DuatDweller on 1/3/2024 at 08:24
I saw your webpage baeuchlein, and is mentioning carbon dioxide as the cause for global warming. To do a google for "CO2 not causing global warming". And see the results.
I don't want to pull the ET science card yet, as I don't want the fun to end to soon.
(
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html)
Quote:
EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he told CNBC's “Squawk Box.”
EDIT
Since ice ages are cyclic I believe there is more to it than just the last trend ideas.
Some more
(
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/environment-quirky-science-you-asked/humans-and-animals-exhale-carbon-dioxide-every-breath-why-not-considered-be-problem-far-global)
Quote:
The carbon dioxide we exhale does not contribute to global warming for the simple reason that we also take up an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the air, albeit indirectly. Everything we eat can be traced back to photosynthesis, the process by which plants take up carbon dioxide from the air and use it to produce the vast array of organic compounds needed for life. Our bodies can be regarded as living engines that require fuel and oxygen to produce the energy needed to sustain life. In that sense we are not all that different from a car. Both for us and for the car the source of oxygen is the air, roughly 20% of which is made up of oxygen. An internal combustion engine burns gasoline and spews out water, carbon dioxide and a few combustion byproducts. We, instead of gasoline, burn the carbohydrates, fats and proteins in food. Like gasoline, these organic compounds are converted to carbon dioxide and water, which we then exhale.
How is it then that we don't worry about the massive amounts of carbon dioxide that are released with every breath taken by the billions and billions of people and animals that inhabit the world? Because every atom of carbon in the exhaled carbon dioxide comes from food that was recently produced by photosynthesis. Everything we eat, save for a few inorganic components like salt, was in some way produced by photosynthesis. This is obvious when we eat plant products such as grains, fruits and vegetables, but of course it is also the case for meat. The animals that we eat were raised on plant products. Indeed, a growing animal is basically a machine that converts plants into flesh. So, since all the carbon dioxide we exhale originated in carbon dioxide captured by plants during photosynthesis, we are not disturbing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by breathing.
Starker on 1/3/2024 at 08:59
Scott Pruitt is a climate change denier who has received sizeable donations from the fossil fuel industry. Of course he would say there is no human caused climate change. Before he was appointed to be the head of EPA, he spent his time suing the EPA and trying to fight any kind of environmental regulations. And when he became the head of the EPA, he spent his time wasting taxpayer money on first class flights and giving his aides extravagant raises.
But the more important thing is that he's not denying climate change based on any kind of scientific understanding or disputing the scientific theory behind it.
Also, from your own source above:
Quote:
On the other hand, when we burn fossil fuels such as gasoline, we are releasing carbon dioxide that forms from carbon atoms that had been removed from the atmosphere millions and millions of years ago by photosynthesis and had then been sequestered in the coal, petroleum and natural gas that forms when plants and animals die and decay.
By burning these commodities we are increasing the current levels of carbon dioxide.It's not just enough to google things, you also need to read and understand them. Especially when your own sources directly contradict the claims you are making.
DuatDweller on 1/3/2024 at 09:10
Well that's the magic of quoting selectively, you pick what you want.
:ebil:
Anyway, why would I even bother to take part in this discussion if science is flawed anyway.
I don't NEED to convince you, I don't WANT to convince you.
What you believe is actually up to you.
If you want to believe in global warming, believe it, but do not try to tell me we know all about weather behavior.
Predictive computer weather models stop being precise at two weeks, not because it can't go further, but because there IS a factor we do not know about it.
Starker on 1/3/2024 at 09:18
Science is not a matter of believing or not, it's about establishing theories to explain the world and disproving them. According to the best and brightest minds, our current understanding is that the current climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels that have dramatically increased the CO2 in our atmosphere. This is measurable and provable, as I said, by examining the composition of gases. Also, we know greenhouse gases increase the global average temperature, of which CO2 is a major contributor.
And even just without delving into the science, if you look at the webpage baeuchlein posted, there is clearly something very anomalous going on. And the anomaly is such that over the millennia a drastic change has happened during just the past few decades. None of the things you proposed, not even the cyclicity of ice ages, explains that. Rapid industrialisation and the accumulation of CO2, however, does.
DuatDweller on 1/3/2024 at 09:21
Yes there is a reason behind all this I have very info on the contrary.
But I cannot tell you without you thinking I'm nuts.
EDIT
Again its not CO2
(
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-blame-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-when-water-vapor-much-more-common-greenhouse)
Quote:
Why do we blame climate change on carbon dioxide, when water vapor is a much more common greenhouse gas?
Extra water vapor we put in the atmosphere doesn't last long enough to change the long-term temperature of our planet. But water does play a major supporting role in climate change.
With all the attention given to humans' climate-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, you might be surprised to learn that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas affecting the Earth's temperature. That distinction belongs to water.
We can thank water vapor for about half of the “greenhouse effect” keeping heat from the sun inside our atmosphere.1 “It's the most important greenhouse gas in our climate system, because of its relatively high concentrations,” says Kerry Emanuel, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT. “It can vary from almost nothing to as much as 3% of a volume of air.”
Compare that to CO2, which today makes up about 420 parts per million of our atmosphere—0.04%—and you can see immediately why water vapor is such a linchpin of our climate system.
So why do we never hear climate scientists raising the alarm about our “water emissions”? It's not because humans don't put water into the atmosphere. Even the exhaust coming from a coal power plant—the classic example of a climate-warming greenhouse gas emission—contains almost as much water vapor as CO2.2 It's why that exhaust forms a visible cloud.
But water vapor differs in one crucial way from other greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. Those greenhouse gases are always gases (at least when they're in our atmosphere). Water isn't. It can turn from a gas to a liquid at temperatures and pressures very common in our atmosphere, and so it frequently does. When it's colder it falls from the air as rain or snow; when it's hotter it evaporates and rises up as a gas again.
“This process is so rapid that, on average, a molecule of water resides in the atmosphere for only about two weeks,” says Emanuel.
This means extra water we put into the atmosphere simply doesn't stick around long enough to alter the climate; you don't have to worry about warming the Earth every time you boil a kettle. And there's really no amount of water vapor we could emit that would change this. “If we were to magically double the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, in roughly two weeks the excess water would rain and snow back into oceans, ice sheets, rivers, lakes, and groundwater,” Emanuel says.
Nonetheless, water vapor is an important part of the climate change story—just in a slightly roundabout way.
At any given temperature, this is a theoretical upper limit to the amount of water vapor the air can hold. The warmer the air, the higher that upper limit. And while the air rarely holds as much water as it could—thanks to rain and snow—Emanuel says that over the long term, rising temperatures steadily raise the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at any given time.
And of course, temperatures today are rising, thanks to humans' emissions of longer-lasting greenhouse gases like CO2. Water vapor amplifies that effect. “If the temperature rises, the amount of water vapor rises with it,” says Emanuel. “But since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, rising water vapor causes yet higher temperatures. We refer to this process as a positive feedback, and it is thought to be the most important positive feedback in the climate system.”
In short, it's true that water vapor is in some sense the “biggest” greenhouse gas involved in climate change, but it's not in the driver's seat. CO2 is still the main culprit of the global warming we're experiencing today. Water vapor is just one of the features of our climate that our CO2 emissions are pushing out of balance—well beyond the stable levels humanity has enjoyed for thousands of years.
DuatDweller on 1/3/2024 at 09:37
(
https://www.energylivenews.com/2016/09/09/co2-is-not-causing-climate-change-scientists-insist/)
What about this scientists
Quote:
CO2 is ‘not causing climate change’, scientists insist
A group of scientists claim climate change is happening as a result of natural processes rather than the release of Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
A group of scientists claim climate change is happening as a result of natural processes rather than the release of Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
The ‘New Dawn of Truth’ climate change conference in London yesterday explored a number of alternative climate change narratives. Opinions differed as to whether the climate is changing and if so, how and why.
Piers Corbyn, Founder and Managing Director of WeatherAction LongRange forecasters told ELN: “The government loves it because it’s the first time in the history of man that there has been a movement of people begging to pay taxes. Once it means the price of energy goes up then the oil companies rub their hands because they can sell at a higher price. It’s based on falsity.”
The most popular theories during the debates included climate being affected by the movement of other planets and the sun, volcanoes both heating and cooling the atmosphere, knock-on effects of pressure systems fluctuating and ice coverage leading to temperature changes, rather than the other way around.
Geologist and geophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner claims the Earth is cooling rather than warming.
He added: “We shouldn’t spend time, money and effort on something that isn’t real. The horrors of burning fossil fuels and [emitting] CO2 itself, we will show that these two have very little, if any effect so this is not a horror. The earth itself is more of a horror.”
Nearly all of the theories suggested although climate is undoubtedly changing, it is doing so as part of a natural cycle, insisting it is not headed anywhere catastrophic.
The various scientists and campaigners spoke of a need to consolidate their ideas into a unified movement called ‘Clexit’. Unlike its namesake, rather than leaving the EU, Clexit proposes a departure from mainstream climate change movements such as the Paris Agreement.
Many suggested there is no inherent problem with green energy but are wary of its cost. Roger Tattersall, alternative climate change blogger, said: “I have no objection to people researching alternative technology and clean methods of power generation, I’m all for it but what I’m against is the industrial roll-out of half baked technology where we are deceived about how much power it will produce.”
alternative climate change CO2 cooling global warming
Starker on 1/3/2024 at 09:43
Again, from your own source:
Quote:
In short, it's true that water vapor is in some sense the “biggest” greenhouse gas involved in climate change, but it's not in the driver's seat.
CO2 is still the main culprit of the global warming we're experiencing today. Water vapor is just one of the features of our climate that our CO2 emissions are pushing out of balance—well beyond the stable levels humanity has enjoyed for thousands of years.
You can't just google for things that seem to agree with you and then throw them around hoping that something sticks. This is not how we learn about anything of importance. You need to actually read different sources, not just the ones that seem to agree with your viewpoint, and understand what is written. And that's just the first step. You also need to understand how credible a source is and what biases they might have.
As one of our poets said, adopting thoughts from others uncritically is like putting on someone else's underwear without washing it first.
Thirith on 1/3/2024 at 10:02
Sorry, DuatDweller, but you're equating your limited knowledge with that of an entire scientific community, where there's a high level of consensus? That's just being arrogant about your own ignorance. And "Why should I believe scientists that change their minds more often than their underwear" shows a clichéd, selective understanding of science.
Starker on 1/3/2024 at 10:04
Quote Posted by DuatDweller
What about this scientists
Piers Corbyn, the brother of, yes, that Corbyn, is not a climate scientist. He's a conspiracy theorist who makes claims widely outside of his area and expertise.
Nils-Axel Mörner was a geologist whose claims included things that are measurably, provably false, such as the sea levels having actually fallen, instead of rising.
I could go on, but you can already see the pattern -- there is a very small number of scientists who disagree with the current scientific consensus and their claims are not scientifically provable or testable or simply outright false. None of the alternative theories proposed explain the current processes or disprove the current science on the subject.
DuatDweller on 1/3/2024 at 10:23
Quote Posted by Thirith
Sorry, DuatDweller, but you're equating your limited knowledge with that of an entire scientific community, where there's a high level of consensus? That's just being arrogant about your own ignorance. And "Why should I believe scientists that change their minds more often than their underwear" shows a clichéd, selective understanding of science.
Right, and if scientists say buy shit on a stick, I'll go and buy it.
No way, you want to be brainwashed, herded into thinking what they want you to think, be free to do so.
Do not let me get in your way. Behave like a hive mind if you want.