Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
Superfreak
Verified User
More control, power in DC. More money to fund their friends companies.
Notice how wealthy Gore got from his hysterical lying?
Into the Night
Verified User
He can't measure the ice mass either. It is not possible to measure the amount of ice and snow on Earth. A gravity sensor won't show it.
moon
Satire for Sanity
The important thing, moron, is to monitor its decrease.
Nevermind- keep setting yourself targets which are beyond you and I'll continue to tell you to give up and fuck off.
Into the Night
Verified User
What decrease?
Nah. You'll just tell me to fuck off, regardless of what I write. That's your way.
This from the party that cannot tell the difference between a male and a female. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You just cannot make this shit up!
Into the Night
Verified User
It is not possible to measure the amount of snow on ice on Earth.
Into the Night
Verified User
What science? Science is a set of falsifiable theories. What theory are you referring to?
moon
Satire for Sanity
Tell us about paleoclimatology.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Here is just one paper for you to ignore, dopey fucker!! I doubt you even know what the ECS is anyway, maybe you should consult Robert Graves? What did your old dad work on at NASA, was it the waste disposal mechanism or the man-size diapers?
https://cliscep.com/2018/04/24/new-paper-by-lewis-and-curry/
moon
Satire for Sanity
Ah- I'm glad to see you showing some respect for NASA, maggot. Here is some evidence gleaned by NASA which aims to put you and your Denier Choir where you belong- jail.
Into the Night
Verified User
How? You have to define it first.
Into the Night
Verified User
He didn't Neither do they deserve a whole lot of it these days.
Discarding random numbers published by NASA is not a criminal offense.
Ocean Acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent[/QUOTE]
Ocean water is alkaline, not acid.
CO2 dissolved in water is simply CO2 dissolved in water. Only about 1% of it becomes carbonic acid. This is a weak acid, completely neutralized by the buffering effects of ocean water.
If you use the manufactured data out of Mauna Loa observatory, CO2 has increased from 0.0408% of the atmosphere to 0.0410% of the atmosphere for a total difference of 0.0002% of the atmosphere.
Since the entire atmosphere weighs approximately 1.135×10^19 lbs, this means that the weight of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is only about 2.227 * 10^10^15 lbs or 1135 billion tons from all sources. It is unknown how much of that is attributable to Man's activities since that is not possible to measure, so at the least your '2 billion tons per year' is a random number of type randU, making your statement an argument of randU fallacy.
The EPA uses a figure of about 23 billion tons per year, so let's use that random number instead of yours since it's larger.
The percentage of CO2 dissolved in ocean water effectively tracks that of the air, so if we use the EPA random number, then the oceans have dissolved an additional 23 billion tons per year. About 1% of that becomes carbonic acid (a reaction that runs in both directions, but reaches equilibrium at about this point). This puts 0.23 billion tons of carbonic acid in the water.
The oceans weigh approximately 1.450 * 10^18 tons. Thus, the carbonic acid added to the water is approximately 0.0000015% of the ocean water. Ocean water pH varies somewhat, but is typically around 8.2. This is alkaline. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline, so no acidification is occurring. pH is a logarithmic scale, and does not follow a percentage, so your '30 percent' is also an argument from randU fallacy. Effectively, this small amount of weak carbonic acid in ocean water makes no significant effect on the typical pH found in ocean water. This effect is known as 'buffering' and is a fundamental part of any acid/base chemistry.
In other words, you are full of it, and so is NASA. An argument from randU is a fallacy, whether you make it yourself or whether NASA makes it for you. It is the same.
Since you are using this source to make this argument, I will have to call you out on a False Authority fallacy as well.
moon
Satire for Sanity
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
NASA is a government agency; it is not science.
Random numbers plugged into a pretty looking chart mean absolutely nothing to me.
This NASA article also makes the typical errors of the "Climate Change" crowd...
1) It does not define the term "climate change", thus rendering any argumentation based upon that undefined word a void argument.
2) It makes reference to the "Earth's climate". What IS that climate? Is it hot and arid? Is it cool and wet? Earth does not have a single climate; it has numerous climates.
3) It makes various assumptions about various past events and acts as if those religious assumptions are science.
4) It makes reference to "scientific consensus". That "consensus" being mentioned is nothing beyond a random number based on faulty mathematics, and a "consensus" is not science in any way, shape, or form.
5) It quotes the IPCC as if it were science; The IPCC is not science.
6) It assumes that humans are causing global warming, even though there is no way to determine that.
7) It assumes that the Earth is warming, even though there is no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth.
8) It makes reference to satellites as if they can magickally provide answers to things that they cannot.
9) It makes the false claim that CO2 can trap heat.
and that's just the very beginning of the article... I think the general point has been made...
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Led by John Christy, the Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), has 40 years of direct measurement of atmospheric temperature trends, yet the IPCC and others cling to surface measurements with very poor global coverage, with data contaminated by the urban heat-island effect. The IPCC ignores atmospheric data, where the greenhouse effect occurs. Based on their 40-years’ worth of worldwide data, the UAH group has estimated, in a published paper, that a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) will result in an increase in temperatures of about 1.1 degree C or 2 degrees F.
As discussed in the previous two TWTWs, physicist William van Wijngaarden and his colleagues, using measurements of the effects of greenhouse gases without the effects of clouds, have found that a doubling of CO2 (from 400 parts per million to 800 parts per million), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O) with a 6% increase in the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, will result in an increase in temperatures of about 1 to 1.5 degree C or 2 to 3 degrees F. The lowest value the IPCC projects is 1.5 degree C, which is the highest value of what van Wijngaarden projects. The highest value of the IPCC is 4.5 degrees C, far higher than van Wijngaarden.
One of the huge problems with global warming hysteria is that it is based on a combination of unverified models and surface temperature data that has been “adjusted” to fit the left’s climate narrative.
The work of van Wijngaarden is based on libraries compiled by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Atomic and Molecular Physics, the updating of which is discussed in a recent paper published in the Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer. Unlike data from some groups, the data are not a secret and can be explored using the internet and a laptop computer.
Liberals attach a mystical and often contradictory power to global warming. Here in Minnesota, we are having a rainy Summer. Climate change! Somewhere else, they are experiencing a drought. Climate change! And “climate change” (regardless of whether the climate has actually changed in any relevant way) is commonly invoked to explain any negative phenomenon–but not, of course, anything good.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/global-warming-propaganda-with-cartoon.php
As discussed in the previous two TWTWs, physicist William van Wijngaarden and his colleagues, using measurements of the effects of greenhouse gases without the effects of clouds, have found that a doubling of CO2 (from 400 parts per million to 800 parts per million), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O) with a 6% increase in the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, will result in an increase in temperatures of about 1 to 1.5 degree C or 2 to 3 degrees F. The lowest value the IPCC projects is 1.5 degree C, which is the highest value of what van Wijngaarden projects. The highest value of the IPCC is 4.5 degrees C, far higher than van Wijngaarden.
One of the huge problems with global warming hysteria is that it is based on a combination of unverified models and surface temperature data that has been “adjusted” to fit the left’s climate narrative.
The work of van Wijngaarden is based on libraries compiled by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Atomic and Molecular Physics, the updating of which is discussed in a recent paper published in the Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer. Unlike data from some groups, the data are not a secret and can be explored using the internet and a laptop computer.
Liberals attach a mystical and often contradictory power to global warming. Here in Minnesota, we are having a rainy Summer. Climate change! Somewhere else, they are experiencing a drought. Climate change! And “climate change” (regardless of whether the climate has actually changed in any relevant way) is commonly invoked to explain any negative phenomenon–but not, of course, anything good.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/global-warming-propaganda-with-cartoon.php
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
They are telling it like it is, all right. They are denying science and mathematics. NASA is a government organization currently assigned to push the Church of Global Warming. They are telling it like it is.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no global temperature data for Earth or its atmosphere. It is not possible to measure such. We don't have enough thermometers.
They can't measure it either.
No such thing. Raw data must be used, regardless of any perceived 'urban heat island effect'. Selection in statistical math MUST be by randN.
There isn't any.
The 'greenhouse effect' is not possible. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
There isn't any.
That means GUESSING, using random numbers as a baseline.
There are no effects. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
Not possible to conduct this experiment. There is no control.
More random numbers.
So the IPCC has a different set of random numbers than Wijingaarden.
A different random number. Big deal.
So are yours.
Which renders data unfit for use in statistics. No adjustments are allowed. Raw data MUST be used.
Insufficient data. You are claiming a temperature of the Earth. What is the margin of error? That is a required calculation in any statistical summary. What is the source of variance and how is it justified? That is a required declaration in any statistical summary.
So does anyone else that tries to support the Church of Global Warming.
The Church of Global Warming cannot even DEFINE 'climate change' or 'global warming'.
