I'm almost starting to miss Fuji. He thought water vapour in the atmosphere had a cooling effect.
A new record: CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit an all-time high
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
What you've done is spam ideas, none of which you're willing to stand behind.
Basic fact is that the scientific community disagrees with you but instead of asking yourself why, you simply claim that science is a political conspiracy.
i have provided multiple alternative theories including natural variability , ozone depletion and non explosive volcanic activity to name but a few
Thus far you have not bothered to challenge any of these with any scientific evidence, so lets just treat them as viable alternatives
Perhaps some money could be allocated away from "Climate Change the Musical" to research some of these alternatives to a greater degree
New Climate Change Musical Premiers to Rave Review In New York
/PRNewswire/ -- A new musical about climate change is premiering in New York Off-Broadway. The show, titled "Hooked on Happiness," spotlights a high-school...
www.prnewswire.com
And as I have pointed out many times there is no requirement or law which demands a substitute theory when disproving a current theory.
You seem to have an extremely difficult time understanding the underlying tenant of the scientific method as described by Richard Feynman
Absolutely nothing there mentioned about the need to substitute an alternative theory
Too bad that
a) is not a fact, rather it is your opinion.
b) science is not determined by polls or opinions. it is determined by testing empirical data
Do you engineer solutions based upon hard factual data or do you ask for a show of hands?
If consensus is your answer please lets us know which bridges you engineered, so we can avoid them
It does cool things off when it rains, it absorbs Infrared radiation at far more frequencies than CO2 and it concentration in the atmosphere dwarfs CO2 (20 to 100 x) and all other greenhouse gasesI'm almost starting to miss Fuji. He thought water vapour in the atmosphere had a cooling effect.
2/3 of our planet is covered in water, it is the most important molecule by far for climate & life. Its role in cloud formation and turbulent fluid flows is not at all well understood
And the IPCC seems to think it can redefine this molecule to
a) fit their agenda of only anthropogenic causes could be possible for any and all changes in climate
b) fit their overly simplistic and brutally inaccurate computer models
c) ignore cloud formation and turbulent fluid flows
If a scientific theory needs to be supported by propaganda and silencing its critics, it is not worth a bucket of piss
On ignore: Frankfooter
Last edited:
Right, because the 'real' science you follow makes a claim and sticks with it forever.
Which is why you still smoke cigarettes for your health and won't cross the ocean in a ship so you don't fall of the edge of the earth.
Once your orange guy tells you what the science is, like disinfectants and chloroquine, you stick with it until you're dead.
These have been covered here endlessly.
All of johnnylarue's (aka Mr Science) claims plotted against greenhouse gases as possible climate change forcings
Your theory is supported by propaganda and flies in the face of science, its not worth a bucket of piss.
You fail to understand the difference between a forcing effect (greenhouse gases) vs feedback effects (water vapour) on the climate.
That's a basic science fail.
"Sticks with it forever?"
Franky, the government did a complete 180 on travel bans in just a matter of days. Do you really believe there was a dramatic change in the "science" within the span of one week?
Give your head a shake.
Furthermore, your global experts said there was "no evidence" the coronavirus could be transmitted from person to person when in fact there was plenty of evidence -- at that time -- that it could be spread among humans.
Face reality. Most of the claims your experts like to make are based on political motivations, not science.
The National Post ran a terrific column by economist Ross McKitrick on the current "business as usual" forecast for global temperatures currently used by the IPCC.
business.financialpost.com
As McKitrick explains, it is based on a worst-case scenario that is so preposterous it is impossible to believe. Even some of the strongest champions of man-made climate change say the IPCC's current "business as usual" forecast is total rubbish.
To cite one example, it includes the calculation for an astronomical growth in coal-fired plants over the next 90 years that no one believes could actually happen.
When you add in the Green New Deal's fantasy about replacing fossil fuels with green energy in the next 10 years, you're left with this reality:
- The most commonly cited current projections for global temperatures are a total fairy tale.
- One of the most widely touted plans to reduce man-made emissions is a total fairy tale.
So much for "science."
Ross McKitrick: The flaw in relying on worst-case-scenario climate model
Junk Science Week: The purpose of global climate policy is to get us from the dangerous upper end of the forecast range down to the safe bottom end — we are already…
business.financialpost.com
As McKitrick explains, it is based on a worst-case scenario that is so preposterous it is impossible to believe. Even some of the strongest champions of man-made climate change say the IPCC's current "business as usual" forecast is total rubbish.
To cite one example, it includes the calculation for an astronomical growth in coal-fired plants over the next 90 years that no one believes could actually happen.
When you add in the Green New Deal's fantasy about replacing fossil fuels with green energy in the next 10 years, you're left with this reality:
- The most commonly cited current projections for global temperatures are a total fairy tale.
- One of the most widely touted plans to reduce man-made emissions is a total fairy tale.
So much for "science."
It wasn't a change in science, it was a change in policy.
They knew masks worked but for the first few weeks were worried about shortages of PPE for medical and essential workers, so said stay inside and don't use masks.
After studies came out showing more clearly how it spreads through breath and particles, and studies showed that even homemade masks stopped most of those particles, they changed the policy.
In your fantasy world they would have made the initial statement and never changed.
Just 'cuz, you don't change or show weakness, right?
As for the WHO, they didn't say that it wasn't transmitted human to human, only that they didn't have evidence of that at first.
In your world they would have just stuck with that statement, regardless of what the studies eventually said.
Not only can you not find a legit scientist, but you have to do with an economist who ignores how much climate change is already costing.
In Canada alone, climate change damage cost $1.3 billion in 2019.
Latest News
Your reliable source for the latest news affecting Canadians and the insurance industry.
Even your economists are shoddy.
How about this, can you find a chart with 20 years of predictions by McKitrick that are more accurate than these?
If not, you and him should just shut the f up and let smarter people deal with it.
And what was your prediction, that the global temperature would never hit 0.83ºC in 2015?
Sounds like your record of predictions is a dismal failure.Moviefan-2;5243530 said:
Last edited:
And that is exactly why I am calling you anti-science. You are being 100% clear that your intent is simply to undermine science and not actually look to support one.
Tens of thousands of scientists are currently studying our current climactic changes. They know all these details that you claim are being suppressed and they still overwhelmingly conclude see anthropogenic CO2 as playing a major role.
Sadly your only response to the experts is to claim they are part of a politically motivated conspiracy.
p.s. And despite what you claim, a generally successful theory is only replaced if there is a better one and climate modelling has been generally successful.
Anti-science?
You are very much mistaken as I see science being inappropriately used and mis-represented to spread fear and propaganda
A perfect example is the misrepresentation of water Vapor
This is a blatant and apparently successful piece of propaganda intended to mislead the public on how the greenhouse effect works
here is the true representation of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
The difference is huge. Both from a scientific & ethical POV
No way they could sell (fool) the public with the second (true) representation
And it all comes back to the pseudoscience of only looking at possible human causes
|Several times this question has been put to you and yet you continue to avoid it like the plague
The fact of the matter is it is blatant propaganda and propaganda has absolutely no place in true scientific discovery
Let me clearly spell it out for you
I firmly believe that science has greatly enriched humanity and I also believe any pseudoscience which needs to resort to the silencing of its critics will set back real science by generations perhaps centuries
The minute I heard some fool use the word "denier" in reference to our scientific understanding of a extremely complex system such as climate I knew there was something wrong here
Science only will progress if open and honest debate is permitted. Genius does not occur without the rigors of being critiqued by those with an opposing view
That is how it works. you should know this cold.
It boils down to a very simple piece of logic :
If the pseudoscience were truly settled , there would be no need for propaganda and there would be no need to silence anyone, yet there is propaganda, intimidation and silencing occurring in climate science on an ongoing basis
Frankfooter responds to every post with mis-information almost instantaneously. You surly can not have missed that display of cult like obsession and corruptness
John Cook does the same bashing any opposing view on the internet
I can not speak to what activists truly know or do not truly know or understand
they however, seem quite adept at omitting or ignoring these inconvenient details (as you have repeatedly demonstrated by ignoring /avoiding the water vapor question),
Sort of like how Michael Mann decided to ignore/ erase the medieval warm period
Sort of like how Phil Jones decided to ignore/ erase the principles of honesty and integrity by corrupting the peer review process
Sort of like how the well funded John Cook mis-represented the 97% and continuously attacks opposing views with lies and mis-information
Sort of like how Frankfooter attacks opposing views with lies and mis-information. Please don't tell me you have been fooled by Frankfooter ?
#1. If you are an activist first mascarading as a scientist, then you are not an expert. Expertise in any subject requires objectivity and the desire to dig a little deeper by challenging the "experts" and most importantly it requires participation in honest and open debate. Why does a supposed expert such as Gavin Schmidt refuse to debate Roy Spencer?
#2. No true scientific expert would dare to declare such a complex system as "settled" and most defiantly no true scientific expert would dare to silence critics and repress scientific debate
#3 Conspiracy? I would not use that word.. try group think, cult, religion. Pick one you like, but be sure to add corrupt so as not to omit Michael Mann, Phil Jones and John Cook
Lets be crystal clear It, it is not only what i claim it is what Richard Feynman claimed
Any scientist worth his salt would agree
And despite what you say "generally successful" is not good enough to be labeled as scientific evidence
And it is also not good enough to justify scaring the living shit of children
And you had better get a whole better than "generally successful" if you are demanding the world population must change their behaviour
So it would be best if you attempted to make a scientific argument rather than attacking me or describing irrelevant poll results
ie the water vapor question....... if you dare
If a scientific theory needs to be supported by propaganda and silencing its critics, it is not worth a bucket of piss
On ignore: Frankfooter
Last edited:
Larue is someone who claims to be more of a science expert than anyone on this board and all of NASA but can't actually figure out how to put someone on ignore?
I quote:
NASA
NOAA
AAAS
Berkely Earth
IPCC
Mr Science calls those organizations 'propaganda'.
Those organizations represent the very vast majority of scientists in the US.
So larue thinks that 97+% of scientists belong to a cult and only non-scientists like Anthony Watts or his pal Tim Ball are smart enough to figure out the real science and crack the 'cult'.
A cult that cross every country in the world and has run for more than 4 decades?
larue once said that if the scientists are right it would be the largest moral crime in human history not to do something about it, or something to that effect.
Mr Science, you are the member of a cult that is risking the largest crime in history here.
The National Post ran a terrific column by economist Ross McKitrick on the current "business as usual" forecast for global temperatures currently used by the IPCC.
Ross McKitrick: The flaw in relying on worst-case-scenario climate model
Junk Science Week: The purpose of global climate policy is to get us from the dangerous upper end of the forecast range down to the safe bottom end — we are already…
As McKitrick explains, it is based on a worst-case scenario that is so preposterous it is impossible to believe. Even some of the strongest champions of man-made climate change say the IPCC's current "business as usual" forecast is total rubbish.
To cite one example, it includes the calculation for an astronomical growth in coal-fired plants over the next 90 years that no one believes could actually happen.
When you add in the Green New Deal's fantasy about replacing fossil fuels with green energy in the next 10 years, you're left with this reality:
- The most commonly cited current projections for global temperatures are a total fairy tale.
- One of the most widely touted plans to reduce man-made emissions is a total fairy tale.
So much for "science."
IPCC uses worst-case scenario to exaggerate emission forecasts: op-ed
Since the 1980s, ranges of projection were systematically too high.
\and they have used RCP8.5 to indoctrinate and scare the living shit out of children. Absolutely despicable
The IPCC is a propaganda machine hiding behind a laboratory white coat
If a scientific theory needs to be supported by propaganda and silencing its critics, it is not worth a bucket of piss
On ignore: Frankfooter
Last edited:
Just read the latest news today.
Carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa reaches new record high at 417 ppm
Those are the highest level this planet has seen for 300 million years, and the last time the planet was 2-3ºC warmer and there was no ice at the poles.
But in that story was also an excellent primer on greenhouse gases, which I'll post here for larue.
It clearly articulates the basics of the greenhouse effect that larue has yet to have been able to grasp.
WHY IS CARBON DIOXIDE SO IMPORTANT?
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it is considered to be the 'global climate thermostat' for planet Earth. That means the abundance of this one gas in Earth's atmosphere is the primary controller of the planet's surface temperature, and thus its climate.
Most of Earth's atmosphere - the 99.9 per cent made up of oxygen, nitrogen and argon - is 'transparent' to both solar radiation and the infrared radiation emitted by Earth. If these were the only gases in the atmosphere, Earth would be substantially colder, because all the heat the surface absorbed while it was facing the Sun would just radiate away into space as it rotated out of direct sunlight. None of that heat would stick around in the atmosphere to keep the planet warm, and we would likely have a 'snowball' Earth.
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is transparent to incoming sunlight, but it absorbs outgoing infrared radiation. With just a trace amount (around 0.04 per cent) in the atmosphere, enough of that heat is trapped that the planet stays warm enough for life to take hold and for human civilization to flourish. Adding more CO2 to the air, incidentally, causes more heat to be trapped than normal, which is why we are seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
The other major greenhouse gases that also contribute to Earth's surface temperature are water vapour (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). None of these can regulate Earth's climate as effectively as CO2, though, for a straightforward reason - carbon dioxide is the most abundant temperature-independent greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.
Methane, ozone and nitrous oxide are more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Methane is at least 25 times more potent, while ozone and nitrous oxide can be hundreds of times more potent. Fortunately for us, these gases just don't occur in enough abundance (yet) to have the same impact as carbon dioxide on the overall greenhouse effect.
Water vapour is also a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and it more abundant than CO2 as well. Thus, water vapour does contribute more to the overall greenhouse effect at any one time. It cannot be considered to be in control of Earth's climate, however, because it is strongly dependent on temperature.
If you lower the temperature, water vapour condenses into liquid water (clouds or rain), reducing its ability to absorb and reradiating infrared light. If you cool it further, it freezes solid, further reducing its contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Carbon dioxide, though, remains active as a greenhouse gas down to temperatures of -78.5°C. The only place on Earth where it gets that cold is near the south pole, in the dead of southern winter, and it does not remain that cold for very long. So, CO2 is effectively a temperature-independent gas everywhere on this planet.
The very reason we have large quantities of water vapour in Earth's atmosphere in the first place is due to the temperature independence of carbon dioxide. If the amount of CO2 in the air decreases, the planet cools, which causes water vapour to condense out and eventually freeze. This is how pretty much every glacial period in Earth's history started, as CO2 was absorbed from the air by various forms of life, and it became locked up or buried away in large quantities. It was only when carbon dioxide levels rose again, due to extreme volcanic events or mass die-offs, that temperatures increased, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere also increased.
In the roughly 10,000 years before the mid-1800s, when CO2 levels were reasonably uniform at around 260-270 ppm, Earth's climate remained relatively stable. The greenhouse gases in the air absorbed just enough of the heat Earth radiated out towards space to keep the planet's average temperature fairly steady, at around 15°C.
As shown in the graph below, from 1880 to 2019, the global average temperature has risen by roughly 1.2°C.
Credit:NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences
Seeing this kind of temperature increase in a small region, over a short period of time, such as in the local forecast for your city over a few days, is not much of a concern. It represents only a small amount of energy, and the temperature will eventually go down by that much, as well.
The entire planet warming up by over one degree, however, and in such a way that the temperature will not go down again by that amount for the foreseeable future, represents an immense amount of energy being invested into our weather and climate systems.
This is of great concern to us when it comes to extreme weather events and their potential impact on human civilization. It is going to be even worse, going forward, as CO2 emissions continue to rise, and the temperature continues to rise along with them.
Gee Johnny, you are as bad a franky with spamming instead of answering questions.
Are you really basing your entire argument on claims that scientists worldwide are really part of a conspiracy to suppress widely known information?
p.s. Considering how much time you spend arguing against science, I'm not surprised you have trouble with the quote function.
Are you really basing your entire argument on claims that scientists worldwide are really part of a conspiracy to suppress widely known information?
p.s. Considering how much time you spend arguing against science, I'm not surprised you have trouble with the quote function.
Your authority which you never questioned and blindly believed / worshiped, the IPCC is being shown for what it really is
All those scary frightening proclamations are based upon a scenario which aint going to happen and worse the predictions are not even internally consistent
And you respond with the word spamming?
Well then, please explain how the prediction scenario which has been used to frighten and scare children predicts meteoric economic growth for third world countries and simultaneously predicts so much warming the third world countries also become uninhabitable wastelands . ?
That is a physical impossibility
So likely one IPCC bozo needed a meteoric rise in 3rd world economic growth in order to generate enough CO2 to make his overly simplistic and flawed computer model generate the needed "scary " temperature rise.
While at the same time some other IPCC bozo was put in charge or predicting the doom and gloom of an uninhabitable wasteland.
And the two bozos never compared notes or even questioned how meteoric economic growth is possible in uninhabitable wastelands
Then a third bozo , likely a politician pulled bozo 1s and bozo 2s work together declared it sufficiently "scary" and approved the scenario RCP8.5 for publication. ( 5 years ago??)
It is time for you to wake up....
There were multiple scenarios, yet they chose to promote the scariest one and did not check for internal inconsistency.
I believe RCP8.5 has been around since 2015. Have then been so busy scaring children for the last 5 years they could not check their work?
Having such inconsistencies in a graduate dissertation at any reputable university would result in immediate disqualification for the candidate.
Experts do not miss such internal inconsistencies in publications
This very much appears to be either intentional mis-representation or incompetence.
I let you choose which one
Either way this group is not deserving of the public's trust to determine and communicate objective or truthful information about such an important issue
#1. The physics does not support the the alarmist claim, so No I am not basing this on a conspiracy theory, rather the science
a) Water Vapor as the dominate greenhouse gas
b) the logarithmic nature of the absorption of Infrared radiation
c) Co2 increases lag temperature increases in the ice cores by 500 to 800 years. Consistent with the inverse solubility in salt water as a function of temperature increases for co2
# 2. If you are able to (somehow in your mind) rule out intentional mis-representation, by the IPCC then it has to be incompetence
Ouch, that hurts sooooooo much... Is criticizing my quoting skills really all you have?
Please stick to the science, which you continue to avoid
Last edited:
I'd rather follow scientists than oil industry lobbyists.
You made your choice.
Every claim you've ever made has been answered with clear science based answers with legit sources.
