funny. You are so determined to believe the lies.
Even w/o the granting and public agency support, the real scientists get a more truthful report out than the pros you swim with in the progressive sewer of determined propaganda and phony "science".
The 2018 UN Climate Report
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
funny. You are so determined to believe the lies.
Even w/o the granting and public agency support, the real scientists get a more truthful report out than the pros you swim with in the progressive sewer of determined propaganda and phony "science".
So here's the best anyone can do with the present reliable information. We have scattered research and sparse data prior to the year 1900, using tools that were not adequately calibrated. Most thermometers in use clear up to the 1970s had both precision and accuracy problems leading to systematic errors on the scale of around 2 degrees C. The core drillings are very sparse..... expensive and sparse.... only a few data points scattered over the whole earth.
The reports we have cannot rule out "noise" in the data on the scale of 2-4 degrees C. What does that mean?
It means for freakin' damn certain than anyone claiming to see a difference on the scale of 1 degree C is within the statistical level of certainty that loosely translated says.... "you don't know crap".
It is true that scientific thermodynamic principles are well-established, that we know the specific heats of most common materials very well. Lots of lab data done under carefully planned protocols that eliminate most variables except the one we want to evaluate.
From that data, we "know" that greenhouse gases.... any polyatomic molecule in the air.... has a much higher heat capacity than the diatomic molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. Water is a very abundant polyatomic gas in the atmosphere that outweighs everything else by at least an order of magnitude. Water requires absorption of heat to evaporate, and releases it into the clouds when it condenses. Water in the soil makes a tremendous difference in how the ground heats and cools. Water covering 3/4 of the earth surface is the single greatest climate factor on planet earth, excluding of course the sun which is not actually "here" on planet earth.
Nobody to date has done the basic work required to establish a factual relationship between what carbon dioxide releases actually do in quantitative terms. There are rapid changes going on from the moment of release.... absorption into water being major, sequestration in minerals.... absorbed into carbonate rock that has been heated in the sun to create a surface that is carbon dioxide depleted.... and oxides in the soil that react with it. Lots of green stuff with chlorophyll grabbing all that can be taken for photosynthesis..... It's really a pretty complex "curve", not just linear in terms of CO2 releases.
Plus we don't have any data, really on atmospheric CO2 levels going back very far.....
Until somebody does all that research reliably, we don't know squat about it.... really.
The reports we have cannot rule out "noise" in the data on the scale of 2-4 degrees C. What does that mean?
It means for freakin' damn certain than anyone claiming to see a difference on the scale of 1 degree C is within the statistical level of certainty that loosely translated says.... "you don't know crap".
It is true that scientific thermodynamic principles are well-established, that we know the specific heats of most common materials very well. Lots of lab data done under carefully planned protocols that eliminate most variables except the one we want to evaluate.
From that data, we "know" that greenhouse gases.... any polyatomic molecule in the air.... has a much higher heat capacity than the diatomic molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. Water is a very abundant polyatomic gas in the atmosphere that outweighs everything else by at least an order of magnitude. Water requires absorption of heat to evaporate, and releases it into the clouds when it condenses. Water in the soil makes a tremendous difference in how the ground heats and cools. Water covering 3/4 of the earth surface is the single greatest climate factor on planet earth, excluding of course the sun which is not actually "here" on planet earth.
Nobody to date has done the basic work required to establish a factual relationship between what carbon dioxide releases actually do in quantitative terms. There are rapid changes going on from the moment of release.... absorption into water being major, sequestration in minerals.... absorbed into carbonate rock that has been heated in the sun to create a surface that is carbon dioxide depleted.... and oxides in the soil that react with it. Lots of green stuff with chlorophyll grabbing all that can be taken for photosynthesis..... It's really a pretty complex "curve", not just linear in terms of CO2 releases.
Plus we don't have any data, really on atmospheric CO2 levels going back very far.....
Until somebody does all that research reliably, we don't know squat about it.... really.
You are about as funny as OB on this. OK, so you have this little club of 5000 bought and paid for push organizations... NGOs, "news", politicians, the Sierra Club, whatever. Clapping seals all making stuff up. The better it sounds the more you clap.
At nonsense.
The tools used in acoustic sounding or seismic geological surveys have an incentive to focus their signals for better recovery of reflected of diffracted waves.
That means, or should mean, they're not just rolling 5000 lb bombs off the deck of their ship and blowing up the fish.
What they do is use long tubes which like a gun direct the energy downward. And they lower these pipes nearly to the ocean floor. You could be swimming a mile away and not feel the pulse, most likely.
What's really wrong with these articles is that the writers don't care for the truth. They are systematic, programmed liars paid to spread these lies.
And you wanna believe them.
Red
Well-Known Member
That's what you choose to believe. The problem with that is that you know, and I know, that you're just a liar, paid or not, determined to spread bs on Jazzfanz. Nobody believes a word of your screeds. You have no idea what you are talking about, but you live for the effort to make believe you know more then you do. Personally, I think you're actually sick, and not just doing what you do for the yucks you get alone. It's likely you have a mental illness of some sort which has caused you to conclude scientists are part of an evil elite out to pull the wool over all our eyes. And for what? Only you, in your sickness, really know.
Your interpretation of the world we live in is based in the deranged visions of Infowars and nutcases like Alex Jones. You're the Alex Jones of Jazzfanz, and most people here understand you are just a verbose sicko, wallowing in your paranoid delusions. So screed on, @babe, nobody believes you, nobody takes your bs seriously.
It's comical to think you actually might believe you are taken seriously in this subject. There is not a single subject known to man that is immune from your nutjob rants, but your lunacy is transparent. You should at least know that, if you don't already. Your ego must rival Trump's. Yesterday was the 1st of the month, and I received my monthly stipend from George Soros. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, you silly man.
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-p...industry-conduct-violent-destructive-assaults
"This action flies in the face of massive opposition to offshore drilling and exploration from over 90 percent of coastal municipalities in the proposed blast zone," said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at Oceana. "These permits were already denied because of the known harm that seismic airgun blasting causes. President Trump is essentially giving these companies permission to harass, harm and possibly even kill marine life, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale – all in the pursuit of dirty and dangerous offshore oil. This is the first step toward offshore drilling in the Atlantic and we're going to make sure coastal communities know what's happening and fight this."
Michael Jasny, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at NRDC, said the president's action is totally detached from the reality of the threats the world's ecosytems now face.
"Just one week after issuing dire warnings on the catastrophic fallout of climate change to come, the Trump Administration is opening our coastlines to for-profit companies to prospect for oil and gas—and is willing to sacrifice marine life, our coastal communities and fisheries in the process," fumed Jasny. "This is the first step towards drilling and scientists warn that seismic activity alone could drive the endangered North American right whale to extinction. We'll stand with citizens, coastal businesses, scientists, lawmakers, and commercial and recreational fishermen who oppose seismic blasting, and we will fight this illegal action."
Last edited:
DutchJazzer
Banned
lol when you betray your people to globalist, and put the needs of people of other coutnries first. you turn your country into a warzone.
all cus of soime stupid carbon tax because of a measurement error of .3%
yamers
Well-Known Member
the truth has a few sides.
Trump is wrong, but he's not wrong that the USA despite it's enormous pollution is still far under the pollution present in other countries, especially China. If you have ever been to asia you'll know what I mean, pollution levels in south Korea, china, Vietnam, and so on are abysmal. I'd like to see China do something instead of talking about doing something, because you have no idea how bad china is with laws. They will straight dump chemicals into rivers. Korea does the same thing and then blames it on China. This is polics are usual from china and nothing will change on their part no matter how much you pressure them.
I would also like to see trump embrace the issue of pollution. He is very wrong about his beliefs on it.
Trump is wrong, but he's not wrong that the USA despite it's enormous pollution is still far under the pollution present in other countries, especially China. If you have ever been to asia you'll know what I mean, pollution levels in south Korea, china, Vietnam, and so on are abysmal. I'd like to see China do something instead of talking about doing something, because you have no idea how bad china is with laws. They will straight dump chemicals into rivers. Korea does the same thing and then blames it on China. This is polics are usual from china and nothing will change on their part no matter how much you pressure them.
I would also like to see trump embrace the issue of pollution. He is very wrong about his beliefs on it.
Your wording here is interesting.
It the predictions of the mainstream scientists that have passed the test of time.
DutchJazzer
Banned
are you serious bro?
nto sure if serious you seem to be trolling comparing female genital mutilation to circumcision
and now claiming the sicentist predictions have sotod the test of time
1970 their was ga be global cooling. afte a decade and a half they changed it to global warming, then they cnhntge it to climate chance you know why becaus ethye got proven wrong every time. so now that you call it climate chance you cant be proven worng becuase climate is always chancing.
otgher then that their ar eenough prediciotn that by 2000 new york would be underwtae ror we have an ice age.
PREDICTIONS HAVE BEEN WRONG WRONG AND WRONG TIME AND TIME AGAIN
GET SERIOUS.
even other pro climate ******** posters on here admit that in 70's and 80's and 90's they wher ewrong. but now they say the scientist got it right!
modeling and siiulation is a very flawed ssytem and not setled science
Yes.
This is a lie. You may not realize it, but that just means you are spreading someone else's lie. There was no consensus on climate in the 1970s.
It was changed to "climate change" because some people don't understand that overall global warming does not imply warming in every place on earth at a uniform rate, and to emphasize there are other effects than just temperature change.
This is a lie.
It's true that models are always subject to revision. That said, the predictions of the 1990s have held up well.
Kinda youthful optimism here. From 1965 to 1980 the "mainstream scientists" were almost all predicting an imminent ice age.
We don't know what ends "interglacial warm" periods. I think it might be warm oceans, well warmer. With enough latent heat built up from some other factors, plus less ice melt runoff.... . It takes heat to vaporize water and it takes energy to move that water vapor onshore or up into polar regions. Some late theories are questioning the synchronicity of northern and southern polar changes. Makes a huge difference locally.
The sources you study are mostly politically motivated pushers of a fairly recent "fad" of scientific thought. It's good if we are getting better data now, from satellites and surface stations, all kinds of sensors we can employ, and we should be doing a lot more depth data in the oceans and on land.
Until we establish the heat flux from the interior of planet earth.... and learn about it's cycles.... and study its variability locally..... especially under our oceans. Let's put it this way. The dense water is 4 C, just above freezing. A lot of fresh, cold water comes into the oceans in the polar regions, flows along the ocean floors... . Is mixed by currents driven by differences in salinity. That's what causes the El Nino/La Nina patterns, or one factor anyway. So we should measure salinity as a depth profile....too...
But typically the surface of the earth is about the temp of the air or water in contact with it..... but a little deeper, it is warmer because heat is coming up from depth, at some rate.... and it's all going into the ocean and rock near the surface. We don't measure that, or have any record of its variance.
So all in all, its just too soon to be convinced of anything, bro.
Kinda hard to know if politically-pandering scientists are lying, anytime. In the 1965-1980 era there was not the same level of "agenda" pushing. Scientists had the liberty to express more independent thought and sometimes even got funding for research if they were not totally bought on the subject. Not so much now. And that is a sort of litmus test that should send a strong signal to anyone who wants to be honest about it, that "science" is not working today as it should.
I don't really accept the idea that it's not a lie if you believe it. We often believe our own lies, and the lies of others.... Maybe it's not a lie if its false if we are not consciously promoting it, maybe we are just mistaken. But when we are not willing to consider evidence to the contrary, and we insist on promoting something false, we are "pushers" for ideas that are not true. But in the case of the "progressives" of today, the "cultural Marxists" and such, who have the grand idea of transforming human society on purpose, it is characteristic for many "pushers" to consider lies helpful tools for the greater good. Those sorts deserve to be called liars.
So anyway, I am not quarrelling here with whatever the truth is, I am only raising issues of how well we know stuff, and particularly whether we should be making changes to our cultural and politics on the order of carbon tax and redistribution and global governance.
We know we have a lot of fascist corporate honchos who really don't want to share the power with the common man, and we know those are the folks pushing this political agenda.
What I don't understand is how you can live with yourself without questioning what they are up to.