More Climate BS...

#3,226
#3,226
Volnanza said:
That may give you a very narrow glimpse into the composition of the atmosphere. After that, assumptions are made (not always bad) as to why it was the way it was. The most interesting thing about the samples is that it spans multiple heating and cooling periods. If you go into the data with a goal that you are going to prove man made climate change, then any studies you do will be skewed to do just that. I have read some studies that indicate that co2 is actually a lagging indicator of climate change.
Click to expand...
I have some doubts about man made climate change but I don't discount the capability to get temperature and atmospheric data from ice samples. How that data is applied bears scrutiny though.
 
#3,227
#3,227
EasternVol said:
This may be of interest:
www.antarcticglaciers.org

Ice core basics

How can we use ice cores to understand past climate? What information can we get from ice cores?
www.antarcticglaciers.org www.antarcticglaciers.org
Click to expand...
that says what I said. they aren't measuring actual temps. they are measuring precipitation rates based on melting, and isotopes to extract an assumed temperature. but it doesn't account for anything else that would cause variations in those layers - either reduced/increasing melting, or some change to the water composition that would naturally vary the isotopes present, beyond temperature change.

again they are looking at multiple things but not temps, assuming it all means temperature changes, and ignores any other variable. they even have a couple paragraphs talking about the limits, most of which I have brought up.
 
#3,229
#3,229
Volnanza said:
That may give you a very narrow glimpse into the composition of the atmosphere. After that, assumptions are made (not always bad) as to why it was the way it was. The most interesting thing about the samples is that it spans multiple heating and cooling periods. If you go into the data with a goal that you are going to prove man made climate change, then any studies you do will be skewed to do just that. I have read some studies that indicate that co2 is actually a lagging indicator of climate change.
Click to expand...
If you read between the lines in my comment you may have noticed the one thing that is different between all the oscillations of the climate and now. These changes have been taking place for millions of year going back and forth, sometimes very rapidly, and we weren't there. It is an occurrence that has happened perhaps hundreds of times and the first time we show up...it's our fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and UT_Dutchman
#3,243
#3,243
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...

After being wrong for 25 years you would think that no one would listen to him anymore. Then there are democrats. It's odd to know that you can tell them lies all the time and they will never catch on. IT means that they never go back and check and they really do NOT care about anything. You can also tell them the truth and they won't believe you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, marcusluvsvols and W.TN.Orange Blood
#3,244
#3,244
EasternVol said:
You being from Tennessee and older than dirt, you surely know that Al Sr. was swimming in money. Jr. didn't make his stake from climate change.
Click to expand...
I bet he made a significant amount of dollars with the whole inconvenient douche bag routine. You are right though, he did have a lot of money prior to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, marcusluvsvols, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
#3,246
#3,246
EasternVol said:
You being from Tennessee and older than dirt, you surely know that Al Sr. was swimming in money. Jr. didn't make his stake from climate change.
Click to expand...
You mean all that money from Armand Hammer and Occidental that claimed they “had Gore in their back pocket”
Yep like father like son
 
#3,248
#3,248
MemphisVol77 said:
It's barely understood

BS. We didn't even start keeping empirical temperature records until the late 1880s. By empirical, I mean recorded by scientific methods and instruments that can be verified for accuracy. Older farmers almanacs and other written records like sailors logs are useful, but not conclusive.

Super volcanoes having caused global cooling periods in the past was theorized, but not proven until less than 40 years ago, the 1990s. I say this to emphasize how little of climate change is still actually understood.
Click to expand...
Joseph Fourier first wrote about the greenhouse effect in the 1820s. John Tyndall experimentally demonstrated it in the 1860s. Arrhenius calculated a surprisingly accurate climate sensitivity to CO2 in the 1890s. Alexander Graham Bell argued unchecked burning of fossil fuels would lead to global warming via the greenhouse effect in the 1910s. These are giants in math, chemistry, and physics. We’ve understood for a long time.
If you look at a longer time period than the one @LouderVol provided, temperatures fluxuate much more every 100K years. The temperature spikes up about 10 degrees celsius for a few thousand years then decreases about 10 degrees celsius. The phenomenom is thought to be caused by the distance from the earth to the sun decreasing approximately ecery 100K years before increasing again. Looking at that rate of temp increase and the time passed since last temp increase, we could curently be at the tail end of another increase. That would probably mean the amount of temperature increase caused by humans is magnitudes less than most believe.
en.wikipedia.org

Climate variability and change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Climate science should be pursued, but pursued without an agenda. What we presently have is just correlative. I personally think rather than presuming climate change is something we caused or can stop, our focus should be on accepting and adapting to climate change.
Click to expand...
See, this is what I’m talking about. The study of Milankovitch cycles also dates back to the early 1900s. You don’t think the scientific community is well aware? It’s incredible, folks who have just heard of Milankovitch cycles for the first time come in here like, “see, we told you it was natural cycles all along!”

We know which orbital changes impact earth’s temperature and the time scales on which they occur (spoiler: it’s not decades). And we can directly measure the amount of radiation earth is receiving at present. It would be abundantly obvious if present global warming were due to external forcing. I promise, this has been investigated in depth, and what you’re suggesting simply isn’t what’s happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#3,249
#3,249
LouderVol said:
there have been other mass extinctions
Click to expand...
Indeed.
again the argument isn't that the climate is warming.
Click to expand...
You personally may not be making that argument, but it still regularly pops up here.
the issue is someone needs to prove we are doing it. at BEST science currently has correlation, not causation. thats been my argument the whole time.

I have a couple friends who work in this very field, know a bunch more, studied it in college, and worked with folks at ORNL. do you know the current best method to test for temperature changes? kinda a trick question because it depends on what you have. Ice core or sediment cores are the best. do you know how accurately those tell scientists what year it is? Ice cores they can check the layers, but the farther back you go the more compressed those layers get, and they stop being accurate predictors. The older Ice Core sample only goes back 800k years. even at only 800k its impossible for them to KNOW where one year stops or stops. Sediment cores don't have the compression issue, but that is because the layers aren't as ordered, so there is no accurate way to say this was year .......81bc and this was year ......82bc. carbon dating only works to a point. when you read the reports/papers the temperature data is all noted as being extrapolated from PROXY data. do we use proxy data now? no. why? because its not a good predictor, and that same proxy data today tells us a different story about our current environment than our preferred methods do.

so when you say the warming that has happened over a decade would normally take thousands of years is a guess. and its a guess that only assumes one factor (temperature change) was at play. doesn't look at any chemical changes, composition changes, changes in precipitation, atmospheric changes, other natural disruptions whether living or not. it assumes ALL of those factors are temperature related. its lazy and its done to manipulate.
Click to expand...
Yes, different proxies are useful over different time scales. The aggregate of all the different sources of information tells us that current warming is unprecedented in recent geologic history. 81bc vs 82bc is not important.

Anyway, temperature history is only one of many lines of evidence. There are numerous fingerprints that show present climate change is due to the greenhouse effect. For example, earth’s stratosphere and other upper atmospheric layers are cooling, while the troposphere/lower atmosphere is warming. This is consistent with the greenhouse effect and inconsistent with external forcing such as Milankovitch cycles. It was predicted in the 1960s and confirmed over the following decades. Same goes for the rising tropopause (boundary between troposphere and stratosphere). We also see relatively more warming at night vs than during the day (decreasing diurnal temperature range), which is again a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

I mean we have literally looked up at the sky and measured the increase in incoming radiation specifically at the wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Likewise, we have satellites looking down measuring the decrease in outgoing radiation. We can directly measure the change in flux. It's unmistakably due to greenhouse gases.
we have been in a cooling period for FAR too long. yes that stability is good, but it isn't natural. eventually, even if there were no humans, nature was going to fix itself.
Click to expand...
Weird take. The natural period is good but it isn't natural?
there is no way for science to control for that natural process, which is why they assume 100% of the changes we see are man made. there is NO control for any natural change. the fact that we are returning to a geologic "normal" is never mentioned; that information is left out so they can manipulate the masses.
Click to expand...
Still nonsense
you know that carbon cycle is a CONTINUOUS process right? its not like all the carbon in our FF was sitting around doing nothing for 999,999 years and then it hit a million and became some FF. each layer of plankton or whatever built up and "aged" into FF in one long process. however the lifeform that eventually became the FF were not the source of carbon. they likely weren't pulling the carbon out of the air before returning it back, even in a lifeform that carbon was part of a process. so yes that carbon was likely in the air at some point. and guess what? that excess carbon is leading to "excess" plant growth. so its not like we are interrupting the process. As Carbon Dioxide Grows More Abundant, Trees Are Growing Bigger, Study Finds
why? because its a continuous process. one that nature has dealt with long before our ancestor split from the ancestor of the apes.
Click to expand...
Sorry I really don’t understand what you’re even trying to argue here. Carbon dioxide is undoubtedly rapidly building up in the atmosphere and we have proof it’s due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Yeah, nature has dealt with it before. As George Carlin said, “The earth will be fine; it’s the people who are ****ed.”
are we seeing change? yes.
could it lead to mass extinction? yes. I believe we are due. for a mass extinction event anyway.
are humans contributing? sure, on some level likely to scale with our relative mass to the earth itself or at worst the atmosphere.
can humans change climate change or stop or metaphorically freeze it? doubtful, and the law of unintended consequences is a cruel mistress. mother nature doesn't like being effed with.
Click to expand...
Right?! Maybe we should be careful experimenting with geoengineering on a global scale
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top