« First « Previous Comments 6 - 45 of 53 Next » Last » Search these comments
Not familiar with Aussie media, but this comes off as an equivalent to Fox News, which is reporting to support a pre-determined conclusion. The ONE data set they showed was a graph with a long downward trend with two outlier spikes at its end in 2020. This does not prove the long term coral issues were not serious, or that they are cured long term. It's the equivalent to an American dipshit posting some January morning "8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"
"8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"
Automan Empire says"8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"
When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?
People have good reason to distrust the whole concept of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" at this point. Government hasn't done anything real about it, it appears to be nothing more than a scam. And just how much better does infra-red radiation get reflected by CO2 versus Nitrogen anyhow? You can't even get fundamental answers like that and supposedly CO2 is a greenhouse gas. On top of it are the constantly lies, that the fires on the West Coast are caused by "global warming" or that the Arctic is "ice free", that polar bears are being driven to extinction, that the glaciers are going to disappear, etc. etc. etc.
When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?
Looking forward to addressing any sensible good faith questions you may furnish.
This is a Gish Gallop of ignorant maundering. Let's address the issue of warming potential of nitrogen V CO2. You did not even conceptualize the issue correctly. The greenhouse effect isn't an effect of any atmospheric gas REFLECTING. The fundamental behavior of atmospheric gases is very well understood, is measurable, and the claims about measurements are repeatable and independently verifiable.
See if you can respond to these two specific points in a scientific manner.
I'm tired of this "debate".
Well, re-emission of the infra-red photon then.
That's rich coming from AE.
That's rich coming from AE.
richwicks saysI'm tired of this "debate".
Tired of it? You never ENGAGED it beyond superficial talking points in the first place.
richwicks saysWell, re-emission of the infra-red photon then.
Good save. From there you went back to argument from incredulity.
This whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect is based on Venus from the 1970's
A mile long straight pipe filled with each gas should block an infra-red laser (or scatter it) more or less in a quantifiable way. No experiment such as that has been done.
Al Gore hasn't helped
richwicks saysThis whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect is based on Venus from the 1970's
Conditions on Venus have nothing to do with the way Earth warming models were developed and refined. This sounds like as crude a rejection as OP. "They modeled it after Venus so obvs false on Earth."
richwicks saysA mile long straight pipe filled with each gas should block an infra-red laser (or scatter it) more or less in a quantifiable way. No experiment such as that has been done.
A cartoonishly absurd test setup, of COURSE nobody has done THAT. For scale, the gas bench used to measure car exhaust for smog checks is smaller than a loaf of bread. Crude experiments can be done at the elementary school science fair level showing heat retention effect in mason jar size samples. Actually quantifying the heat retention effect by CO2 concentration is a college freshman or HS AP level task.
richwicks saysAl Gore hasn't helped
You assume everyone not skeptical of AGW must be "following" him or something?
Al Gore is beside the point. I see plenty of evidence the earth is warming rapidly, and that human activity is a big driver.
It's pointless to argue about this from my point of view. It's become a religion, one based on faith. The mysterious, unobtainable models are wrong so wrong, this can't even be considered a science. But anybody that questions it, points out the history of ridiculously wrong predictions, is always called stupid, or ignorant, or whatever. They aren't, they are just a lot more skeptical than I was, and good for them. They had less reason to be skeptical, it took me 25 years of being stymied in doing ANY verification before I realized, you can't verify it at all. I wanted to model it back in 2005 and 15 years later go "HA! SEEE! This was predicted!" but you can't do it.
What the fuck is "AGW"
Crude experiments can be done at the elementary school science fair level showing heat retention effect in mason jar size samples. Actually quantifying the heat retention effect by CO2 concentration is a college freshman or HS AP level task.
I have NEVER seen this done. Been to plenty of science fairs.
the next doubling of PPM WILL NOT mean a corresponding doubling of temperatures anyway.
Cool, so you just used your personal experience at science fairs to model what actually happened at every science fair at every school in the country every year for decades?
How does that set up the gravitas of your opinions on climate modeling?
Your title shows that you know nothing of science. You're not someone I can take seriously on matters of world importance. Heck, you're not even pleasant to hang around with to joke and banter about non-serious stuff for everyone who doesn't share your exact same suite of misunderstandings and delusions about the way things work.
Onvacation saysWhen do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?
The question presupposes a number of things in a manner counter to my understanding of climate science and global warming effects claims.
Looking forward to addressing any sensible good faith questions you may furnish.
All of those Pseudo Scientist that was here on Patnet from 2007 - 2015 assuring us all that Global warming was real and we were stupid for not following the science.
You forgot 2020: The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.
The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.
In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said. But tight maintenance budgets made it impossible for the park to immediately change the sign
I see plenty of evidence the earth is warming rapidly, and that human activity is a big driver.
280 ppm to around 410 since 1800. Just how did they measure atmospheric CO2 in 1800?
we've had far FAR higher concentrations of CO2 in this atmosphere before. It, paradoxically, appears to be greening the planet, not killing life. It's gone up from 280 ppm to around 410 since 1800
CO2 concentrations less than 200 ppm are nearly fatal to plants. During ice ages they get way too low to support plant life.
the fossil of a dragonfly with a 4 foot wing spanCan you imagine that hitting your windshield of getting stuck in your radiator or AC condenser?
Who fucking cares? Let's just make shit more efficient.
HeadSet saysthe fossil of a dragonfly with a 4 foot wing spanCan you imagine that hitting your windshield of getting stuck in your radiator or AC condenser?
HeadSet saysthe fossil of a dragonfly with a 4 foot wing spanCan you imagine that hitting your windshield of getting stuck in your radiator or AC condenser?
Plants can not use CO2 if its concentration falls below ca. 100 ppm in atmosphere,
« First « Previous Comments 6 - 45 of 53 Next » Last » Search these comments
They all have the intelligence level of a gold fish sandwich.
Great Barrier Reef experiencing ‘record high’ levels of coral coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znOidiyUnq8