|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 15, 2024 7:33:19 GMT
So, Zany, the only figure you've got is for heat retained by CO2 - and because it's a very large figure (with lots of zeroes) you assume that it must be the cause of warming. Very scientific. The trouble is that you don't have any figures for the amount of cooling that CO2 causes - or all the other factors that cause warming or cooling. And you have absolutely no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 causes warming.
Yet you're willing to put all your eggs in one basket and push for net zero which will cripple western economies. And you just ignore the fact that most of our problems are almost certainly caused by the burgeoning human population. Not CO2. So we'll spend vast amounts of money attempting to get to net zero and - if we ever achieve it - we'll then realise that it has made no difference to our weather. Even the IPCC admit that it'll take hundreds of years for net zero to have any effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 15, 2024 7:53:24 GMT
So, Zany, the only figure you've got is for heat retained by CO2 - and because it's a very large figure (with lots of zeroes) you assume that it must be the cause of warming. Very scientific. The trouble is that you don't have any figures for the amount of cooling that CO2 causes - or all the other factors that cause warming or cooling. And you have absolutely no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 causes warming. Yet you're willing to put all your eggs in one basket and push for net zero which will cripple western economies. And you just ignore the fact that most of our problems are almost certainly caused by the burgeoning human population. Not CO2. So we'll spend vast amounts of money attempting to get to net zero and - if we ever achieve it - we'll then realise that it has made no difference to our weather. Even the IPCC admit that it'll take hundreds of years for net zero to have any effect. All I need is: 1, That Co2 combined with other greenhouse gasses regulate Earths temperature at a mean ave of 15c, that without Co2 Earths mean temperature would be -20c 2, That therefore increasing Co2 will increase Earths temperature. And Co2 concentrations are increasing. 3, That no one can offer a better explanation for the incfrease in temperature. All your mud stirring might baffle a few people who ardently wish our situation not to be their fault (Perhaps its illegal migrants fault) but they don't baffle me or more impoortantly the worlds climate institutions. Talking about ocean currents and photosynthesis, Co2 concentrations from 300 million years ago and blips in history might make you look real to them, but not to me. I have never denied population growth effects the climate (More people=More Co2). But their direct influence (Tarmac, urban sprawl etc) cannot get near the 7,516,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy needed to heat the whole planet 1.5 degrees. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 15, 2024 13:06:49 GMT
So, Zany, the only figure you've got is for heat retained by CO2 - and because it's a very large figure (with lots of zeroes) you assume that it must be the cause of warming. Very scientific. The trouble is that you don't have any figures for the amount of cooling that CO2 causes - or all the other factors that cause warming or cooling. And you have absolutely no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 causes warming. Yet you're willing to put all your eggs in one basket and push for net zero which will cripple western economies. And you just ignore the fact that most of our problems are almost certainly caused by the burgeoning human population. Not CO2. So we'll spend vast amounts of money attempting to get to net zero and - if we ever achieve it - we'll then realise that it has made no difference to our weather. Even the IPCC admit that it'll take hundreds of years for net zero to have any effect. All I need is: 1, That Co2 combined with other greenhouse gasses regulate Earths temperature at a mean ave of 15c, that without Co2 Earths mean temperature would be -20c 2, That therefore increasing Co2 will increase Earths temperature. And Co2 concentrations are increasing. 3, That no one can offer a better explanation for the incfrease in temperature. All your mud stirring might baffle a few people who ardently wish our situation not to be their fault (Perhaps its illegal migrants fault) but they don't baffle me or more impoortantly the worlds climate institutions. Talking about ocean currents and photosynthesis, Co2 concentrations from 300 million years ago and blips in history might make you look real to them, but not to me. I have never denied population growth effects the climate (More people=More Co2). But their direct influence (Tarmac, urban sprawl etc) cannot get near the 7,516,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy needed to heat the whole planet 1.5 degrees. So why do the attempts to show that CO2 increases temperature (in the Earth's environment) never show any increase in temperature when CO2 is increased. And why do increases in temperature occur without any increase in CO2 - Look up the Early Twentieth Century warming which looks identical to our current warming. You discount the 70% repurposing of the Earth's land area as of no consequence but absolutely all of the changes that we have done to the planet's surface have caused warming. Chopping own trees causes warming and this has been done to build houses and infrastructure and provide space to grow monocultures of crops. Buildings alone cause very large temperature increases and concreting over large areas causes even larger temperature increases yet you say these are irrelevant. I've suggested before that you travel to a rural area and measure the temperature - then go to an urban error nearby and see how much warmer it is. We know that this is the case because the Met office attempts to correct their temperature readings for the fact that all their weather stations are in increasingly urban areas. They know that building causes warming. Look it up. And you still haven't managed to come up with a figure for the amount of cooling CO2 causes. Absolutely every plant and tree in the world is absorbing Sun's energy and using it to create higher hydrocarbons/sugars. So they're absorbing absolutely vast amounts of the Sun's energy. How much? And I suggest using a more sensible unit than joules for this because it will be off the page. You're a perfect example of the kind of gullible idiot who believes any nonsense provided that enough people tell you it's true. But you can't explain any of the anomalies that the CO2 theory throws up. The models don't work. it can't be demonstrated empirically. CO2 has a very well buffered effect on temperature. ALternative theories about population growth (from 1 billion to 8 billion) more than account for any warming. And it's the population increase that's causing the worst damage to the planet. Yet all this is ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 15, 2024 17:28:29 GMT
All I need is: 1, That Co2 combined with other greenhouse gasses regulate Earths temperature at a mean ave of 15c, that without Co2 Earths mean temperature would be -20c 2, That therefore increasing Co2 will increase Earths temperature. And Co2 concentrations are increasing. 3, That no one can offer a better explanation for the incfrease in temperature. All your mud stirring might baffle a few people who ardently wish our situation not to be their fault (Perhaps its illegal migrants fault) but they don't baffle me or more impoortantly the worlds climate institutions. Talking about ocean currents and photosynthesis, Co2 concentrations from 300 million years ago and blips in history might make you look real to them, but not to me. I have never denied population growth effects the climate (More people=More Co2). But their direct influence (Tarmac, urban sprawl etc) cannot get near the 7,516,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy needed to heat the whole planet 1.5 degrees. You keep claiming this, where's your evidence. Show me how that increases Earth temperature by 7,516,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules Yes and? WE are discussing average global temperature increasing by 1.5% That's urban and rural. . Well you do it then, I give you the net result of increased atmospheric effect minus photosynthesis. And that's all the rebuff you have. Stupid petty insults and claims of superiority. But you've already demonstrated your ignorance and reliance on a blog site for all your pseudo knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 16, 2024 7:25:56 GMT
I've given you the links on the experiments that have attempted to demonstrate warming by CO2 on Earth several times. You just ignored them. Look it up yourself.
As for your claim of how much warming CO2 causes - trillions of joules - it's completely meaningless without also quoting the cooling that it causes. That's fundamental. Yet to the best of my knowledge this has never been calculated.
But it's your job to provide the evidence, zany - that CO2 is the predominant cause of warming. You're the one making the claim, not me. My position has been consistent and clear - that no one has EVER provided evidence to back up this claim. There's not even a correlation, and the models consistently give inaccurate predictions. In science that means the theory is wrong. It's just one of the millions of theories that has gained its adherents over the centuries but has eventually been superseded by better ones. Ones that work.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 16, 2024 19:20:12 GMT
I've given you the links on the experiments that have attempted to demonstrate warming by CO2 on Earth several times. You just ignored them. Look it up yourself. As for your claim of how much warming CO2 causes - trillions of joules - it's completely meaningless without also quoting the cooling that it causes. That's fundamental. Yet to the best of my knowledge this has never been calculated. But it's your job to provide the evidence, zany - that CO2 is the predominant cause of warming. You're the one making the claim, not me. My position has been consistent and clear - that no one has EVER provided evidence to back up this claim. There's not even a correlation, and the models consistently give inaccurate predictions. In science that means the theory is wrong. It's just one of the millions of theories that has gained its adherents over the centuries but has eventually been superseded by better ones. Ones that work. Greenhouse Gas Theory: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. This has been known since the 19th century, when scientists like Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels could lead to global warming. Direct Measurements: Scientists have been measuring atmospheric CO2 levels directly for many decades. These measurements show a significant increase in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution, primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Temperature Records: Global temperature records show a clear warming trend over the past century or more. While natural factors can influence short-term temperature variations, the long-term trend is consistent with the increased greenhouse effect resulting from rising CO2 levels. Climate Models: Climate models that incorporate greenhouse gas emissions, among other factors, have been successful in simulating past climate changes and projecting future changes. When these models include only natural factors, they fail to reproduce the observed warming trend. However, when human-induced factors like CO2 emissions are included, the models accurately simulate the observed warming. Proxy Data: Proxy data, such as ice cores, tree rings, and sediment layers, provide evidence of past climate changes and CO2 levels. These records show strong correlations between CO2 levels and global temperatures over geological timescales. Experimental Evidence: Laboratory experiments and field studies confirm the greenhouse properties of CO2 and its role in warming the atmosphere. Consensus among Scientists: There is a strong consensus among climate scientists that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of recent global warming. This consensus is supported by numerous scientific organizations worldwide. Overall, while natural factors also influence the Earth's climate, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human-produced CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to global warming and climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 16, 2024 20:59:16 GMT
So, Zany, the only figure you've got is for heat retained by CO2 - and because it's a very large figure (with lots of zeroes) you assume that it must be the cause of warming. Very scientific. The trouble is that you don't have any figures for the amount of cooling that CO2 causes - or all the other factors that cause warming or cooling. And you have absolutely no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 causes warming. Yet you're willing to put all your eggs in one basket and push for net zero which will cripple western economies. And you just ignore the fact that most of our problems are almost certainly caused by the burgeoning human population. Not CO2. So we'll spend vast amounts of money attempting to get to net zero and - if we ever achieve it - we'll then realise that it has made no difference to our weather. Even the IPCC admit that it'll take hundreds of years for net zero to have any effect. All I need is: 1, That Co2 combined with other greenhouse gasses regulate Earths temperature at a mean ave of 15c, that without Co2 Earths mean temperature would be -20c 2, That therefore increasing Co2 will increase Earths temperature. And Co2 concentrations are increasing. 3, That no one can offer a better explanation for the incfrease in temperature. All your mud stirring might baffle a few people who ardently wish our situation not to be their fault (Perhaps its illegal migrants fault) but they don't baffle me or more impoortantly the worlds climate institutions. Talking about ocean currents and photosynthesis, Co2 concentrations from 300 million years ago and blips in history might make you look real to them, but not to me. I have never denied population growth effects the climate (More people=More Co2). But their direct influence (Tarmac, urban sprawl etc) cannot get near the 7,516,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy needed to heat the whole planet 1.5 degrees. 1) The earths temperature is regulated in a very complex way with all sorts of effects having influence on what happens. 2) CO2 may increase the earth's temperature but by an unknown level and the multitude of mitigating cooling effects are poorly understood, poorly investigated and often ignored. 3) It is at best difficult to show 'the whole planet' has heated by 1.5 degrees C as the temperature record even now is at odds with all the measurements that have gone before and the liberal use of correction factors in the raw data suggests many questions remain as to the accuracy of the record especially when a 'trick' is applied to refine results and the raw data and what has been done to it in some instances remains hidden. Unfortunately the behaviour of many climate agencies remains in many ways rather secretive most especially when it comes to comparisons of different temperature recording methods. As an example in Australia it has taken a court case over two years trying to get access to side by side readings of mercury thermometers and electronic probes in some stations. Secrecy suggests something to hide. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 17, 2024 7:28:35 GMT
I've given you the links on the experiments that have attempted to demonstrate warming by CO2 on Earth several times. You just ignored them. Look it up yourself. As for your claim of how much warming CO2 causes - trillions of joules - it's completely meaningless without also quoting the cooling that it causes. That's fundamental. Yet to the best of my knowledge this has never been calculated. But it's your job to provide the evidence, zany - that CO2 is the predominant cause of warming. You're the one making the claim, not me. My position has been consistent and clear - that no one has EVER provided evidence to back up this claim. There's not even a correlation, and the models consistently give inaccurate predictions. In science that means the theory is wrong. It's just one of the millions of theories that has gained its adherents over the centuries but has eventually been superseded by better ones. Ones that work. 1. Greenhouse Gas Theory: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. This has been known since the 19th century, when scientists like Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels could lead to global warming. 2. Direct Measurements: Scientists have been measuring atmospheric CO2 levels directly for many decades. These measurements show a significant increase in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution, primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. 3. Temperature Records: Global temperature records show a clear warming trend over the past century or more. While natural factors can influence short-term temperature variations, the long-term trend is consistent with the increased greenhouse effect resulting from rising CO2 levels. 4. Climate Models: Climate models that incorporate greenhouse gas emissions, among other factors, have been successful in simulating past climate changes and projecting future changes. When these models include only natural factors, they fail to reproduce the observed warming trend. However, when human-induced factors like CO2 emissions are included, the models accurately simulate the observed warming. 5. Proxy Data: Proxy data, such as ice cores, tree rings, and sediment layers, provide evidence of past climate changes and CO2 levels. These records show strong correlations between CO2 levels and global temperatures over geological timescales. 6. Experimental Evidence: Laboratory experiments and field studies confirm the greenhouse properties of CO2 and its role in warming the atmosphere. 7. Consensus among Scientists: There is a strong consensus among climate scientists that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of recent global warming. This consensus is supported by numerous scientific organizations worldwide. Overall, while natural factors also influence the Earth's climate, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human-produced CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to global warming and climate change. None of these are evidence of CO2 warming. Wake up. 1. The warming effect of CO2 is not in doubt. But experiments indicate that the COOLING effect of CO2 is of a similar order. This is not included in the models. 2. CO2 has certainly increased between 1850 and now (from about 280ppm to 420ppm). But many other things have changed also - e.g. the human population has gone from about 1 billion to 8 billion and 70% of the Earth's land has been repurposed - both of which naturally cause warming. You can NOT assume CO2 is the major factor. 3. The warming trend does not follow CO2 concentrations at all. It's all over the place. 4. The climate models do NOT include greenhouse gases' effects. The only one included is CO2 and the models are built on the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming. That means that they ASSUME CO2 causes warming and they include a coefficient (which defines the amount of warming per ppm of CO2). Unfortunately they've been having to lower the coefficient. And the predictions of the models are WRONG every year. In fact they would be more accurate if they set the coefficient at zero. 5. The ice cores do indeed show temperature related to CO2 - but sadly for you the ice cores show CO" concentrations FOLLOW warming NOT cause it. The Earth warms and CO2 comes out of solution thus increasing CO2 concentrations. Nothing to do with CO2. 6. No one has ever demonstrated warming caused by CO2 on Earth except in areas with no vegetation (like deserts). Wherever there's any greenery CO2 does NOT cause warming. If you think it has been demonstrated show me the evidence - you won't find any. 7. This is a plain lie. All the statements (like 97% of scientists say blah blah) have been discredited. Scientists do think that man's activities have caused warming - but it's not specifically related to CO2. So everything you have said is false, zany. It reminds me that there was a BBC Horizon program several year ago that presented a balanced view of where the science was at - it covered most of your misunderstandings above. Sadly they no longer show the program and it's not on iPlayer, I wonder why. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 8:18:40 GMT
Nothing I can say will ever convince you two that you are wrong.
your arguments are all based on the evidence isn't enough and what happens in the field does not exactly match whats projected.
But the elephant in your room is that you can offer no alternative explanation.
Nor can you say why Co2 which you both agree is a greenhouse gas is not responsible on this ocassion.
Thankfully the scientific institutions around the planet know the truth and most governments believe them.
I'll leave you to your dreams.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 17, 2024 8:37:25 GMT
Nothing I can say will ever convince you two that you are wrong. your arguments are all based on the evidence isn't enough and what happens in the field does not exactly match whats projected. But the elephant in your room is that you can offer no alternative explanation. Nor can you say why Co2 which you both agree is a greenhouse gas is not responsible on this ocassion. Thankfully the scientific institutions around the planet know the truth and most governments believe them. I'll leave you to your dreams. You have to think carefully. It is you, and many like you, that are making demands of us. It is a matter of good manners to state why those demands are made and when we query the science/political reasons behind those demands it is also good manners to present the evidence. So far the strategy used to bring round sceptics is to call them stupid, deniers, charlatans, flat earthers, right wingers, conspiracy theorists and the duped. Not the best way to run a campaign to convince those not convinced. The questions as regards the science, the data and the politics abound as well as predictions made to scare us that never come true. You are in a hearts and minds campaign that you lost 20 years ago and the same old tactics keep resurfacing. The AGW emergency lobby has the ear of the political world largely because politicians can then blame their failures on us and not themselves. It is a gift from heaven to the political class and the corporate world who use its message unflinchingly in their own interests. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 9:01:29 GMT
Nothing I can say will ever convince you two that you are wrong. your arguments are all based on the evidence isn't enough and what happens in the field does not exactly match whats projected. But the elephant in your room is that you can offer no alternative explanation. Nor can you say why Co2 which you both agree is a greenhouse gas is not responsible on this ocassion. Thankfully the scientific institutions around the planet know the truth and most governments believe them. I'll leave you to your dreams. You have to think carefully. It is you, and many like you, that are making demands of us. It is a matter of good manners to state why those demands are made and when we query the science/political reasons behind those demands it is also good manners to present the evidence. So far the strategy used to bring round sceptics is to call them stupid, deniers, charlatans, flat earthers, right wingers, conspiracy theorists and the duped. Not the best way to run a campaign to convince those not convinced. The questions as regards the science, the data and the politics abound as well as predictions made to scare us that never come true. You are in a hearts and minds campaign that you lost 20 years ago and the same old tactics keep resurfacing. The AGW emergency lobby has the ear of the political world largely because politicians can then blame their failures on us and not themselves. It is a gift from heaven to the political class and the corporate world who use its message unflinchingly in their own interests. I have to decide who I believe. Then decide what to do about the problems. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 17, 2024 9:06:25 GMT
You have to think carefully. It is you, and many like you, that are making demands of us. It is a matter of good manners to state why those demands are made and when we query the science/political reasons behind those demands it is also good manners to present the evidence. So far the strategy used to bring round sceptics is to call them stupid, deniers, charlatans, flat earthers, right wingers, conspiracy theorists and the duped. Not the best way to run a campaign to convince those not convinced. The questions as regards the science, the data and the politics abound as well as predictions made to scare us that never come true. You are in a hearts and minds campaign that you lost 20 years ago and the same old tactics keep resurfacing. The AGW emergency lobby has the ear of the political world largely because politicians can then blame their failures on us and not themselves. It is a gift from heaven to the political class and the corporate world who use its message unflinchingly in their own interests. I have to decide who I believe. Then decide what to do about the problems. As is everyone's right, I am however not demanding you do anything. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 9:39:21 GMT
I have to decide who I believe. Then decide what to do about the problems. As is everyone's right, I am however not demanding you do anything. Nor am I. But my elected representatives are and I have to decide if I believe their reasons for doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 17, 2024 10:21:05 GMT
As is everyone's right, I am however not demanding you do anything. Nor am I. But my elected representatives are and I have to decide if I believe their reasons for doing so. This is classic avoidance. Rather than deal with compulsion head on, like Dan, Zany pretends that policies he supports are 'nothing to do with him' |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 11:08:24 GMT
Nor am I. But my elected representatives are and I have to decide if I believe their reasons for doing so. This is classic avoidance. Rather than deal with compulsion head on, like Dan, Zany pretends that policies he supports are 'nothing to do with him' Answer the points. |
|
