[BartSimpson]

Delwin Delwin:

You are going to keep getting negative feedback if you keep shitposting.

Actually Zip and Fiddy are on topic. It's just you and me who've been shitposting.

[Delwin]

Well, you are half right

[BartSimpson]

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I recognize those words, but I've told you before I won't defend an argument I haven't made.

280ppm -> 403ppm = 1C. That is all.

And I have no idea what you mean by ' 3 degrees warming' or 'explain 80s and 90s increase'. No one mentioned 3 degrees, or the 80s and 90s.

I think we're looking at about 0.8 deg C actually, as a global surface temperature rise since around 1880 (when I think CO2 was around 280 ppm). Since the relationship is logarithmic, you'd currently be looking at a about a 1.5 deg C rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2, based on that.

But it ain't that simple. I imagine climate sensitivities will vary widely in regions and time. Water, I believe, is the most positive and the most negative feedback, and since it's state is very sensitive to small temperature changes, it's pretty hard to predict.

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Like this kind of research?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm

Or the kind of research in the article?

I thought you were a trained observer, go and look at the data yourself, plot it yourself you will likely arrive at a similar conclusion, global warming is a myth. Sorry I am calling you out on this one, from that presentation find ONE THING that isn't valid...

Those nice little bullet points have ZERO supporting data, all of Carter's data is from the source, he hasn't manufactured anything. I have worked in Geology for over 15 years, it's all about scale and accommodation space, nothing else.


~4000 (thousand!) PPM in Cm with 2 degree higher temp..that completely kills the theory that CO2 is causing dangerous warming, oceans didn't boil away, life was beginning to flourish. We are cooling not warming. Carter's presentation I posted, only one of many prominent scientist completely disagree with this 'new religion' of wealth redistribution. All of the charts he presents can be reproduced from the original data set, he hasn't done anything below board.

Even the IPCC admits this is more about social engineering and wealth redistribution than 'climate change'. All humans have an impact one is pollution but to be so ignorant in the face of empirical (not computer modeled) data that we have a larger impact on climate than our G2 type main sequence star is just plain dishonest.

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

You are going to keep getting negative feedback if you keep shitposting.

Says the shitposter in his shitpost.

[N_Fiddledog]

And Uwish, wanna see the quality of the joker they're using to smear Professor Carter?

John Cook and his "Un"SkepticalScience website are responsible for a nonsense paper on a proposed "97% consensus."

Did you notice how Cook's-the-Science offered up his well debunked junk paper as support for his attack on Carter?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims



or if they want more:

97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming

Also:

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I recognize those words, but I've told you before I won't defend an argument I haven't made.

280ppm -> 403ppm = 1C. That is all.

Really that's the argument you're making. Cool. Nothing too horrible is happening then. Yeah I know, "a piece of the sky just fell on your head." Run and tell the king.

Sorry, metaphor.

But we always come back to this. If all you're complaining about is a little nice weather enjoy your 1 degree of warming per doubling.

To melt the Antarctic and Greenland you have to start talking at least 3 degrees of warming per doubling with a probability of more.

If you're just talking about 1 degree per doubling buy yourself some sun screen and possibly enjoy a couple extra days of rays.

Depending on where you live...

All theories not backed by any data. Where this study presents actual data taken from observations.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Like this kind of research?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm

Or the kind of research in the article?

I thought you were a trained observer, go and look at the data yourself, plot it yourself you will likely arrive at a similar conclusion, global warming is a myth. Sorry I am calling you out on this one, from that presentation find ONE THING that isn't valid...

I have watched enough BS by Professor Carter. No offense, but I'm not going through the whole hour twenty and disprove everything he says when others have already done that. Just for the sake of argument, let's look at the first actual point he makes:

His claim:

"Most of the animals now have been around for more than 6 million years, they are genetically pre-adapted to temperatures that are 2-3 degrees warmer than today. We are led to believe that there will be a biodeversity crisis if the temperatures go up a degree or two. Nobody can believe that who knows anything about the history of life on this planet"

The evidence:

Ocean acidification because of Carbon Dioxide dissolving in seawater will destroy vital parts of the food chain:

$1:

A new paper in Science examines the geologic record for context relating to ocean acidification, a lowering of the pH driven by the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The research group (twenty-one scientists from nearly as many different universities) reviewed the evidence from past known or suspected intervals of ocean acidification. The work provides perspective on the current trend as well as the potential consequences. They find that the current rate of ocean acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in last 300 million years.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/ ... ion-years/

So, he may be right that life can survive a few degrees warming, by moving toward the poles as it appears to be doing. But if the food chain collapses, well, it won't survive starvation.

uwish uwish:

Those nice little bullet points have ZERO supporting data, all of Carter's data is from the source, he hasn't manufactured anything. I have worked in Geology for over 15 years, it's all about scale and accommodation space, nothing else.

Zero supporting data? Did you click on any of the links under the "Science Says" column? There is very detailed support, from all sorts of peer reviewed sources for what they are using to disprove Professor Carters' claims.

I've worked in Computer Engineering for over 30 years, and I know enough to rely on experts in their field for their expertise. I wouldn't presume to tell a builder how to build a house (even though I've many of the skills needed to do that job), nor would I let said home builder tell me how to secure my home computer. My skills do not relate to anyone elses' and I should not project mine on to them.

uwish uwish:

~4000 (thousand!) PPM in Cm with 2 degree higher temp..that completely kills the theory that CO2 is causing dangerous warming, oceans didn't boil away, life was beginning to flourish. We are cooling not warming. Carter's presentation I posted, only one of many prominent scientist completely disagree with this 'new religion' of wealth redistribution. All of the charts he presents can be reproduced from the original data set, he hasn't done anything below board.

I didn't watch the whole video, but I assume you are talking about the early formation of the Earth, when CO2 was very high? Do you not see the fallacy there? That was when plants formed, and they spewed oxygen and oxygen breathing life evolved.

He's asking us to believe that life that evolved after those conditions existed will survive those conditions! Currently, OHS guidelines say that breathing protection must be work in areas where concentrations exceed 2000ppm, 3000ppm levels are allowed for no longer than 15 minutes, and levels approaching 15,000ppm are lethal.

uwish uwish:

Even the IPCC admits this is more about social engineering and wealth redistribution than 'climate change'. All humans have an impact one is pollution but to be so ignorant in the face of empirical (not computer modeled) data that we have a larger impact on climate than our G2 type main sequence star is just plain dishonest.

Where does the IPCC admit that? I find no statement by the IPCC like that. And several studies have show that the sun and solar activity has absolutely no effect on the climate that we can observe.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Delwin Delwin:

Yep and it only took a decade of beating them over the head with truth, time and time again, as they kicked and screamed like a 3 year old being forced to take his medicine. Was worth it but there's much left to do. Good job guys!

Yep, great job guys. You've all bought into the wealth transfer program. That's your "truth", buddy.
Considering the Greenland ice sheet didn't exist 1100 years ago, I fail to see the problem with it's disappearance.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Considering the Greenland ice sheet didn't exist 1100 years ago, I fail to see the problem with it's disappearance.

So, how is it that they regularly drill ice cores out of the Greenland Glaciers that go back 100,000 years?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... _IceCores/

[PublicAnimalNo9]

$1:

Ocean acidification because of Carbon Dioxide dissolving in seawater will destroy vital parts of the food chain:

Which has been proven to be occurring at source. There's a stretch of water near Italy which is completely devoid of life. There's also a small vent in the sea floor that is emitting something like 98% CO2.
Considering the fact that there are literally THOUSANDS of submarine faults, vents, smokers, stacks and volcanoes, doesn't it seem likely that they would be the primary culprit?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Considering the Greenland ice sheet didn't exist 1100 years ago, I fail to see the problem with it's disappearance.

So, how is it that they regularly drill ice cores out of the Greenland Glaciers that go back 100,000 years?

Because glaciers go as the climate goes. There was ice in Greenland at the time, but the ice sheet was at the very northern part of the island. The entire interior was ice free when Eric the Red arrived and remained that way for a few hundred years more.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Considering the Greenland ice sheet didn't exist 1100 years ago, I fail to see the problem with it's disappearance.

So, how is it that they regularly drill ice cores out of the Greenland Glaciers that go back 100,000 years?

Because glaciers go as the climate goes. There was ice in Greenland at the time, but the ice sheet was at the very northern part of the island. The entire interior was ice free when Eric the Red arrived and remained that way for a few hundred years more.

Ice cores from all over the continent date back farther than 1000 years. Therefore, they existed that far back in the past.

It was also documented that Eric the Red, once expelled from Iceland for murder, called it 'Greenland' as a marketing strategy, not as a fact.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

$1:

Ocean acidification because of Carbon Dioxide dissolving in seawater will destroy vital parts of the food chain:

Which has been proven to be occurring at source. There's a stretch of water near Italy which is completely devoid of life. There's also a small vent in the sea floor that is emitting something like 98% CO2.

So, how is the acidification of large shallow portions of the oceans that aren't near Italy proceeding? You know, just the first few meters of huge swaths of the ocean.

http://www.goa-on.org/GOA-ON_Map_FullScreen.html

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Considering the fact that there are literally THOUSANDS of submarine faults, vents, smokers, stacks and volcanoes, doesn't it seem likely that they would be the primary culprit?

So, what causes the algae blooms and depletion of oxygen at river deltas like the Mississippi or Lake Erie? Hint: It's not volcanoes!

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Like this kind of research?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm

Or the kind of research in the article?

I thought you were a trained observer, go and look at the data yourself, plot it yourself you will likely arrive at a similar conclusion, global warming is a myth. Sorry I am calling you out on this one, from that presentation find ONE THING that isn't valid...

Where does the IPCC admit that? I find no statement by the IPCC like that. And several studies have show that the sun and solar activity has absolutely no effect on the climate that we can observe.

The sun has no influence on climate? wow, sorry but you just dug your own grave, talk about being discredited. Sorry, but everything that spews from your lips from now on means nothing anymore.