|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
Yeah but here are the facts:
1. CO2 levels have in fact been rising year over year for some decades. Yes this is a fact
2. That does in fact increase temperature long term. That has been measured. Only a fact if CO2 is the only variable, ignoring all other variables that the environment has to offer is bad science.
3. However, the effects are complex and there are interrelationships. For instance, ocean warming evaporates more water, which makes more clouds, which deflects sunlight to some extent. Therefore the EXACT outcomes are difficult to predict. Exact outcomes are impossible to predict
4. The models keep getting better as more data is measured. Our best predictions right now are that the world average temperature will rise between 3.5 to 5.2 decrees Centigrade by 2100. It is a fact that that is our best prediction, not a fact that it will happen.
5. The Paris accord, which President Trump wisely scrapped, would only have changed this outcome by about 0.2 degrees. It was not worth its cost to the US. No possible way you could state the outcome of the deal as fact
6. 75% of all CO2 now in the atmosphere will stay there for 500 years. If we stopped all fossil fuel burning right now, the earth would continue to warm. Continue for how long?500 years? one of these seems like a fact the other, yet another prediction.
7. The oceans will rise. Period. How much depends on many factors difficult to predict. They have risen slightly might continue to buy may also fall based on may factors that are impossible to predict.
8. The warming will not stop in 2100. Not a fact but again a prediction
Those are the facts. All else is supposition and politics, on both sides.
People seem to be confused as to what exactly a fact is. Predictions, assumptions, feelings, trends, etc... are not facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,881 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,881 Likes: 6 |
I agree that climate change happens. The root cause, however, is not definitively known.
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,198
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,198 |
My local weather predictor uses 6 models to predict tomorrows weather, and yet still gets it wrong on occasion. So how many computer models do these long term weather predictors use, and who in their right mind thinks they are going to be right in the end.
Laws aren't preventative measures. In other words, more laws won't prevent gun crime from happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505 |
That burning fossil fuel increases CO2 and increases temperature is a proven fact. However, it heats the earth IN ADDITION TO other factors that may cause heating or cooling. Here are some:
The midieval climactic optimum, from 800 to 1300 AD Caused grapes to grow in Newfoundland and farming became possible in Greenland. This was followed by the Little Ice Age, as it is called, until the 1800s. Causes unknown.
Regional factors. The glaciers in Alaska have been receding for about 250 years. SUVs didn't cause it.
Volcanos. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, in about 1980, cut the sunlight reaching the earth by 10% for many months. We didn't 't notice a temperature change because the earth is so massive. But if this were to continue for thousands of years, the earth would get much colder.
The "Asian Brown Cloud." This is caused by pollution and forest clearing. It has made the earth about 2 degrees C colder than otherwise. It was only discovered in 2002.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,257
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,257 |
And still all the AGW proponents ignore the impact of changes in the sun.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786 |
My local weather predictor uses 6 models to predict tomorrows weather, and yet still gets it wrong on occasion. So how many computer models do these long term weather predictors use, and who in their right mind thinks they are going to be right in the end. An educated guess is still a guess.
These are my opinions, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,118 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,118 Likes: 2 |
Yeah but here are the facts:
1. CO2 levels have in fact been rising year over year for some decades.
2. That does in fact increase temperature long term. That has been measured.
3. However, the effects are complex and there are interrelationships. For instance, ocean warming evaporates more water, which makes more clouds, which deflects sunlight to some extent. Therefore the EXACT outcomes are difficult to predict.
4. The models keep getting better as more data is measured. Our best predictions right now are that the world average temperature will rise between 3.5 to 5.2 decrees Centigrade by 2100.
5. The Paris accord, which President Trump wisely scrapped, would only have changed this outcome by about 0.2 degrees. It was not worth its cost to the US.
6. 75% of all CO2 now in the atmosphere will stay there for 500 years. If we stopped all fossil fuel burning right now, the earth would continue to warm.
7. The oceans will rise. Period. How much depends on many factors difficult to predict.
8. The warming will not stop in 2100.
Those are the facts. All else is supposition and politics, on both sides.
So THESE are the facts? According to whom? And with no biases amd presuppositions? In today's world, you accept nobody's word for scientific fact unless it's confirmed to the third degree consensually. How many generations since the early 1800's up to now have been misled by old-age geology and then Darwinian evolution that scientists, even purely secular scientists, now are "leaving" in droves due to its failures to explain simultaneous complexity. I don't accept those facts at face value; I need "by whom" and context to even consider them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 1 |
There is no such thing as "settled science." The phrase implies the science can no longer be questioned. That makes it dogma. That makes it religion, not science. BINGO! Science is never settled. Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific principle. And, for good measure, you often see a list of greenhouse contributors, with carbon dioxide at the top of the list. What gets dropped is the footnote at the bottom of the list that says "excluding water vapor". Water vapor accounts for most of Earth's greenhouse effect. The wrong question: Is climate change happening? A better question: Is the variation in climate large enough to make it different from past history?
Last edited by denton; 06/21/17.
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,714 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,714 Likes: 2 |
Says a lot about science beyond just global warming. Yep. Theys aint no God neither. 
Last edited by jaguartx; 06/21/17.
Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,810
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,810 |
If a person took science in 1970 like I did most all you learned about climate would be wrong.Next guess. Ed k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,489
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,489 |
Bottom line, its nothing we can control anyway, carry on.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 13,238 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 13,238 Likes: 1 |
Let's Go Brandon! FJB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,082
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,082 |
Any trend showing an increase in average temperature is based on data derived from someone squinting at a mercury in glass thermometer and "reading" a temperature. That was the way they did it for 100yrs! The supposed increases in temperature average are tenths of a degree. CAN YOU READ A MERCURY IN GLASS THERMOMETER TO A 10TH OF A DEGREE?
I can't either. Half the data they are using to make these computer models and get these averages is SEVERELY flawed. That doesn't even account for the monitoring stations that have been moved to new locations over the years, or been affected by that new building that just went up and reflects sunlight on it all day, or the parking lot that was built and paved that creates a heat island that stays warm most of the night or.......
Stupidity is expensive
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,258
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,258 |
Yeah but here are the facts:
1. CO2 levels have in fact been rising year over year for some decades.
2. That does in fact increase temperature long term. That has been measured.
Those are the facts. All else is supposition and politics, on both sides. Apparently your "facts" have been superseded by newer "facts". I read a paper the other day which stated CO2 levels follow increasing temperature !Can you post a link to that article? I really like to read articles that represent the "other" side. All prediction are ONLY from modeling and much of the data is often cherry picked to provide the "expected" outcome. An example of this was the AGW article hastily published before the Paris meeting - all doom and gloom- but the data was biased by the fact that the oceanic temps which were plotted were from moving ships. These are considered less reliable because the ship can contributed heat to the readings. All of the FLOATING ocean buoy temps were dropped from the study as unreliable which are considered more reliable than the moving ship temps thus biasing the study toward warming. The models do not seem to be able predict past events such as the increase in CO2 levels prior to the last ice age. Many scientists have stated that they are stepping away from the AGW wackos because it has taken on the essence of a "religion" and they feel unable to do real science. If they publish a study that refutes the going narrative they are being ostracized and even losing their jobs.
Ed
A person who asks a question is a fool for 5 minutes the person who never asks is a fool forever.
The worst slaves are those that put the chains on themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,714 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,714 Likes: 2 |
Yeah but here are the facts:
1. CO2 levels have in fact been rising year over year for some decades.
2. That does in fact increase temperature long term. That has been measured.
3. However, the effects are complex and there are interrelationships. For instance, ocean warming evaporates more water, which makes more clouds, which deflects sunlight to some extent. Therefore the EXACT outcomes are difficult to predict.
4. The models keep getting better as more data is measured. Our best predictions right now are that the world average temperature will rise between 3.5 to 5.2 decrees Centigrade by 2100.
5. The Paris accord, which President Trump wisely scrapped, would only have changed this outcome by about 0.2 degrees. It was not worth its cost to the US.
6. 75% of all CO2 now in the atmosphere will stay there for 500 years. If we stopped all fossil fuel burning right now, the earth would continue to warm.
7. The oceans will rise. Period. How much depends on many factors difficult to predict.
8. The warming will not stop in 2100.
Those are the facts. All else is supposition and politics, on both sides.
BS. CO2 has been higher than now 3 times in the the last 450,000 years and more than that in the last 800,000.
Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,881 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,881 Likes: 4 |
There is no such thing as "settled science." The phrase implies the science can no longer be questioned. That makes it dogma. That makes it religion, not science.
Tom And science's worshipers maintain that what is current is "absolute truth" and shout down any suggestion that perhaps it is wrong.
Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.
Happily Trapped In the Past (Thanks, Joe)
Not only a less than minimally educated person, but stupid and out of touch as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,287 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,287 Likes: 1 |
Can someone tell me which is NORMAL for the urth:
Trees growing around the Great Lakes from Minn to Maine, or an Ice Sheet that extended as far south as Illinois.........
both have existed prior to the SUV!?!?!?!
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
( . Y . )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,664
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,664 |
Still wondering how my SUV greened Iceland, heated the Urth during the reign of the dinosaurs, and warmed Mars. Leftists are funny. It's always fun when the shills of a scam will stand up and defend the scam.
Broncos are officially the worst team in the nation this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
Can someone tell me which is NORMAL for the urth:
Trees growing around the Great Lakes from Minn to Maine, or an Ice Sheet that extended as far south as Illinois.........
both have existed prior to the SUV!?!?!?! Both are normal, one just needs to understand the natural processes that heat and cool the "urth", those processes have been going on for millions of years and are intertwined and complicated. The real question is human activity affecting those natural processes and if so, by how much? In science, the ability to predict correctly, "wins".
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,495
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,495 |
The current "Popular Science" is all about global warming and weather. Interesting whether you agree with it or not.
Retired cat herder.
|
|
|
|
|
523 members (06hunter59, 1badf350, 204guy, 1Longbow, 1OntarioJim, 12344mag, 59 invisible),
2,357
guests, and
1,207
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,304
Posts18,487,128
Members73,968
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://s1308.photobucket.com/user/jsw7152/media/dt170514_zpsssysijli.jpg.html)
