Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[igon value]

So you think the fluctuations shouldn't happen now that we are here to look after it all ?

No, what a dumb question. I'm saying that temperature changes have happened in response to life forms changing the composition of the atmosphere, and right now there is a life form that is changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Which of the following assertions do you specifically contest?

- That the composition of the atmosphere determines the planets surface temperature - e.g. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of its atmosphere despite Mercury being much closer to the sun, the Moon is colder than Earth because it has no atmosphere, even though the Moon and Earth are the same distance to the sun.
- That different gases in the atmosphere retain heat from the sun differently - e.g. molecular oxygen and nitrogen retain less heat than CO2, methane and water vapour, based on elemental chemistry and physics - how infrared light interacts with the higher order molecules in the atmosphere.
- That the composition of the atmosphere has changed in response to life form activity - i.e. cyanobacteria releasing oxygen to an anoxic atmosphere creating the Huronian glaciation, changing the nature of life itself, or trees and other plant life sequestering carbon and bringing mean CO2 levels down and cooling the Earth.
- That humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere by releasing those gases that are known to correlate with temperature increases, by and large returning to the atmosphere the carbon and other compounds that were sequestered by life millions and billions of years ago.
- That temperatures have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Try to answer why climate science is bullshit while not resorting to sophistry or denying the facts as they are state above.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No, what a dumb question. I'm saying that temperature changes have happened in response to life forms changing the composition of the atmosphere, and right now there is a life form that is changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Which of the following assertions do you specifically contest?

- That the composition of the atmosphere determines the planets surface temperature - e.g. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of its atmosphere despite Mercury being much closer to the sun, the Moon is colder than Earth because it has no atmosphere, even though the Moon and Earth are the same distance to the sun.
- That different gases in the atmosphere retain heat from the sun differently - e.g. molecular oxygen and nitrogen retain less heat than CO2, methane and water vapour, based on elemental chemistry and physics - how infrared light interacts with the higher order molecules in the atmosphere.
- That the composition of the atmosphere has changed in response to life form activity - i.e. cyanobacteria releasing oxygen to an anoxic atmosphere creating the Huronian glaciation, changing the nature of life itself, or trees and other plant life sequestering carbon and bringing mean CO2 levels down and cooling the Earth.
- That humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere by releasing those gases that are known to correlate with temperature increases, by and large returning to the atmosphere the carbon and other compounds that were sequestered by life millions and billions of years ago.
- That temperatures have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Try to answer why climate science is bullshit while not resorting to sophistry or denying the facts as they are state above.

I'll answer your question with a question ( since i started it ).
If we were to stop burning fossel fuels right now do you believe the temperature of the planet would stabilise and never get hotter or colder?

 

[igon value]

I'll answer your question with a question ( since i started it ).
If we were to stop burning fossel fuels right now do you believe the temperature of the planet would stabilise and never get hotter or colder?

Did you not read my last sentence?

Try to answer why climate science is bullshit while not resorting to sophistry

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Did you not read my last sentence?

Try to answer why climate science is bullshit while not resorting to sophistry

Where did i say it was bullshit. I do consider that the modelling is very limited though.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Where did i say it was bullshit.

it is implicitly stated in your post here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-carbon-debate-pt-iii.915045/page-168#post-48366801

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No, what a dumb question. I'm saying that temperature changes have happened in response to life forms changing the composition of the atmosphere, and right now there is a life form that is changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Which of the following assertions do you specifically contest?

- That the composition of the atmosphere determines the planets surface temperature - e.g. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of its atmosphere despite Mercury being much closer to the sun, the Moon is colder than Earth because it has no atmosphere, even though the Moon and Earth are the same distance to the sun.
- That different gases in the atmosphere retain heat from the sun differently - e.g. molecular oxygen and nitrogen retain less heat than CO2, methane and water vapour, based on elemental chemistry and physics - how infrared light interacts with the higher order molecules in the atmosphere.
- That the composition of the atmosphere has changed in response to life form activity - i.e. cyanobacteria releasing oxygen to an anoxic atmosphere creating the Huronian glaciation, changing the nature of life itself, or trees and other plant life sequestering carbon and bringing mean CO2 levels down and cooling the Earth.
- That humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere by releasing those gases that are known to correlate with temperature increases, by and large returning to the atmosphere the carbon and other compounds that were sequestered by life millions and billions of years ago.
- That temperatures have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Try to answer why climate science is bullshit while not resorting to sophistry or denying the facts as they are state above.

Climate science is busy trying to model the current climate.
My point was not to debunk it, my point was that it would seem to be insignificant compared to the major climate changes that seem to take place every 100 000 years or so.

 

[igon value]

Climate science is busy trying to model the current climate.

Yeah, and?

My point was not to debunk it, my point was that it would seem to be insignificant compared to the major climate changes that seem to take place every 100 000 years or so.

We know, from geological history and astronomical observations of our solar system, that climate changes according to the following factors:

- changes in radiation intensity from the sun
- cyclical variations in the Earth's rotation around the sun
- ejected ash from bolide impacts
- ejected ash from volcanic eruptions
- (suspected) methane clathrate releases and other ejections of carbon into the atmosphere due to various geological processes
- certain life forms producing overwhelming amounts of atmospheric gases as waste products.

We can only control the last one. We are the most successful individual species ever in terms of being able to change our planet, as far as we can discern from geological history. The only species that may potentially rival us is the cyanobacteria that emerged billions of years ago and terraformed the planet to have an oxygen atmosphere instead of a methane one, but it is most likely that was done by dozens of hundred species over a very long time (although all most likely descended from the same one species).

So is your assertion that climate scientists are ignorant of the first five of my dot points above, or that they know about it and under play it? If the latter, why?

Or are you saying the sixth dot point is wrong, or that it is impossible for humans to meaningfully change the atmosphere of the planet?

Yes, climate has always changed, every single climate scientist acknowledges this. The Yellowstone Caldera could erupt tomorrow or we could have another K-Pg event, and that would render all current models of climate science useless, but that fact alone it wouldn't mean the underlying assumptions that go into climate science models today are incorrect.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah, and?

We know, from geological history and astronomical observations of our solar system, that climate changes according to the following factors:

- changes in radiation intensity from the sun
- cyclical variations in the Earth's rotation around the sun
- ejected ash from bolide impacts
- ejected ash from volcanic eruptions
- (suspected) methane clathrate releases and other ejections of carbon into the atmosphere due to various geological processes
- certain life forms producing overwhelming amounts of atmospheric gases as waste products.

We can only control the last one. We are the most successful individual species ever in terms of being able to change our planet, as far as we can discern from geological history. The only species that may potentially rival us is the cyanobacteria that emerged billions of years ago and terraformed the planet to have an oxygen atmosphere instead of a methane one, but it is most likely that was done by dozens of hundred species over a very long time (although all most likely descended from the same one species).

So is your assertion that climate scientists are ignorant of the first five of my dot points above, or that they know about it and under play it? If the latter, why?

Or are you saying the sixth dot point is wrong, or that it is impossible for humans to meaningfully change the atmosphere of the planet?

Yes, climate has always changed, every single climate scientist acknowledges this. The Yellowstone Caldera could erupt tomorrow or we could have another K-Pg event, and that would render all current models of climate science useless, but that fact alone it wouldn't mean the underlying assumptions that go into climate science models today are incorrect.

Correct.
We may plunge into a 80 000 year ice age, but it will not discredit the underlying assumptions of the climate science models.
As i said. Models are limited.

 

[Bodicifer]

Imagine if we took all the money wasted on climate change or global warming or whatever it is called today, and stuck it in a big arsed bank account...we could have cured poverty in Africa, cancer, and possibly a number of other issues...

PS Al Gore told me I'd be drowning by now so I bought a boat...you owe me money for my boat Al Gore (waves fist in the air)

 

[igon value]

Correct.
We may plunge into a 80 000 year ice age, but it will not discredit the underlying assumptions of the climate science models.
As i said. Models are limited.

More sophistry. This does not imply that models are limited. If you plugged in a 'K-Pg event' into the models used by climate scientists, it would tell you the impact that would have on climate. Or are you suggesting it won't? So are the models limited, or not?

What are the likelihoods of a K-Pg or Yellowstone Caldera eruption in the next century? Compare that to what we know about human changes to the composition of the atmosphere.

Imagine if we took all the money wasted on climate change or global warming or whatever it is called today, and stuck it in a big arsed bank account...we could have cured poverty in Africa, cancer, and possibly a number of other issues...

The amount of money that is spent on aiding Africa or finding treatments for cancer dwarfs that spent on climate science by at least one order of magnitude.

 

[Bodicifer]

More sophistry. This does not imply that models are limited. If you plugged in a 'K-Pg event' into the models used by climate scientists, it would tell you the impact that would have on climate. Or are you suggesting it won't? So are the models limited, or not?

What are the likelihoods of a K-Pg or Yellowstone Caldera eruption in the next century? Compare that to what we know about human changes to the composition of the atmosphere.



The amount of money that is spent on aiding Africa or finding treatments for cancer dwarfs that spent on climate science by at least one order of magnitude.

evidence?

 

[igon value]

evidence?

You made the initial claim that if money stopped being spent on climate change we could cure poverty in Africa or cancer. How about you provide the evidence that a equivalent amount of money is being spent on climate research over other causes you think more useful.

 

[Bodicifer]

You made the initial claim that if money stopped being spent on climate change we could cure poverty in Africa or cancer. How about you provide the evidence that a equivalent amount of money is being spent on climate research over other causes you think more useful.

Case and point...

 

[igon value]

Case and point...

The idiom is 'case in point' you ignoramus.

 

[Bodicifer]

The idiom is 'case in point' you ignoramus.

Case in point

 

[kranky al]

Case in point

Im sorry - but to all intensive purposes - hes gotcha

 

[kwikfix]

 

[kwikfix]

Trump solves climate change on his first day.

The White House website was updated immediately after Donald Trump assumed the nation's highest office. The president has long said he doubts whether global climate change is real, and there now appears to be no reference to it on whitehouse.gov.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/the-white-house-websites-page-on-climate-change-just-disappeared.html

 

[HairyO]

you should publish your research and let everyone know how 12,000 other papers are nonsense. could be a nice little earner for you.

If you go back to the predictions of the 80s and 90s and track expected temperatures vs expected CO2 levels against actual temperatures vs actual CO2 levels none of them vome close.

At what point do the predictions become accurate?

Or has that not happened yet but *fingers crossed* ?

When did wildly incorrect predictions become a science? And why do we believe this science but not the science that says coal seam gas extraction is safe, or the science that says genetically modified foods are safe?

 

[HairyO]

The amount of money that is spent on aiding Africa or finding treatments for cancer dwarfs that spent on climate science by at least one order of magnitude.

Got numbers on this?

I know the UN wants trillions for climate change. I dont think they ask for trillions for cancer or Africa.

But then it is always much easier to worry about problrms 50 or 100 years from now rather than the problems of today.

Zero accountability is perfect for the UN.

 

[igon value]

If you go back to the predictions of the 80s and 90s and track expected temperatures vs expected CO2 levels against actual temperatures vs actual CO2 levels none of them vome close.

At what point do the predictions become accurate?

Or has that not happened yet but *fingers crossed* ?

When did wildly incorrect predictions become a science? And why do we believe this science but not the science that says coal seam gas extraction is safe, or the science that says genetically modified foods are safe?

We do believe coal seam gas extraction and genetically modified food is safe. These things are legal in Australia.

 

[igon value]

Got numbers on this?

I know the UN wants trillions for climate change. I dont think they ask for trillions for cancer or Africa.

do you have numbers for this?

 

[HairyO]

We do believe coal seam gas extraction and genetically modified food is safe. These things are legal in Australia.

The Greens don't. Which is ironic given they always tell us to believe the science.

Here is the money the UN wants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund

http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...ding-gap-for-poorest-countries-climate-plans/

$100b a year which rich countries would pay, and then it would go to poor countries. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me. And Im sure none of it would go missing when the UN get their fingers on it.

The world bank also wants a piece of it: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/18/raising-trillions-for-climate-finance

As do the big investment banks. They love it when governments splash around money. So many adviser fees to charge.

 

[igon value]

The Greens don't. Which is ironic given they always tell us to believe the science.

The Greens aren't representative of the science. They are muppets.

Here is the money the UN wants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund

http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...ding-gap-for-poorest-countries-climate-plans/

$100b a year which rich countries would pay, and then it would go to poor countries. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me. And Im sure none of it would go missing when the UN get their fingers on it.

The world bank also wants a piece of it: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/18/raising-trillions-for-climate-finance

As do the big investment banks. They love it when governments splash around money. So many adviser fees to charge.

Lol.

 

[Long Live HFC]

At what point do the predictions become accurate?

which 1980s predictions did you have in mind?

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...g-a-1981-temperature-projection/#ITEM-11398-0

And why do we believe this science but not the science that says coal seam gas extraction is safe, or the science that says genetically modified foods are safe?

who is this "we" that you speak of?

oh for **** sake, lol. cue the fear and paranoia.