Humans CANNOT change the climate of a planet

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IF my facts are wrong, then I will learn by arguing with people that have the correct facts. Only then will I be relevant to the solution.

Same for anyone else but dismissing their opinions because they having bad facts dismisses them as people. And that is  wrong no matter what. Disagree fine intelligent argument to persuade them otherwise.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

CO2 is something that confuses me actually the way I remember learning it in the 90's:

CO2 is Carbon Dioxide which is what plants need to breath out O2 so humans can breath out CO2 

CO carbon monoxide is car exhaust and bad for the environment. When did that change??????

 

CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere causing it to warm. Biological CO2 does not increase atmospheric concentrations because it is continually recycled. AKA, not adding more.

Burning millions years old fossil fuel does increase those concentrations and thus increased warming.

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

Just now, robosmith said:

CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere causing it to warm.

Ok see I was taught that to CO in high school there in lies the confusion.

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

The way I remember it is that CO goes up the the O zone and take a atom or messes up a molocule or something and becomes something else like C2O I think I dont remember right now. And that was how wholes in the O zone wear formed.

 

Am I miss remembering and it was CO goes up and becomes extra CO2 and that is the problem???

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

Same for anyone else but dismissing their opinions because they having bad facts dismisses them as people. And that is  wrong no matter what. Disagree fine intelligent argument to persuade them otherwise.

Opinions based on faulty "facts" are never a solution. When they insist their faulty facts are true, they need to be dismissed because they refuse to learn.  Sorry, not sorry.

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

Just now, robosmith said:

 When they insist their faulty facts are true, they need to be dismissed because they refuse to learn.

The first part of you statement is true so no need to address this though I disagree with this just means that they have not been reached yet and you need to keep working on them and talking to them intelligently to help them understand. If they choose to dismiss you and go away still ignorant you can hold you head high that you tried and did not dismiss someone simply because they disagreed with you. If you only talk to people that agree with you or your fact you are like the french radical watching the mob go by; "There go my people I need to find out where they are going so I can lead them" Instead you should aspire to reach those that disagree with you. And when they insult and belittle you while you maintain intelligent discourse know that they have conceded the high ground and you are winning. I would rather loose an argument where I made someone stop and think about the issue than win one where that same person walked away angry and feeling dismissed.

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, reason10 said:

Nope. The article is fact.

The seas have not risen when Algore said they would.

The earth did NOT warm when the nutcases said it would.

The climate has not and will not change as a result of ANY human activity.

The article itself says it’s sarcastic article, genius. Do you really think that cows don’t exist like the article says?

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

9 hours ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

 

9 hours ago, reason10 said:

Nope. The article is fact.

The seas have not risen when Algore said they would.

The earth did NOT warm when the nutcases said it would.

The climate has not and will not change as a result of ANY human activity.

I really do want to be insulting but BRAH....... Just by living on the planet we effect the environment. Fossil fuel consumption, asphalt, concrete, glass, major cities and neighborhoods taking up grazing land of wild animals. Humans have been effecting the environment since the bronze age. Time to smell the coffee, the first time we domesticated an animal we effected the environment, planted crops; effected the environment. Not all of the effects have been bad, But after the industrial revolution most were and are. While I admit Fossil fuel are not the only bad effect out there nor are they the only human controlled bad effect out there, At the moment it is the biggest effect, right behind volcanic eruptions, Which happen so often, try going with things that can be proven like the volcano thing. Or how much oil those turbines need, the effects of lithium batteries on the environment. 

 

But saying human cannot effect the environment. 

 

Yeah no not buying it. I have common sense.

[Infidel Dog]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

Of course it goes like this: start measuring temps from 1998 and everything after that is cooler so GW has paused.

However, that is ridiculous. GW has continued.

AFAIK, Greenland and Antarctic ice melting continues to speed up. From NASA:

Greenland, Antarctica Melting Six Times Faster Than in the 1990s

 

Man, you do like your massaged scary graphs and hyper enlarged titles. 

But I hear you also like facts. OK, I only heard that one from you but I did hear it. In fact you seemed to be talking like you feel you are the master of all facts.

I think you missed one.

From your article:

Quote

If the current melting trend continues, the regions will be on track to match the "worst-case" scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of an extra 6.7 inches (17 centimeters) of sea level rise by 2100.

OK, so what?

Are you thinking that's enough to wipe out Obama's mansion on Martha's Vinyard? He doesn't seem worried. Why would he be? I could be wrong but as I recall the prediction actually said the 7 inches of sea level rise was for the whole 21 century if seas continued at the current rate. So 7 inches in a century. Again, so what? Obama could put his mansion on stilts in a hundred years. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

And yes warming has continued from 1998 but satellite temps look to say it's about 2 tenths of a degree. One more time, so what?

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Like I said the deniers have won hands down.

There is hope. The technology to create a true public discussion system exists, and creating it would undo the damage that Network television did.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

And yes warming has continued from 1998 but satellite temps look to say it's about 2 tenths of a degree. One more time, so what?

That's still one degree a century or so.   In any case, the temperature models don't just use satellite, they use satellite and ground stations. There's not much dispute about the level of recent warming, they just have to adjust and there are lots of people working on that.

[SNOWFLAKE]

I don't understand the debate. This is basic science 101. Yet people still doubt human contribution to climate change?

I have always suspected there is either a political motivation or a self-interest motivation for denying human activity in relations to climate change.

Plus we have not only the internet that allows us to access multiple sources, but there are science journals one could refer to.

 

 

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

I really do want to be insulting but BRAH....... Just by living on the planet we effect the environment. Fossil fuel consumption, asphalt, concrete, glass, major cities and neighborhoods taking up grazing land of wild animals. Humans have been effecting the environment since the bronze age. Time to smell the coffee, the first time we domesticated an animal we effected the environment, planted crops; effected the environment. Not all of the effects have been bad, But after the industrial revolution most were and are. While I admit Fossil fuel are not the only bad effect out there nor are they the only human controlled bad effect out there, At the moment it is the biggest effect, right behind volcanic eruptions, Which happen so often, try going with things that can be proven like the volcano thing. Or how much oil those turbines need, the effects of lithium batteries on the environment. 

 

But saying human cannot effect the environment. 

 

Yeah no not buying it. I have common sense.

Well said. 
In the 1970’s, scientists discovered that gasses called CFC’s, which were used as aerosol propellants and refrigerants, were destroying Earth’s ozone layer.  This would lead to excess UV radiation, leading first to excessive skin cancer but eventually destroying vegetation, which is the basis of life. 
 

So CFC’s were banned worldwide. They still are. We came up with alternatives and we use them.  We didn’t have the GOP senselessly ignoring the science. 
 

In another example, Southern California became enmeshed in a form of air pollution called smog. This was caused by pollutants from cars becoming trapped in LA Basin and  interacting with the sunlight. It was so bad that you could barely see across the street!! Really! So California created their own emissions standards, and after fifteen years, the air cleared up. It worked!

These photos show LA enmeshed in smog in the 1940’s and 1950’s.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Rebound

[Infidel Dog]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's still one degree a century or so.   In any case, the temperature models don't just use satellite, they use satellite and ground stations. There's not much dispute about the level of recent warming, they just have to adjust and there are lots of people working on that.

Are you saying you think 1 degree per century is pretty scary? Tell me why?

As to the surface temp measurements vs. satellites I think they've pretty much worked the bugs out of satellite measurements. They can calculate for decaying orbits now and the two different services keep each other honest. There are a ton of still existing problems with surface temps and even when they do tweak those it's always a Eureka moment where they find more warming. Surface temps might be more screwed up now than when they began trying to fix them. I could tell you about the larger problems with surface temps but sooner or later I'd have to mention Anthony Watts then R&R would have to rush to grab their/his global warming religion equivalent crucifix so to speak to ward off the evil spirit.

As to models. GIGO. Garbage In. Garbage Out. Confirmation bias will find whatever it needs wherever it lies.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Are you saying you think 1 degree per century is pretty scary? Tell me why?

As to the surface temp measurements vs. satellites I think they've pretty much worked the bugs out of satellite measurements. They can calculate for decaying orbits now and the two different services keep each other honest. There are a ton of still existing problems with surface temps and even when they do tweak those it's always a Eureka moment where they find more warming. Surface temps might be more screwed up now than when they began trying to fix them. I could tell you about the larger problems with surface temps but sooner or later I'd have to mention Anthony Watts then R&R would have to rush to grab their/his global warming religion equivalent crucifix so to speak to ward off the evil spirit.

As to models. GIGO. Garbage In. Garbage Out.

Facts are stubborn things. 

[Infidel Dog]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Facts are stubborn things. 

So is the skunky rot of lies. It's always somewhere.

I always get a pretty good whiff from the direction of the warmist religion.

[Rebound]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

So is the skunky rot of lies. It's always somewhere.

I always get a pretty good whiff from the direction of the warmist religion.

Science is not a religion. Facts are facts. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Rebound

[Infidel Dog]

There are solutions to some problems.

But first you need an actual problem and an actual solution.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. One shouldn't get sucked into fixing a non-problem with a bad solution by hucksters with their little bags of false equivalencies.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Are you saying you think 1 degree per century is pretty scary? Tell me why?

2. As to the surface temp measurements vs. satellites I think they've pretty much worked the bugs out of satellite measurements. They can calculate for decaying orbits now and the two different services keep each other honest. There are a ton of still existing problems with surface temps and even when they do tweak those it's always a Eureka moment where they find more warming.

3. As to models. GIGO. Garbage In. Garbage Out. Confirmation bias will find whatever it needs wherever it lies.

1. "Scary" isn't a word that is found in science, sorry.  You cherry picked temperature values that you wanted and still came up with 1 degree per century.  So you agree that temperature is changing, and presumably could change by more.
2. You seem to be referring to some corrections that happened awhile back  If the temperatures are off and don't synch up with each other then yes then investigate and in the case of ground stations they found more warming.  The people who were claiming that there was a conspiracy before the investigation of course screamed more afterwards when the temperatures went the opposite way from what they wanted.  They're emotional people the conspiracy folk.
3. Uh, no.  Models can be and in fact are compared to the actuals and they have done pretty well.  That's understandable given the amount of attention they get.  

Of course this is all very complicated, which gives trolls the opportunity to pull out some cherry picked subsection of data or take something out of context and start pushing it as a global warming hoax.  But a lot of the people who used to say the temperatures weren't going up and that THAT assertion was a hoax have now moved to saying that CO2 is only causing some of the warming...

[Rebound]

7 hours ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

The first part of you statement is true so no need to address this though I disagree with this just means that they have not been reached yet and you need to keep working on them and talking to them intelligently to help them understand. If they choose to dismiss you and go away still ignorant you can hold you head high that you tried and did not dismiss someone simply because they disagreed with you. If you only talk to people that agree with you or your fact you are like the french radical watching the mob go by; "There go my people I need to find out where they are going so I can lead them" Instead you should aspire to reach those that disagree with you. And when they insult and belittle you while you maintain intelligent discourse know that they have conceded the high ground and you are winning. I would rather loose an argument where I made someone stop and think about the issue than win one where that same person walked away angry and feeling dismissed.

You’re new here, so let me explain: My very first day here, I wrote up reasonable, polite responses. And the conservative asshats responded with curses. Lots and lots. I stayed polite, rose above it, but they kept cursing at me, calling me all sorts of names.  
 

So I wrote to the Admin of the site, told him he should block them for a few days until they use reasonable language. He said no, people can call each other names. So thats the deal. 

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

CO2 is something that confuses me actually the way I remember learning it in the 90's:

CO2 is Carbon Dioxide which is what plants need to breath out O2 so humans can breath out CO2 

CO carbon monoxide is car exhaust and bad for the environment. When did that change??????

 

It changed when we started digging billions of tons of carbon that had been stored in the earths crust for millions of years, combined it with oxygen by burning it and pumped it into the atmosphere.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Aristides

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

16 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You’re new here, so let me explain: My very first day here, I wrote up reasonable, polite responses. And the conservative asshats responded with curses. Lots and lots. I stayed polite, rose above it, but they kept cursing at me, calling me all sorts of names.  
 

So I wrote to the Admin of the site, told him he should block them for a few days until they use reasonable language. He said no, people can call each other names. So thats the deal. 

two wrongs don't make a right. Sinking to their level and slinging mud just makes you look just as insane and ignorant as they do the impartial observer. In the 90's liberals won hearts and minds by being the reasonable ones that debated rather than slung mud and insults. 

Then they won the culture war and became EVERYTHING they claimed to hate about the conservatives. 

Well done you are just as intolerant as racist, sexist and homophobes.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

And yes warming has continued from 1998 but satellite temps look to say it's about 2 tenths of a degree. One more time, so what?

So it is dishonest CHERRY PICKING to start the analysis at a local high point instead of using the rolling average over a longer period, which smooths the curve and is a more honest representation of what happened. 

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

5 hours ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

I don't understand the debate. This is basic science 101. Yet people still doubt human contribution to climate change?

I have always suspected there is either a political motivation or a self-interest motivation for denying human activity in relations to climate change.

Plus we have not only the internet that allows us to access multiple sources, but there are science journals one could refer to.

 

 

It is actually financial, the oil conglomerates, pay and bribe to push the "Human cannot change climate view" because they do not want their product replaced. The major car companies help them because of the cost to redesign their product. The politicians let themselves be bribed because they know we are no where near a solution yet. So hey profit.  

Edited October 18, 2022 by Jedi_Master_Tallyn