|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 19, 2024 22:33:45 GMT
No answer again. Not even an estimate, nothing to back up your claim beyond a half dozen instances where a climatologist disagrees with some small claim. That is then desperately grabbed by Whatsupwiththat and fed to its disciples as clickbait. You have nothing. So I believe the real scientists. What do the real scientists say? Where is the evidence of the consensus? We have been through Cook et al which was used as evidence for a few years but that has been seriously slated as a poor study both in methodology and conclusions. Some quote Science organisations but most of those refer to the IPCC's findings as evidence yet the IPCC are very much not free from criticism of their synthesis reports as Clintel have shown. The consensus is at best subjective and it is not clear what people are agreeing with. As regards 'real scientists, there are many 'real' scientists who disagree with the AGW narrative from a little to a lot, yet you ignore these 'real' scientists as of no consequence and dismiss them as bloggers. The scientific method relies on rigorous scepticism that the hypothesis should easily disprove yet the disproff adopted is denigrate the sceptics not disprove their findings. That is not science that is politics. stuck record. How many real scientists, what percent. How many think AGW is not real. Still no numbers, no evidence. Nada. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 19, 2024 22:52:35 GMT
What do the real scientists say? Where is the evidence of the consensus? We have been through Cook et al which was used as evidence for a few years but that has been seriously slated as a poor study both in methodology and conclusions. Some quote Science organisations but most of those refer to the IPCC's findings as evidence yet the IPCC are very much not free from criticism of their synthesis reports as Clintel have shown. The consensus is at best subjective and it is not clear what people are agreeing with. As regards 'real scientists, there are many 'real' scientists who disagree with the AGW narrative from a little to a lot, yet you ignore these 'real' scientists as of no consequence and dismiss them as bloggers. The scientific method relies on rigorous scepticism that the hypothesis should easily disprove yet the disproff adopted is denigrate the sceptics not disprove their findings. That is not science that is politics. How many real scientists, what percent. How many think AGW is not real. Still no numbers, no evidence. Nada. Yes you are zany...You are just another thorn in the arse of real science. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 20, 2024 7:49:17 GMT
Zany, you were asked to provide evidence that CO2 is "the primary driver of warming" and you have provided none - not even that CO2 is causing warming at all. You quote the ice cores but they show that the Sun was causing warming. It's very dangerous jumping to conclusions with a gas like CO2 because warming causes the release of CO2 into the air, so you need to be very careful distinguishing cause and effect - which is a mistake you make. I've pointed this out to you several times but you ignore it. So maybe you'd like to clarify one thing - do you believe that the Vostok cores show warming caused by CO2? Or do you admit you've got this wrong?
CO2 is also a gas that causes cooling - which the models completely ignore. If anyone can provide credible evidence that CO2 causes warming on Earth I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion, but so far there is none - just faked data and crude models that don't work.
Quite why you set such great store by the made-up "95% of scientists believe [fill in whatever you like here]" is a mystery to me. None of the possible origins of this statement have been validated - they've all been discredited. As SP says it's not even consistent what these alleged scientists are agreeing about. But the bottom line is that it wouldn't matter if ALL the scientists in the world were fully in agreement on CO2's involvement in global warming. Science is NOT determined by opinions - it's determined by empirical evidence and there is none.
So I suggest you either provide some evidence to back up your claim that CO2 is the cause of warming or stop making claims that are not backed by evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 20, 2024 8:25:01 GMT
What do the real scientists say? Where is the evidence of the consensus? We have been through Cook et al which was used as evidence for a few years but that has been seriously slated as a poor study both in methodology and conclusions. Some quote Science organisations but most of those refer to the IPCC's findings as evidence yet the IPCC are very much not free from criticism of their synthesis reports as Clintel have shown. The consensus is at best subjective and it is not clear what people are agreeing with. As regards 'real scientists, there are many 'real' scientists who disagree with the AGW narrative from a little to a lot, yet you ignore these 'real' scientists as of no consequence and dismiss them as bloggers. The scientific method relies on rigorous scepticism that the hypothesis should easily disprove yet the disproff adopted is denigrate the sceptics not disprove their findings. That is not science that is politics. stuck record. How many real scientists, what percent. How many think AGW is not real. Still no numbers, no evidence. Nada. Is that not what I am asking you? Numbers. Percentage. But there is no direct evidence as regards what those numbers are or what the percentage is. What there is is rife with inaccuracies and inferences that are at best questionable. The point is not that AGW is real to what degree is it real and so far the consensus of opinion ranges from None, a liittle, a lot, help.Whys should we listen to help when there are many other opinions? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 20, 2024 8:51:23 GMT
Zany, you were asked to provide evidence that CO2 is "the primary driver of warming" and you have provided none - not even that CO2 is causing warming at all. You quote the ice cores but they show that the Sun was causing warming. It's very dangerous jumping to conclusions with a gas like CO2 because warming causes the release of CO2 into the air, so you need to be very careful distinguishing cause and effect - which is a mistake you make. I've pointed this out to you several times but you ignore it. So maybe you'd like to clarify one thing - do you believe that the Vostok cores show warming caused by CO2? Or do you admit you've got this wrong? CO2 is also a gas that causes cooling - which the models completely ignore. If anyone can provide credible evidence that CO2 causes warming on Earth I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion, but so far there is none - just faked data and crude models that don't work. Quite why you set such great store by the made-up "95% of scientists believe [fill in whatever you like here]" is a mystery to me. None of the possible origins of this statement have been validated - they've all been discredited. As SP says it's not even consistent what these alleged scientists are agreeing about. But the bottom line is that it wouldn't matter if ALL the scientists in the world were fully in agreement on CO2's involvement in global warming. Science is NOT determined by opinions - it's determined by empirical evidence and there is none. So I suggest you either provide some evidence to back up your claim that CO2 is the cause of warming or stop making claims that are not backed by evidence. You just ignore and repeat, its realkly boring. You don't address my answers, you just pretend they didn't happen and repeat the same guff. You think you've been clever in saying " the primary driver of warming" in the hope that this can't be proved beyond all doubt because of the complexity of the atmosphere. But truth is all the evidence points the same way. You think you're clever claiming co2 causes cooling by photosynthesis, but neglect to say that is only because it reduces the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. Your arguments are ridiculous. Increased heat does cause soil warming and the release of Co2 into the atmosphere. Its well known that increases in earths temperature can cause this domino effect. That increase might be caused by Volcanic activity, milankovitch cycles or even techtonic movement. But on this ocassion none of these things are the cause. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 20, 2024 13:40:38 GMT
Zany says: "You think you're clever claiming co2 causes cooling by photosynthesis, but neglect to say that is only because it reduces the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere".
Sorry but again you haven't a clue. It's nothing to do with the fact that plants absorb CO2. It's because plants absorb large amounts of the Sun's radiation in order to drive the chemical reactions needed to create growth. You understand nothing.
I've answered aLL your questions . You have only one question to answer - give one example of evidence that CO2 causes warming and you have yet to provide it.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 20, 2024 20:04:12 GMT
Zany says: "Y ou think you're clever claiming co2 causes cooling by photosynthesis, but neglect to say that is only because it reduces the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere". Sorry but again you haven't a clue. It's nothing to do with the fact that plants absorb CO2. It's because plants absorb large amounts of the Sun's radiation in order to drive the chemical reactions needed to create growth. You understand nothing. For goodness sake. Yes of course I agree with that. Plants have always done that, but that is not stopping the effects of AGW. So I assumed you meant they had something to do with global warming. The evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming is based on a robust body of scientific research spanning several decades. The Greenhouse Effect: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with methane, water vapor, and others. These gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Not sure what more I can say. How do you mean give proof? Its a scientific fact, like asking for proof humans need oxygen, its just a fact. I could offer you a diagram showing the process, or an explanation of how co2 molecules absorb infrared light and re-radiate them out in multiple directions thus stopping an amount of it escaping the earth. Which of these would you see as proof. ? And the question you have studiously avoided is a very easy one to answer. Do you deny Co2 is a greenhouse gas? Your silence gives its own answer. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 21, 2024 7:33:57 GMT
Oh dear. I have tried to explain that CO2 has several effects on Earth so many times but you still don't get it. It's why the earth is a stable system. So CO2 is a greenhouse gas and traps heat - obviously. We can prove that with a light and a box. But CO2 also causes cooling because plants, when in the presence of CO2, photosynthesise, which means that they absorb the Sun's energy and use it to drive a chemical reaction - a bit like a solar panel. This prpcess causes cooling. Is that simple enough?
The question is does CO2 cause OVERALL warming in the Earth's system. And the answer is "sometimes". In a desert CO2 will cause warming because there are no plants. Elsewhere (where there are plants) no one has yet managed to demonstrate that increasing CO2 causes warming - as various experiments have shown. Yet the models make NO allowance for the cooling effect of CO2.
I can't put it any more simply.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 21, 2024 7:51:26 GMT
Oh dear. I have tried to explain that CO2 has several effects on Earth so many times but you still don't get it. It's why the earth is a stable system. So CO2 is a greenhouse gas and traps heat - obviously. We can prove that with a light and a box. But CO2 also causes cooling because plants, when in the presence of CO2, photosynthesise, which means that they absorb the Sun's energy and use it to drive a chemical reaction - a bit like a solar panel. This prpcess causes cooling. Is that simple enough? The question is does CO2 cause OVERALL warming in the Earth's system. And the answer is "sometimes". In a desert CO2 will cause warming because there are no plants. Elsewhere (where there are plants) no one has yet managed to demonstrate that increasing CO2 causes warming - as various experiments have shown. Yet the models make NO allowance for the cooling effect of CO2. I can't put it any more simply. Well no one would argue with that. But like all balances they can be upset. All the models include the cooling effect of Co2, in simplist terms X amount of Co2 Y amount of plantlife = Z temperature. Add more Co2 and you get more plant growth and balance is restored? That depends on how quickly you add more Co2 and how much plantlife you can fit in. In the real world there is not enough room to grow the amount of plant life needed to balance the amount of Co2 we produce. THe reason I haven't addressed this is that its so basic I took it as a given. I have even pointed out to you in the past that plant growth is not balancing Co2 growth. The planet is warming. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 21, 2024 8:26:29 GMT
But, as I said, the experiments show no evidence of warming if CO2 is increased in an area with plants present. So why have the models ASSUMED that the overall effect of CO2 is warming. You need to provide evidence that this is true - and there isn't any.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 21, 2024 16:55:57 GMT
But, as I said, the experiments show no evidence of warming if CO2 is increased in an area with plants present. So why have the models ASSUMED that the overall effect of CO2 is warming. You need to provide evidence that this is true - and there isn't any. Surely the evidence the planet is getting warmer is all those temperature readings. That plants are losing the battle. You mention deserts, how about oceans? The total area of the planet covered by vegetation is about 9% |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 19:40:08 GMT
But, as I said, the experiments show no evidence of warming if CO2 is increased in an area with plants present. So why have the models ASSUMED that the overall effect of CO2 is warming. You need to provide evidence that this is true - and there isn't any. Surely the evidence the planet is getting warmer is all those temperature readings. That plants are losing the battle. You mention deserts, how about oceans? The total area of the planet covered by vegetation is about 9% Are there questions as regards the temperature readings and their comparisons with past temperatures. I would say there are very many indeed and these are well documented. Just one example would be the UK temperature record set in 2022 beside a concrete apron in the middle of an industrialised area and upon that apron three typhoon jets landed all with the fifteen minute timeframe in which the temperature record was set. I am sure it is OK and uncorrupted though as you seem certain it is. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 21, 2024 20:21:49 GMT
Surely the evidence the planet is getting warmer is all those temperature readings. That plants are losing the battle. You mention deserts, how about oceans? The total area of the planet covered by vegetation is about 9% Are there questions as regards the temperature readings and their comparisons with past temperatures. I would say there are very many indeed and these are well documented. Just one example would be the UK temperature record set in 2022 beside a concrete apron in the middle of an industrialised area and upon that apron three typhoon jets landed all with the fifteen minute timeframe in which the temperature record was set. I am sure it is OK and uncorrupted though as you seem certain it is. Yes so you keep saying. But your two dozen examples are a drop in an ocean of data. And the idea that your story relies on thousands of climatologists all agreeing to lie for cash makes it a mockery. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 20:35:39 GMT
Are there questions as regards the temperature readings and their comparisons with past temperatures. I would say there are very many indeed and these are well documented. Just one example would be the UK temperature record set in 2022 beside a concrete apron in the middle of an industrialised area and upon that apron three typhoon jets landed all with the fifteen minute timeframe in which the temperature record was set. I am sure it is OK and uncorrupted though as you seem certain it is. Yes so you keep saying. But your two dozen examples are a drop in an ocean of data. And the idea that your story relies on thousands of climatologists all agreeing to lie for cash makes it a mockery. To be perfectly honest if I can find one, and I can find many many more, then it is a question mark on the measurements. The trouble is there are thousands of sceptical climatologists and physicists working sometimes in the oil industry and you, and many others, say quite openly that their employment situation raises serious questions as regards their integrity. Why does that only work one way? And for effect the UK record temeperature measuremnet has been used by JSO protestors as the reasons for their actions. On an individual basis it is very important. Talking of drops in the ocean that is effectively even now what the measurement buoys are and was very much what the bucket measurements were. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 21, 2024 20:47:25 GMT
Yes so you keep saying. But your two dozen examples are a drop in an ocean of data. And the idea that your story relies on thousands of climatologists all agreeing to lie for cash makes it a mockery. To be perfectly honest if I can find one, and I can find many many more, then it is a question mark on the measurements. The trouble is there are thousands of sceptical climatologists and physicists working sometimes in the oil industry and you, and many others, say quite openly that their employment situation raises serious questions as regards their integrity. Why does that only work one way? And for effect the UK record temeperature measuremnet has been used by JSO protestors as the reasons for their actions. On an individual basis it is very important. Talking of drops in the ocean that is effectively even now what the measurement buoys are and was very much what the bucket measurements were. Dream on. There are readings taken every hour across hundreds of thousands of sites. |
|
