Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jan 7, 2022.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The reality?

    Then please show us proof that Newton's Laws have been completely replaced, and " obsolete".

    Dude, this is your claim, now prove it.

    In other words, put up or shut up.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2022
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not quite that high. The highest CO2 levels during the time the planet was inhabited by advanced life forms was the Carboniferous. And during that time it was over 1,500 ppm. Over three times what it is today.

    It may have been higher in earlier ages, but as there were no advanced terrestrial life forms at that time, they would not be relevant to a real discussion on the subject.

    But indeed, the CO2 levels on the planet are typical of what is seen during an Ice Age (and our planet is still technically in an Ice Age). Less of the surface habitable, huge amounts still recovering from tens of thousands of years of deep freeze. But we know that in every interglacial, the CO2 level rises, and plants flourish. We still have the condition today that is not even possible, as huge areas of entire continents are still "arctic deserts".
     
    drluggit likes this.
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    This quote is relevant, because looking at the past is the only way to gauge what will happen in the future on a planetary scale.

    Case in point, during each interglacial, CO2 levels rise.

    Case in point, we are still in an ice age.

    Case in point, much of two continents are still "arctic deserts".

    You like many simply deflect, because you refuse to recognize that the situation is not unique, and things are going ot get a hell of a lot worse. Even if all humans vanished tomorrow, the planet will continue to warm and CO levels will continue to rise.

    As they have during the end of every Ice Age ever.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    - I stated that what happened in the past is informative. Read my post.

    - You found out about those facts because of science studying that.

    You trusted science.
     
  5. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That was disappointing.

    But I suppose expecting more than one good post among the thousands was too much to expect.

    You're the obsolete bit, well, the language you use.
     
  6. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gibbrish. Not a cogent thought in this response. You can't defend your own science, so we get this? Laughable.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes.

    And as such, the rise in CO2 is not alarming to me, as it happened every other time an ice age came to a close.

    So why is this difference? Because somebody says so?

    As usual, you bounce back and forth, so amusing.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And I see no reference to what you had said.

    Got it, you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim.

    Please return when you can actually confirm your claims, and not just make things up.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure it does. In fact, I would argue that what happened two years ago is exactly that. I went over this before, and it horrified you.

    Humans are grossly overpopulated. And nature when that happens tries to kill off the species that is overpopulated. Either via famine, or disease. Modern transportation and logistics is more efficient than famine, which means the next step is disease.

    Ask anybody that have studied animal populations in the wild and they will tell you this. There are way too many people for the planet. But that has not a damned thing to do with the climate.

    There is no cause and effect there. No more than my having a cold at this moment is making my knees ache.
     
  10. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, read Science without Laws, or anything Ronald N Giere has written.

    It's not a claim, it's an observation that your philosophy of science is from the 1970s. Not going to write a hundred page post explaining that...
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a crushing blow to the alarmists, and from The Royal Society no less.
    Royal Society: Scientific Method Application Shows The Perception CO2 Causes Global Warming ‘Can Be Excluded’
    By Kenneth Richard on 2. June 2022

    Share this...
    Instead of focusing on probabilistic percentages and constructed correlations between two events in efforts to determine potential causality, 4 scientists have revisited the requisite conditions for causality in applying the scientific method. They find “the common perception that increasing CO2 causes increased [temperature] can be excluded because it violates the necessary condition for this causal direction.”[​IMG]
    Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (1) and Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (2)
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's different because Earth has become more densely populated and that population is distributed based on factors that are changing due to Earth warming. Also, we have political boundaries that block people from moving.

    When there were far fewer humans, people could just move. Today, that is not possible.
     
  13. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's one study, and the idea that CO2 can't cause T will be challenged, to put it mildly.

    You keep declaring victory, you never get there..
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  14. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do any of you really think that if there was a serious expectation iron could work, a group of richer than god oil guys wouldn't have paid for the experiment themselves? It wouldn't be expensive to them.

    This is just the latest con in a line of con jobs that goes back 30 years..
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, the population is not distributed based on factors due to the Earth warming.

    China has been the most populated nation for well over 2,000 years. And India is second, also for well over 2,000 years.

    The only continent with a significant population shift in the past 500 years is North America. All the rest have expanded by about the same rate.

    But even when there were fewer people, they almost never "just moved". Maybe you need to actually study human migration.

    In general, nobody "just moved". In almost every single case they moved based on pressure from other groups of humans. And they themselves started to move from pressure from yet another group of humans. Humans may on their own enlarge their territory, but almost never "move" unless other humans forced them out.

    But it still is less to do with "political boundaries", than simply most people almost never want to leave their home voluntarily.

    In total, in the last 50 years, the number of migrants has increased an entire percentage point. From 2.3% to 3.3%. And the largest increase is in those leaving for political reasons (war) or disaster.

    Oh, and the largest increase is in those moving south, not north. From for example Northern Africa to Southern Africa, Central America to South America, China to the countries south of China, etc. That is where most of the growth has been in mugration, the Nothern Countries are actually still fairly stable.
     
  16. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,474
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you are the one denying reality, unless your study, and not your bias, says otherwise.
    As to your "factoids" you really need to study this because it doesn't seem to line up with your statements:

    [​IMG]
    This may be helpful
    And I think you're getting your ice ages a little mixed up. The "little ice age" was off and on between 1500 and 1880 with periods of crop failure in different areas but there was no decrease in CO2.

    Continue the denial of reality, living in your paranoid conspiracy laden world.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please reread my post and try again.
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Royal Society brings heft to the question.
     
  19. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    STRANGER THAN TRUTH




    Climate Changes :eekeyes:
    Just As The Weather !

    Get over it!


    Moi
    :oldman:





    Eras-of-Life.jpg
     
  20. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In a far past the Earth was a "snow ball", that is to say it was totally covered by ice.
    Maybe dinosaur's farts increased the presence of methane in the atmosphere starting a greenhouse gas effect.
    [Imagine a dinosaur's fart ... it's something remarkable ... :cool:].

    Jokes aside, there are astronomical processes which affect the terrestrial climate in the long term.
    The so called "Climate Change" [no more "Global Warming", I wonder why ...] is a process [it would be] which affects the terrestrial climate in the short term.

    That "short term" means to face some problems: how short? Today cows fart issuing a lot of methane and there is who thinks that they are affecting the terrestrial climate [don't eat beans! If you fart you will increase the average temperature of the planet!].

    Personally I'm more concerned about the quality of the air I breath [in fact in my house I've got an expensive Dyson device to purify the air :)] than of the temperature. This means that I would think more to pollution than to "climate change" [the climate will change because of processes we cannot control, no way. Period. End of history.].
     
  21. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, Who is on first.
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  22. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Delete
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2022
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    jmotivator likes this.
  24. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    1,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think intelligent people (those who inherently doubt the entire premise of "climate change" or whatever the current fashion is these days) really do themselves a disfavor by arguing arcane weather questions rather than focusing on the nut of the issue.

    Which is, simply, supposed "greenhouse gases" are both inevitable and necessary to good an improving life on this planet. Period. CO2 is not a pollutant in any sense of the word despite the yawning chasm of idiocy known as progressive politics. Rather it is vital to life- virtually all life on this planet.

    400 ppm of CO2 (or whatever the "scary" bogie is at the moment) is vanishingly small. PPM itself stands for "parts per million". Simple math says that's only 0.04% of the atmosphere. The rest of the atmosphere is about 21% oxygen and 79% nitrogen. This is simple junior high school science.

    And don't get dragged into the BS of, "well, arsenic is fatal in very small amounts too!" Sure. Except arsenic is a poison and quite well recognized as such. CO2 is not.

    The other side to the question is what about life will disappear without fossil fuels? Basically everything. Hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear are currently the only serious options when it comes to generating enough energy to keep mankind alive and continuing to improve life for billions of people that at this point can only aspire to be able to argue this crap on the internet. And "nuclear" is scary enough in it's own right (unfairly to be sure) that there isn't a politician in the world who would ever try to speed development and more adoption.

    Fossil fuels produce CO2 and H2O when burned. All of them. And "alternative fuels" can't possibly make up the difference. And "electric" isn't fossil fuel/nuclear free. It's just one more load drain added to the chain (that incidentally is projected to fail widely this summer). Sorry, that's just true. All the time.

    Getting lost in, "well, we're at 432 ppm which hasn't happened since dinosaurs roamed the earth and we now have 1021 days left before the world ends so I'll go tie myself to a tennis net to make my point" is, at the exact same time, both untrue and blindingly stupid.
     
    Mushroom and Lil Mike like this.
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of biology.

    Plants have a number of requirements.

    Giving extra of one requirement does not make up for a deficit in some other requirement.

    For one example, western states are experiencing drought that is tied to climate change.

    More CO2 does not make up for drought.

    In fact, some western states are paying some farmers to NOT plant, because of the serious shortage of water. This can make sense when the cost of finding water is high enough that the cheapest way is to reduce usage.
     
    politicalcenter likes this.

Share This Page