. You can't call it apples and apples, treating them as equivalent, when they're not equivalent; one has a tiny handful of factors, whereas the other has an unbelievably large number of factors (both known and unknown) to consider. You can't treat them the same when they're very obviously not the same.

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
No, its something call scientific fact


It's very much still a theory, not a fact. Even relativity is still just a theory, in spite of heaps of evidence supporting it.
No, both are scientific facts BECAUSE of "heaps" of evidence supporting it.
Look up scientific fact and come back to us.
Start here;
https://en.wikipe...c_method

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
both are scientific facts BECAUSE of "heaps" of evidence supporting it


A theory doesn't become a fact just because there's "heaps" of evidence supporting it. As Albert Einstein himself said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". CO2 theory is NOT safe from being totally refuted, no matter how much you try to BS me to the contrary. All it takes is ONE experiment, and boom, your face will be covered in egg.

A decent scientist would welcome such refutation, but I don't think you're a decent scientist.

I think you, and many like you (some of whose livelihoods depend on it) will be outraged, not at those who got it wrong, but at those who refuted it.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that in CO2 theory there isn't "heaps" of evidence supporting causation (there is in fact none); there is ONLY "heaps" of evidence supporting mere correlation, and even the evidence supporting correlation is questionable in itself.

Sep 05, 2019
@Kordane
It's very much still a theory
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results
[- National Academy of Sciences (US) (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
- The Structure of Scientific Theories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

so, by definition, you just stated admission that it's a well-established fact
then go ahead and PROVE it. Hint: You can't

https://scholar.g...nce+CO2+

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
since the laws of physics in the lab are the same as those for the entire planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos it inhabits, that proves the same proven physics in the lab should apply to entire planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos i


The laws of physics are the same (of course), but the practical / real world results WILL differ greatly, because the planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos have FAR MORE additional factors involved than a jar of CO2 in a lab. What happens in that jar is not necessarily what will happen out in the real world, because the real world is infinitely more complex than that jar of CO2 in the lab, and so any predictions you make based upon that jar of CO2 will be wildly inaccurate.

I just typed "climate models versus observations" into google, and what do I find but chart after chart after chart showing that wild inaccuracy of climate models vs reality. Why aren't they all in line with reality, huh? I was told CO2 theory was a "fact".

Sep 05, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results... so, by definition, you just stated admission that it's a well-established fact


The only thing that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method is whether the data has been gathered accurately.

The explanation, that CO2 causes global warming, has in fact NOT been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, because all they have right now is a mere correlation, not a direct causation.

Scientists gathered data, saw that global temperatures appeared to increase when CO2 increased, and assumed that CO2 causes global warming.

To be a "fact", I'd need to see direct causation, not just some pathetic little correlation which may have no real world causal relationship.

Sep 05, 2019
@Kordane
I just typed "climate models versus observations" into google
How many of those sites that you found are journals or scholarly literature?
Not people. not opinion. actual peer reviewed literature that can be either falsified or validated?

if you use google you will have not only tailored results, you will see the political sites who promote themselves financially.

if you use just the scholarly evidence, you will see how the models have been refined to be more accurate - for instance: https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

About 3,640,000 results (0.11 sec)


Sep 05, 2019
@Kordane
when your source is political, you're bound to not be reading the factual science
The only thing that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method is whether the data has been gathered accurately
false claim - http://wp.auburn....opinion/

The explanation, that CO2 causes global warming, has in fact NOT been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method
false claim: see links above
and assumed that CO2 causes global warming
FACE studies alone prove this comment to be a false claim
To be a "fact", I'd need to see direct causation
start with FACE, then proceed to Evans 2006, Harries 2001, Puckrin 2004, Myhre 1998, Hansen 2005, Meehl 2004, Lacis et al 2010 and references, plus more

When you've comprehended those, I'll show you their validation

Sep 05, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
if you use just the scholarly evidence, you will see how the models have been refined to be more accurate


I don't doubt they're constantly being "refined to be more accurate", but that's FAR from the models reliably matching real world observations, especially the further into the future the models attempt to predict. The problem is that the models don't take into consideration ALL possible factors (and can't do, because it's impossible to do so).

Here's one graph showing models vs observation (which your link doesn't provide btw): http://cornwallal...ions.png

Assuming the graph is an accurate representation, how would you justify the "wild inaccuracy" of the models, with respect to humy's assertion that CO2 theory is a "fact"? If it's a "fact", then surely the models should be more or less 100% in line with real world observations, because scientists presumably understand it all perfectly.

Sep 05, 2019
Captain Stumpy
false claim


How so? YOU have to explain YOUR case. This is the Internet. I'm not going to do your own research for you. You might be sending me on a wild goose chase for all I know. I can link to papers picked at random; two can play that game. So if you want to rebut my points, then make the case in your own words. Until then, my comments stand and I shall not acknowledge a rebuttal.

Sep 05, 2019
@Kordane
but that's FAR from the models reliably matching real world observations
you're not conversant in the models or the science, otherwise, you would be producing evidence other than claims
The problem is that the models don't take into consideration ALL possible factors
no model ever does, yet we use them to do everything from medicine to launching probes into space
Here's one graph...(which your link doesn't provide btw)
actually, it does
it's also a singular graph from 2014 and without context means nothing
Assuming the graph is an accurate representation
Why discuss your opinion on what it means when we can see exactly what it means with the study? just link the study and prove your point, then link it's validation to establish that it's fact (that is how science works, BTW, hence the definition of Theory)

Sep 05, 2019
@Kordane
How so? YOU have to explain YOUR case
you make the claim
you provide the evidence
this is how science works
I'm not going to do your own research
here's the deal: you've provided absolutely zero evidence for your claims - only your *opinion*

you have a graphic that is out of context and doesn't provide error margins, techniques, or anything else

I've provided links to ample evidence that specifically debunks you claims of lack of evidence, facts and what constitutes a Theory in science

I've done the homework. you've provided attitudinal statements of belief sans evidence
then make the case in your own words
why paraphrase the science when you can't comprehend it?

it's obvious you have YET to read any of the science

This is the internet - just because you claim it doesn't mean it's true, or factual
it only means you believe it

Sep 05, 2019
@Captain Stumpy

I have yet to see any evidence that the models accurately predict the climate in line with real world observations over long periods of time. The only reason I even bring modelling up is not because I care about modelling, but to point out that if CO2 theory was a "fact", as humy asserts, then the models should have no variation between them and they should all accurately predict the climate in line with real world observation. Of course, as you yourself even admit, no model ever does take into consideration all possible factors, and so we return to the crux of the issue, which is that CO2 theory isn't a "fact", as humy asserts, because it doesn't take into consideration all possible factors, and it may well be that one or more of those unconsidered factors is actually the true driver of climate change. For example, I've read articles saying that (low cloud seeding) cosmic rays are the driver of climate change. What other factors might we not be aware of...

Sep 05, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
I've provided links to ample evidence that specifically debunks you claims of lack of evidence, facts and what constitutes a Theory in science I've done the homework. you've provided attitudinal statements of belief sans evidence


You said "start with FACE, then proceed to Evans 2006, Harries 2001, Puckrin 2004, Myhre 1998, Hansen 2005, Meehl 2004, Lacis et al 2010 and references, plus more"

That's not evidence, at least on the Internet. For all I know, this is you throwing the phone book at me, expecting me to go away and waste hours, days or even weeks attempting to research your own refutations for you in whatever papers/books you think you're citing, sending me on a wild goose chase that in all likelihood will completely waste my time and lead nowhere. Sorry, but this isn't formal academia; this is the INTERNET, and I don't trust you one bit. If you're going to rebut me, write your rebuttal in your own words and/or with direct quotes.

Sep 05, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
here's the deal: you've provided absolutely zero evidence for your claims - only your *opinion*


What claims? I've only pointed out that I've not seen any evidence supporting the notion that climate models are accurate versus real world observations - with reference to the fact (as you yourself acknowledge) that models can never take "all" factors into account, and so models can never be perfectly accurate - which is just logical.

The onus isn't on me to provide evidence for anything, since I am not here to make claims about specific concretes. I am here, as I have repeatedly said, to call for some much needed objectivity and scepticism. Read further back in the thread if you don't believe me.

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about climate modelling. I only mentioned it to make a philosophical point.

Sep 05, 2019
Kordane
but that's FAR from the models reliably matching real world observations
But they do match real world observations. https://www.youtu...youtu.be

So what we see - is that the science says that the ghg content of the atmosphere is going up - and the best science we have at present - says temps will go up as a result. Observation supports this science.

But here is the real point. No the science is not perfect. Neither is meteorology - and while we can predict the path of a hurricane within certain error bars. It aint perfect. Does that mean meteorology is a big conspiracy theory? No - it means we do science with the best data we have. If you have a better explanation for the current observations - publish your research Kordane. Otherwise you know nothing about the subject. Science is not done on the comments section of the internet. That is where Alex Jones hangs out.

Sep 05, 2019
Kordane
The onus isn't on me to provide evidence for anything, since I am not here to make claims about specific concretes

The onus certainly is on you - when you refute the consensus of science. Here
I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming


You are of course entitled to believe what ever you want. But the onus IS on you - if you want to re-write the text books on the subject of climate change.

Sep 05, 2019
As for the reality being reported, we are LIVING IT as we speak, ie: record breaking drought of unprecedented severity/extent/persistence; unprecedented flooding of unprecedented severity etc; unprecedented storms and unseasonal events of particularly destructive nature; and the rest, globally.

Latest reports: increasingly extreme HURRICANES/TYPHOONS (currently "DORIAN" making it an unprecedented FOUR YEARS IN A ROW that Cat-5 Hurricane formed in the Atlantic).

Wake up; go look/learn from reality NOW. :)

@RealityCheck
Repeatedly bleating those lies, does not make them any falser in the real world. You know.

Sep 05, 2019
We are a species unlike any other in Earth's history/environment because we have INDUSTRIALISED processes; and THINKING and PROJECTING capabilities that allow us to predict and/or modify both our individual/collective social behaviour as well as our individual/collective industrialised activities. Acknowledging and studying such human behaviour/activity via the SCIENTIFIC METHOD allows us to be aware of consequences. No other 'natural' species on earth has that 'tool' at its disposal in order to FORESTALL possible catastrophe/extinction. .......We care. :)

@RealityCheck
So, if it is determined, that the cost to end global warming, is a 50% reduction of humans. Would you support the culling of about 4 billion people? Do you really care. :)

Sep 05, 2019
@humy
since the laws of physics in the lab are the same as those for the entire planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos it inhabits, that proves the same proven physics in the lab should apply to entire planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos i


The laws of physics are the same (of course), but the practical / real world results WILL differ greatly, because the planet Earth, its biosphere & the cosmos have FAR MORE additional factors involved than a jar of CO2 in a lab.
Kordane

All of which (the "additional factors") the scientists have taken into account and science STILL concludes the laws of physics say more CO2 causes climate warming even WITH those "additional factors". So you make no relevant point.

Sep 05, 2019
@Kordane
So if you want to rebut my points
ok - let's start here:
What claims?
here are just a few of you claims:
...in CO2 theory there isn't "heaps" of evidence supporting causation
You can't show direct causation [of CO2]
Causation hasn't been proven at all
but that's far from being a substitute for the entire planet
all they have right now is a mere correlation, not a direct causation
The only thing that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method is whether the data has been gathered accurately
every single one of these claims are not only demonstrably false (see links above) but you've not provided a single shred of evidence supporting you claims

the onus is on you to support these claims, per typical scientific discourse, but you keep distracting from your lack of evidence by moving the goalposts, bringing up unrelated points and then refusing to accept validated science

-to be cont'd

Sep 05, 2019
@Kordane cont'd
To what end do you argue?

you touch on this with the comment
I am here, as I have repeatedly said, to call for some much needed objectivity and scepticism... I only mentioned it to make a philosophical point
Philosophy relies only on the charisma of the speaker and the ability of the said speaker to make what appears to be a logical point

Science did away with the appearance of logic by requiring a far stricter method

By definition, science can be refuted by simply providing equivalent evidence constrained by the principles, which you've failed to provide in your so-called objectivity and scepticism, making your arguments neither sceptical nor objective as you've completely dismissed "About 3,640,000 results" (literally - see links above)

by definition that makes your claims false considering
http://wp.auburn....opinion/

IOW - you're not reading science, you're reading political BS and trying to convince yourself

Sep 05, 2019
@Kodane - last
models can never take "all" factors into account, and so models can never be perfectly accurate - which is just logical
not being perfectly accurate doesn't mean the same thing as not being useful or accurate enough
This is best demonstrated by using a scoped rifle to shoot a target accurately at 800 meters - a Sniper training program teaches you how to do this very well, but the models they use aren't so accurate that they can predict the hit with accuracy to the .0001 inch
Are those models useful in predicting a kill shot at 800 meters or not?

Before you attempt to "debunk" modelling, you should actually learn about models, their limitations, etc (at least the basics - try here, it's free: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm )
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about climate modelling
you should learn about them... and while you're at it, check out the data inputs and why they're used

Sep 05, 2019
I don't accept the notion that CO2 leads to global warming


You are of course entitled to believe what ever you want. But the onus IS on you - if you want to re-write the text books on the subject of climate change.
This is well understood. CO2's spectrum, water vapor's spectrum, and the Wien law radiation peak of the temperature of Earth's surface account for it.

If you're incapable of understanding those intersecting factors, @Kordane, you're incompetent to comment on them, and what you choose to accept or not is of no account whatsoever.

Sep 06, 2019
@Kordane
Some friendly advice. Do NOT give Strumpy or anyone else your personal information. If you do Strumpy will use it against you as he has done to many others.
Be aware that Strumpy will try to trip you up and DEMAND that you give HIM evidence for your assertions. He is not a scientist, so don't give him anything.

Sep 06, 2019
And here are some links that may be of great interest to AGW cultists, especially Cabinboy Strumpy and his acolyte, Schneib. It is possible that RC might find the topic quite impressive to help alleviate the alleged coming food crisis.
Oh those Swedes.

https://www.clima...-change/

https://www.theep...833.html

https://www.thene...t-humans

Sep 06, 2019
@antigoracle.
Latest reports: increasingly extreme HURRICANES/TYPHOONS (currently "DORIAN" making it an unprecedented FOUR YEARS IN A ROW that Cat-5 Hurricane formed in the Atlantic).
Repeatedly bleating those lies, does not make them any falser in the real world. You know.
So you're denying Dorian was a cat-5 now? Check yourself for all those screws that sound to have come loose, mate! :)

We are a species unlike any other in Earth's history/environment because we have INDUSTRIALISED processes; and THINKING and PROJECTING capabilities that allow us to predict and/or modify both our individual/collective social behaviour as well as our individual/collective industrialised activities.
So, if it is determined, that the cost to end global warming, is a 50% reduction of humans. Would you support the culling of about 4 billion people? Do you really care. :)
Nature will take care of that soon enough if we fail to expedite renewables implementation in time.

Sep 06, 2019
Cool - in a debate about climate change - which is - we all agree - a very complex, and technical subject area SEU gives us a link to a 'scientist' - who advocates the eating of human flesh to combat climate change. But then actually read the link
noting that his specialty is in public reactions for marketing, could it be that this professor was paid to make this statement to see how people would respond?
Yep - good one SEU - show your scientific cred - by quoting a marketing expert.....But all the childish denialists will get outraged - how dare Al Gore advocate eating human flesh while flying on his private jet to Epstein's Island of Youthful Pleasures. Well he did not do that - but since when did facts matter?

Sep 06, 2019
@Kordane.

Have to leave for a couple days. Meantime I leave you with the following reminder:

The same geophysics/geochemistry that allowed us to work out the Hydrologic Cycle, Plate Tectonics and Continental drift etc was employed to work out the CAUSATIVE correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and observed warming/destabilising of previously tolerable (for human agriculture/health/sustainability etc) range of climatic dynamics/patterns. So, your level of denialism and ill-informed opinion would have it that neither plate tectonics nor the hydrologic cycle are established objective scientific theories/realities. Not a good look, mate. :)

As for the rest of your posts to me/others since my last to you, I only need say that @humy, @greenonions and @CaptainStumpy have effectively covered/refuted all your gambits therein, so I have no need to add anything further on that.

ps: Please learn the crucial difference between unsubstantiated opinions and scientific conclusions. :)

Sep 06, 2019
Cool - in a debate about climate change - which is - we all agree - a very complex, and technical subject area SEU gives us a link to a 'scientist' - who advocates the eating of human flesh to combat climate change. But then actually read the link
noting that his specialty is in public reactions for marketing, could it be that this professor was paid to make this statement to see how people would respond?
Yep - good one SEU - show your scientific cred - by quoting a marketing expert.....But all the childish denialists will get outraged - how dare Al Gore advocate eating human flesh while flying on his private jet to Epstein's Island of Youthful Pleasures. Well he did not do that - but since when did facts matter?
says greeno

Wha? Where did you read anything about a 'scientist' in my comment? The designation is in one or more of the links. Depending on how well humans take to the idea, YOU may someday be turned into Soylent Green. It has started by a Swede.

Sep 06, 2019
@Green
Awesome that they put that in the article, eh? if only egg could read...

.

@egg-tarded trolling felcher
some links that may be of great interest to AGW cultists
why would anyone who loves science be interested in the opinion of a Marketing Strategist who is attempting to sell idiocy to the gullible and stupid?

as for your advice: you're one of the few idiots here who has actually threatened people with violence or homicide

maybe you can get you martian lizard overlords to psychic-attack me into oblivion?
LMFAO

Sep 06, 2019
Hmm I wonder if Torbjorn has heard of this latest development. The birth rate in Sweden is very low, so they say. Perhaps they are welcoming all those Muslims into Sweden for a reason.

Sep 06, 2019
@Greeno
@RealityCheck

According to one or more of the 3 links, quite a few of the guy's audience said that they would be willing to try it. And Sonderlund himself said that he would taste it, presumably to prove that he is no Conservative.
Hmmm, I think that I will advise my human host and his friends to skip any travel to Sweden or Liberia.

Sep 06, 2019
@humy
All of which (the "additional factors") the scientists have taken into account and science STILL concludes the laws of physics say more CO2 causes climate warming even WITH those "additional factors". So you make no relevant point


1. You lie when you claim that scientists have taken all factors into account, because how do you take all unknown unknowns into account when you aren't even aware of their existence?
2. There is no law of physics that allows you to say conclusively that CO2 causes global warming.
3. Because politics got involved in science, there is now a multi-TRILLION dollar industry that is strongly incentivised to push the narrative that CO2 causes global warming. Also, there are hordes of statist/socialist ideologues who are using that narrative to push for much bigger government, more taxes and more controls. Also, a massive fear & intimidation campaign has been waged to scare / strongarm people into submitting to said narrative.

Sep 06, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
here are just a few of you claims:
-in CO2 theory there isn't "heaps" of evidence supporting causation
-You can't show direct causation [of CO2]
-Causation hasn't been proven at all
-but that's far from being a substitute for the entire planet
-all they have right now is a mere correlation, not a direct causation
-The only thing that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method is whether the data has been gathered accurately

every single one of these claims are not only demonstrably false (see links above) but you've not provided a single shred of evidence supporting you claims


Those aren't claims and I never intended them as such; they're simply observations I've made about the actual claims made by those who advocate CO2 theory. When they present a claim of causality, but fail to show causality, and only show a mere correlation (eg. global temps vs CO2 conc), then why is the onus on me all of a sudden?

Sep 06, 2019
There is no law of physics that allows you to say conclusively that CO2 causes global warming.
There are two laws that do:
1. Wien's Law.
2. Dirac's Laws of quantum electrodynamics.

Both of these are supported by both lab experiments and observations.

There really isn't any place to hide here.

Sep 06, 2019
Hmm I wonder if Torbjorn has heard of this latest development. The birth rate in Sweden is very low, so they say. Perhaps they are welcoming all those Muslims into Sweden for a reason.

SEU, this is a fact in many Nordic countries. Without immigrants our population and economy is in decline, yet there's a lot of right side people who fail to see this.

Sep 06, 2019
Of course we can always go back to Maxwell, but I figure you've never heard of that.

Sep 06, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
Before you attempt to "debunk" modelling, you should actually learn about models, their limitations, etc


Epistemological limitations will inevitably be shared by modelling. This is unavoidable. I don't have to know anything about the modelling in order to know that there will be such limitations. Thus, I can comment on said limitations. So when I point out to humy that modelling will have unknown unknowns (which is entirely logical to say), he claims that scientists have included all additional factors, as if they've eliminated the possibility of unknown unknowns (which is illogical / a lie).

I don't give a damn about "debunking" modelling. You can play that game with someone else. I am debunking the idea of a limitation-less/perfect modelling.

This isn't even really a discussion between you & I, but rather a discussion between humy & I. Go read his comments and see what I mean about his lack of objectivity and scepticism; he sounds like a religious fanatic.

Sep 06, 2019
I don't give a damn about your rejection of the laws of physics either.

You're sitting on your hat, @Kordane. Stop trying to hide from physics on the physics site.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
There are two laws that do:
1. Wien's Law.
2. Dirac's Laws of quantum electrodynamics.


Care to provide reasoning to support that?

Sep 06, 2019
Sure.

Wien's Law governs the radiation peak of the Earth's surface. It's supported by satellite observations and lab experiments.

Dirac's Laws of quantum electrodynamics govern the interactions of matter with light. They are supported by lab experiments and satellite observations.

Do you have anything to say to any of these observations and experiments? So far you do not. I evaluate you as another lying climate denying troll. I already have you on ignore, but I can't resist torturing you.

Sep 06, 2019
@RealityCheck
The same geophysics/geochemistry that allowed us to work out the Hydrologic Cycle, Plate Tectonics and Continental drift etc was employed to work out the CAUSATIVE correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and observed warming/destabilising of previously tolerable (for human agriculture/health/sustainability etc) range of climatic dynamics/patterns


All I have is your word for it. Certainly, no reasoning was given by you to validate your claim. So far, everything I've seen ONLY points to a correlation. I've never, in all my many years of reading and debating about this topic, ever seen anything showing actual causation. I've even been asking for evidence of causation throughout this thread, but as of yet nobody has provided it. Causation, wrt CO2 theory, is like a ghost; some passionately claim to have seen it, yet when I ask for evidence, none is provided. Quite frankly, I feel like people are trying to con me.

Sep 06, 2019
If you're just going to keep denying physics, there's not much point in talking to you, @Kordane liar denier troll.

The infrared spectra of H2O and CO2 are well known and well measured; aeronautical engineers use them. The Earth's surface temperature is well known and well measured; we have this thing called "meteorology." The Wien peak is well known and well measured. We have both surface and satellite measurements.

There is no place to run, there is no place to hide. You're avoiding responding to physics on the physics site. Everyone who knows anything knows you're deluded, stupid, or a lying denying troll.

Bring it. I welcome it.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
Wien's Law governs the radiation peak of the Earth's surface. It's supported by satellite observations and lab experiments


And how does that prove that CO2 causes global warming?

Dirac's Laws of quantum electrodynamics govern the interactions of matter with light


And how does that prove that CO2 causes global warming?

I evaluate you as another lying climate denying troll. I already have you on ignore, but I can't resist torturing you


I'm not a "denier", because that would mean taking a firm stance opposing it. I am simply being objective and sceptical about the claims, like ANY decent scientist should be.

Why ignore people just because they don't mindlessly accept what they're told? If you want an echo chamber, then you're going the right way about it. Preaching to the choir can be so tedious though. If you're so sure of yourself then you should relish the challenge to persuade people and refine your arguments.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
Wien's Law governs the radiation peak of the Earth's surface. It's supported by satellite observations and lab experiments


And how does that prove that CO2 causes global warming?
Because there's a gap in the water vapor spectrum right there, and a peak in the CO2 spectrum right there.

Dirac's Laws of quantum electrodynamics govern the interactions of matter with light


And how does that prove that CO2 causes global warming?
Because the Dirac Laws predict the spectra of water vapor and CO2.

Are we done here? I see little point in continuing if you can't even search the Wien peak and the spectra of CO2 and H2O up on the Intertubes.

You're not talking about physics; you're making up mythology to support your misguided "opinion." These are not matters of opinion; they are facts.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
The infrared spectra of H2O and CO2 are well known and well measured. The Earth's surface temperature is well known and well measured. The Wien peak is well known and well measured. We have both surface and satellite measurements.


I don't question the measurements. I question the CONCLUSIONS made about the measurements. You can have accurate measurements, but then come to totally false conclusions about them. It's entirely possible to do that. For instance, I could look at the measurements and conclude that god exists, or that I will win the lottery. Are my conclusions correct, just because the measurements were accurate? Hell no.

Do you see my point or not?


Sep 06, 2019
I don't see your point. The radiation peak is at X frequency; the absorption by water vapor is at frequencies A through B which encompass X; the absorption by CO2 is between A and B. What more is to be said? And the satellite observations confirm it's actually happening in our atmosphere. Where are you trying to hide? In philosophy? Sorry, that's not physics.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
there's a gap in the water vapor spectrum right there, and a peak in the CO2 spectrum right there


A "gap" or a "peak" on a graph doesn't prove causation; it ONLY shows correlation.

Dirac Laws predict the spectra of water vapor and CO2


And how does that prove causation? You're going to have to provide reasoning. These one-line answers are not doing it for me.

I see little point in continuing if you can't even search the Wien peak and the spectra of CO2 and H2O up on the Intertubes[q/]

You're supposed to be the all-knowing and all-wise scientist here, and I'm supposed to be the know-nothing layman, so surely you should be able to give clear and concise reasoning to support your arguments, rather than expect the layman to go away and somehow accomplish the task himself. If you're so certain in your convictions, then this should be a cakewalk.

Sep 06, 2019
A "gap" or a "peak" on a graph doesn't prove causation; it ONLY shows correlation.
Yep, hiding in philosophy. A 5-sigma graph proves causation if there is no competing hypothesis.

You're lying again.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
The radiation peak is at X frequency; the absorption by water vapor is at frequencies A through B which encompass X; the absorption by CO2 is between A and B. What more is to be said?


That sounds distinctly like correlation, not causation.

Sep 06, 2019
A 5-sigma graph proves causation if there is no competing hypothesis


It may very well be a 5-sigma graph with 5-sigma measurements, but it sure as hell ain't a 5-sigma conclusion that's being made. You may have your 5-sigma graph and your 5-sigma measurements, right down to 99.99999% accuracy, and yet the conclusions made about that graph be completely and totally WRONG. It's entirely possible to do that. Again, I do not dispute the measurements. I simply question the conclusions made about them. I question your assertion of causation, where I can only see correlation.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
A 5-sigma graph proves causation if there is no competing hypothesis


That is absolute rubbish. All a 5-sigma graph proves is that the data used to plot the damn graph is highly accurate (to 99.9999% iirc). It doesn't prove that the conclusions made about the graph are 5-sigma. You can't say that your conclusions are "proven" just because the data used to plot the graph are highly accurate. Your conclusions could be utterly worthless, despite the graph/data being highly accurate.

Nothing is proven just because there is no competing hypothesis, no more than ancient peoples who thought the Earth was flat had "proven" it true, just because there was no competing hypothesis at the time.

Also, there are competing hypotheses. I mentioned one to you in another discussion, concerning cosmic rays and low clouds. All you could do is dismiss it because the paper currently lacked peer review - NOT because you could refute it.

Sep 06, 2019
LOL

Now we got a science denier who doesn't "believe in" atomic spectra.

Sorry, liar denier climate troll, that was figured out in the 1930s. Do try to keep up.

Your wild conjecture appears to be that jebus/xenu/mohammed is altering the probabilities of atomic interaction. I'm more down with science and stuff.

Sep 06, 2019
Ever heard of the Sokal affair?

You might want to search it up. It made idiots of all you philosophers. Better change your game; you been sussed.

Lying about what's fact and what's conjecture is a sure tip-off to the philosophers. Look for the confabulation of correlation and causation.

They attempt to use correlation to assert their Bayesian statistics, which do not allow for new discoveries.

Sep 06, 2019
What's the prior probability of the detection of gravitational waves when we've never detected one? 0.

Now the posterior probability is 1.

How about imaging black holes? Prior probability 0, posterior probability 1.

Moving right along, CO2 warming prior probability 0, posterior probability 1.

So much for Bayesian statistics.

And it's even worse when physics theories predict it and then it's found to be true.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
Now we got a science denier who doesn't "believe in" atomic spectra


I've already pointed out that I'm not a denier, nor that I have accepted anything, because to do so would mean taking a firm stance for or against. I have not taken any firm stance for or against. I am simply remaining objective and sceptical & calling for more of that. When you call me a denier, you're trying to smear me, because you clearly aren't capable of proving causation between CO2 and global warming, and so demagoguery is what you have to resort to. Can you just be professional about this? I'm not interested in your demagogic tactics. I just want to hear sound reasoning to substantiates your claim of direct causation (not just mere correlation) between CO2 and global warming.

Sep 06, 2019
The spectra are what they are.

The peak is what it is.

If you deny it, you deny experiment and observation.

If you don't deny it, you're simply wrong.

My opinion is you're lying and know better, but you might be stupid enough you're not.

Sep 06, 2019
A RESEARCH GRANT

This started one day
a poor struggling student
looking to boost his grant
got this idea
that if he could measure
the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
over a ten year time period
he could be in the money for ten years
he approached his university
and they were amenable to the idea
so he got his grant and set to work
he successfully measured this carbon dioxide
in this atmosphere
over these ten years
and so produced his study
to his university with aplomb
they applauded his work
his grant complete
but
he was still short of funds
so looking again at his research
he discovered a trend
that over these ten years
the carbon dioxide was rising
which he postulated with this growth of traffic
his university were flabbergasted with this finding
they extended his grant
so he produced his study carbon dioxide increases with this growth of traffic
his study went into these archives as he went on his way

Then a Climate Change Student looking for a Grant Discovered his Research

Sep 06, 2019
They've been monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958.

Maybe your typically conspiracy-theory oriented post needs to be updated with some reality.

Are you climate liar denier trolls ever gonna acknowledge science?

Just askin'.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
The spectra are what they are.
The peak is what it is.
If you deny it, you deny experiment and observation.
If you don't deny it, you're simply wrong.


I don't deny the measurements, I don't deny the data, I don't deny the graphs. What I question are the CONCLUSIONS made about the measurements, data and graphs, because the conclusions CAN be wrong, even if the measurements, data and graphs are highly accurate to a 5-sigma standard.

Quit with the demagoguery, quit speculating about me on a personal level, and just give me sound reasoning for why you think there is direct causation (not just mere correlation) between CO2 and global warming.

Sep 06, 2019
@Da Schneib
They've been monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958.
Are you climate liar denier trolls ever gonna acknowledge science?


Again, I'm not a denier, nor have I accepted anything. Quit smearing me.

I don't deny they've been monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958. I simply question their CONCLUSIONS about that data. For instance, I question people like you, who assert causation when all you've presented is correlation.

Sep 06, 2019
I agree with Kordane in this one. Schneib resorting in name calling and smearing when Kordane don't agree with conclusions. Why people need to be like this?

We all can agree to disagree.

Sep 06, 2019
Atmospheric Carbon dioxide

Over these billions of years, this carbon dioxide, has been falling
As this increase of plant growth removed this carbon dioxide
Da Schneib> They've been monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958.

Maybe your typically conspiracy-theory oriented post needs to be updated with some reality.

Are you climate liar denier trolls ever gonna acknowledge science?

Just askin'.

DaSchneib
This student approached this topic with a radically different perspective
Over these billions of years
Only life forms have emitted carbon dioxide
It is only fairly recently
There has been
A measurable increase
That can be correlated
With the growth of this combustion engine

Sep 06, 2019
Can you just be professional about this? I'm not interested in your demagogic tactics. I just want to hear sound reasoning to substantiates your claim of direct causation (not just mere correlation) between CO2 and global warming.
.......there is no CAUSATION that in an isolated environment 0.04% of the ambient gas content being CO2 will cause a greenhouse effect.......anyone who doesn't believe this should make a terrarium & isolate it similarly as planet Earth is isolated from Venus & Mars & monitor the effects of 0.04% CO2 along with the rest of the composition of Earth's atmosphere.

Sep 06, 2019
SEU
Where did you read anything about a 'scientist' in my comment?
I didn't. I read this -
And here are some links that may be of great interest to AGW cultists
And then a link to a PR specialist. So the point that I am making - is that you can't hold your own in terms of the science - so you have to fall back on the political. Boogey boogey man Al Gore etc. Pathetic.

Sep 06, 2019
Kordane
Again, I'm not a denier
Yes you are. The science of climate change is solid. That is why college text books are very clear on the subject. Same with laws of thermodynamics etc. etc. etc. And if you want to claim that the body of science is wrong (as you are doing) - then the onus IS on you - to publish research - and show your evidence. Science is not done in your living room.


Sep 06, 2019
OK, here you go.

What is a jacket? It's something you put on when it's cold to keep you warm.

How does it do that? It traps heat from your body.

So, what happens if you trap heat? It gets warmer.

OK, so what if you trap heat being emitted by the Earth's surface?

Duhhhh ummmmm.

We're done here; I don't see any point whatsoever in arguing with another climate denier troll who can't think. It just makes me irritable.

Sep 06, 2019
does nitrogen get warm ?

Sep 06, 2019
@Kordane
Those aren't claims and I never intended them as such
I quoted you verbatim - if you attribute this to another there should have been a reference to said other

The onus is still on you. you've not:
1- attributed facts to a source for verification (your opinion doesn't count as evidence)

2- presented any legitimate scientific evidence supporting the stated claims

the overwhelming evidence in my already presented links demonstrates your statements to be false with considerable validated evidence
So when I point out to humy ... he claims that scientists...
The discussion you have with Humy is with Humy. the point *I made* is between us and supported by ample evidence

Making comments on the validity and effectiveness of models because your source made a claim that [x] models don't show [y], and not presenting source, is nonsensical, especially (again) given the evidence to the contrary presented to you above already

2Bcont'd

Sep 06, 2019
@Kordane cont'd
This isn't even really a discussion...
then why did you bring it up at all knowing full well that on a science site there are people who actually know *gasp* science?

telltale denier signs:

You made a fallacious claim WRT "Theory" - I corrected it. you argued

You also indicated you're completely unaware of the scientific evidence for AGW and CO2, so I linked it - you argued

You continue to post ample evidence that you're not well-versed in STEM (links and quotes available upon requests) - still arguing

You don't know what "causation" means in science, nor do you read the actual science - but you're making an argument

you claim not to be a denier but every argument you've made comes straight from their unchanged playbook and sites - which have been debunked with evidence

Do you see the problem yet?

If you are a sceptic, take some advice: Use the MIT/OCW link above and learn a little about science so you can make an informed decision

Sep 06, 2019
A RESEARCH GRANT

looking again at his research
discovered a trend
over these ten years
carbon dioxide was rising
he postulated with this growth of traffic
his university were flabbergasted with this finding
they extended his grant
so he produced his study carbon dioxide increases with this growth of traffic
his study went into these archives
he went on his way

Then a Climate Change Student looking for a Grant Discovered his Research

This original student
who produced this research was not a climate change student
he was simply short of these readies

This climate change student
is this student
who postulated this link in carbon dioxide growth and climate change
verily it is to be said
this student who borrowed this research
conducted no research to prove his postulation

As there is no causal link
in climate change and 0.04% carbon dioxide
So here we are at this impasse
we are these lemmings heading headlong to this precipice
A Climate Disaster of our Own Making

A RESEARCH GRANT

Sep 06, 2019
So, what happens if you trap heat? It gets warmer.

what if its not trapped ?

and how do you warm a warm object with a cold one ?

if i increase the distance between two points it doesn't affect my speed between those points


Sep 06, 2019
what if its not trapped ?
But observation and experiment show it is.

On Earth.

and how do you warm a warm object with a cold one ?
Are you now claiming the Sun is "cold?"

Wow.

if i increase the distance between two points it doesn't affect my speed between those points
And this has what to do with the energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation shown in satellite data because... ???

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Sep 06, 2019
Noticing another liar denier climate troll that calls itself "@Kordane" has run away to hide after being exposed.

No, sorry, you're not agnostic; you're a true believer trying to hide under the shield of claimed agnosticism. Now stop lying.

Sep 06, 2019
Hmm I wonder if Torbjorn has heard of this latest development. The birth rate in Sweden is very low, so they say. Perhaps they are welcoming all those Muslims into Sweden for a reason.

SEU, this is a fact in many Nordic countries. Without immigrants our population and economy is in decline, yet there's a lot of right side people who fail to see this.
says Cortezz

When you say "right side people", WHO exactly do you mean? I've never heard that term before.
Those 'immigrants' are not ethnic Finns, Swedes, and other Nordics, Cortezz. They are middle-Eastern or African people. Is it the wish of your own ethnic Whites in the Nordic countries to reduce the White populations so much that those immigrants will OVERRUN and OVERTHROW your Socialist governments? Is it your intention to have all these immigrants who conceive and have babies and their increasing populations take over, and install THEIR Muslim religion over your atheistic non-beliefs? Have Nordics all become gay?

Sep 06, 2019
Noticing another liar denier climate troll that calls itself "@Kordane" has run away to hide after being exposed.

No, sorry, you're not agnostic; you're a true believer trying to hide under the shield of claimed agnosticism. Now stop lying.
says Schneib

Uhhh Why do you imagine that Kordane has run away? Perhaps it is dinnertime where he is.
LOL You ALWAYS seem to let your imagination get the best of you, Schneib. That's why you make a great acolyte for your Master, Satan.
And when did YOU become a mind-reader, Schneib?
Another thing, Schneib, is that there IS a difference between a 'true believer' and an 'agnostic'.
Just sayin'
Hitchens is now in hell because he was a 'true atheist'. And by the way, Schneib, your Master, Satan is not an atheist. He can't deny the truth.

Sep 06, 2019
But observation and experiment show it is.''

there is no experiment and here is your observation

https://www.youtu...p;t=292s

and those photons just speed'n along ,

thanks for confirming my suspicions

Sep 06, 2019
https://www.natur...118082a0

Such a model, according to these authors, should be characterised by three fundamental vibrational frequencies. Each tries to associate the ***three well-known bands of absorption at 14.66µ, 4.25µ and 2.73µ***


The article is from 1926.

https://en.wikipe...arge.gif

Notice the dip at 14µm in the spectrum of water vapor.

http://hyperphysi...ien.html

This gives the formula for Wien's law. At the Earth's surface temperature of 288K this works out to 10µm.

All of these figures have been confirmed in the laboratory, despite your liar denier bullshit.

Duhhhh ummmm.

We done here?

Sep 06, 2019
its says nothing about magnitude of the effect re 400ppm co2 /


Sep 06, 2019
That's more math. Sure you want it?

Bend over and grab your ankles.

Sep 06, 2019
sure , don't forget the calc for water vapour to compare

n2/o2 get warm also

Sep 06, 2019
N2 and O2 are essentially transparent to both IR and visible light.

You can see it in their spectra. I'm not going to bother hunting it up since you're just lying now. Anybody can look and see the dips at 10 microns for themselves.


Sep 07, 2019
Hitchens is now in hell because he was a 'true atheist'. And by the way, Schneib, your Master, Satan is not an atheist. He can't deny the truth
References to imaginary deities - while discussing science.....

Sep 07, 2019
Hitchens is now in hell because he was a 'true atheist'. And by the way, Schneib, your Master, Satan is not an atheist. He can't deny the truth
References to imaginary deities - while discussing science.....
......alias the deity 'Dark Energy', Pop-Cosmology's eternal fantasy.

Sep 07, 2019
Pop-Cosmology's eternal fantasy
A link to your paper - resolving the conflict of the rate of deceleration of the Universe' expansion - please. I assume you are top bill at all of the world's theoretical physics/cosmology conferences. We await your link.

Sep 07, 2019
Hitchens is now in hell because he was a 'true atheist'. And by the way, Schneib, your Master, Satan is not an atheist. He can't deny the truth
References to imaginary deities - while discussing science.....
says greenonions

Imaginary, you say? Could you be more specific and give your evidence that it is imaginary? You seem overly concerned about Hitchens' soul that is in hell. Would you like to join him someday so that you may confirm whether it is or isn't imaginary?
And by the way, greeno, Satan is not a deity and never was one, except in his own mind.

Sep 07, 2019
SEU
Where did you read anything about a 'scientist' in my comment?
I didn't. I read this -
And here are some links that may be of great interest to AGW cultists
And then a link to a PR specialist. So the point that I am making - is that you can't hold your own in terms of the science - so you have to fall back on the political. Boogey boogey man Al Gore etc. Pathetic.
says greenonions

Yes. Of course those 3 links should be of great interest to AGW cultists. That professor seems to be working on the presumption that you cultists would be very concerned over human population growth and how that growth is affecting the planet Earth and its class of Elitists. He is suggesting that you eat "DEAD" humans for protein, instead of relying on the killing of animals as your food. That 'professor' is proposing a very old resolution to the population explosion, which is a 'science' in itself. It is still unknown if the Swedes will take to his proposal.

Sep 07, 2019
@greenonions
Almost forgot to mention that theghostofotto1923 has been droning on and on for many years regarding 'population growth' causing wars, and 'tribes overrunning each other', and 'women being forced to have babies until it kills them'; so one would think that Otto would be joyous and quite happy to be able to eat the flesh of dead humans to contribute to the lessening of the problem of overpopulation. He might start with dead Jews in Israel. Or maybe some Chinese meat. There would be a huge menu to choose from all over the world. Or perhaps Otto might prefer dead freshly aborted full-term babies with their brains suctioned out?
What d'ya say there, Otto?

Sep 08, 2019
Otto absolutely LOVES the idea of abortion - a la Margaret Sanger genocide of non-White babies, babies that are unhealthy, and babies of unwed/single mothers, especially if they are Black.
Isn't that right, Otto? Come on, Otto. Tell us again how much you agree with Margaret Sanger.

Sep 08, 2019
@Benni
there is no CAUSATION that in an isolated environment 0.04% of the ambient gas content being CO2...
Mars has a very thin atmosphere of mostly CO2. Over many years now you, @Benni, and other deniers who can't seem to understand subtleties, have been told that the CO2 only absorbs a certain range of spectrum, not all of spectrum. I also told you that the WHOLE atmosphere on Earth is involved in absorbing the IR, not only CO2; hence the observed heat balance associated with the applicable atmosphere (hence why Mercury WITHOUT any atmosphere is CRYOGENICALLY COLD on nightside!).

See? ALL ATMOSPHERIC constituents, not just CO2, sets applicable 'heat balance' for a planet. Example: MARS' atmosphere is VERY THIN, containing NO OTHER gases/water vapour etc to absorb re-radiated heat from MARS' surface; the wispy CO2 is ALL it's got!...that does not absorb enough of the spectrum on its own (ie, without water vapour/clouds/other gases) sufficient to warm Mars. Hence MARS cold.

Sep 08, 2019
@Forum.

It is now proven that @snoosebaum is a Climate Change denialist troll. The proof? In this thread he asks...
does nitrogen get warm ?
...despite having that same question exhaustively answered to him via the exchange with him on that very question he posed in the following thread:

https://phys.org/...ida.html

That he again asks this question and pretending ignorance of what was explained to him by me about Nitrogen's role in the above-linked thread, is proof positive that @snoosebaum is, either he has the attention span and memory retention of a goldfish, or he is a sad and moronic Climate Change denialist troll employed by the now-also well-proven RussianGOP/Fossil lobby-funded TROLL-factory, as a 'weaponised stupid and bot'. It is a pity, either way. Sad.

Sep 08, 2019
@Kordane.

First, please read my above post made to @Benni.

Secondly, I cannot yet quite decide whether you are either being intentionally disingenuous for the purpose of wasting everyone's time, or being just plain unreasonable because you are so patently ill-informed of what constitutes a scientific conclusion. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment, and will patiently draw your attention to what I already pointed out re the geophysics involved and the observations already confirmed by events since models were refined sufficiently to predict what would happen by now. For example, our ABC Television reporters back in 1990 did a report on our models/scientists' predictions of what 2020 would be like re climate/consequences due to warming trend observed in 1990.

The models/scientists predictions were SPOT ON.

WE are NOW having unprecedented long/deep/extreme/widespread/unseasonal etc droughts, wildfire seasons, flood/storm seasons, pests etc.

Wake up. :)

Sep 09, 2019
@RealityCheck

You have been saying "RussianGOP". Would you mind explaining what the GOP stands for? Thanks.

Sep 09, 2019
'' I also told you that the WHOLE atmosphere on Earth is involved in absorbing the IR''

i this the same RC who swore that N2 could not absorb IR ? in the context of Raman spectra

Sep 12, 2019
@snoosebaum.
'' I also told you that the WHOLE atmosphere on Earth is involved in absorbing the IR''

i this the same RC who swore that N2 could not absorb IR ? in the context of Raman spectra
I explained all that already the last time we discussed the matter. The Raman spectroscopy involved specially designed 'material structures' interacting with the radiation and the Nitrogen to produce the desired transfer of vibrationary energy from the IR radiation to the N molecule. That is NOT the same as the free gas situation in the atmosphere...where the heat absorbed by CO2 and other IR absorbing gases DUMPS heat into the ubiquitous Nitrogen molecules via DIRECT collisional CONTACT, not IR re-radiative means. Wake up and get it straight, @snoose. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more