Climate change propaganda

[Rockstar]

Read again, I just did, geo thermal venting, sun cycles, milankovic cycles, and now a group suggested the earths core.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Read again, I just did, geo thermal venting, sun cycles, milankovic cycles, and now a group suggested the earths core.

Ok, great! So, which one is it? Or is it all those things combined? How do they explain the rapid warming over the past century or so? Since you are so keen to believe anything but human made climate change, surely you can explain at least one of those theories. Right?

[mapuc]

Made a search to find any science article about this earth core and climate change only thing I found was this

Earth's Inner Core May Right Now Be in The Process of Changing Direction

https://www.sciencealert.com/earths-...ging-direction

Which as I understand it nothing to do with climate change.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Ok, great! So, which one is it? Or is it all those things combined? How do they explain the rapid warming over the past century or so? Since you are so keen to believe anything but human made climate change, surely you can explain at least one of those theories. Right?

Just as well as you can, right?

I know the difference between average temperature and temperature anomaly. I question the use of average temperature base lines as evidence temperatures are rising. Are temperatures actually rising or is it because we have more weather stations around the globe than ever before taking measurements. As our technology improved and the number of weather monitoring stations dramatically increased so did the global average temperatures.

Example:

Even if one station were removed from the record, the average anomaly would not change significantly, but the overall average temperature could change significantly depending on which station dropped out of the record. For example, if the coolest station (Mt. Mitchell) were removed from the record, the average absolute temperature would become significantly warmer. However, because its anomaly is similar to the neighboring stations, the average anomaly would change much less.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/mon...vs-temperature

There were once near zero measuring stations in Africa and South America now there are many. Ocean weather was once only measured along trade routes now we have weather buoys everywhere.. Can you guess what’s going to happen to the global average after new stations are installed in Africa and South America? Again, it’s going to rise as fast as they are placed online.

That’s my understanding of it.


The usual annual arguements we hear about what the warmest year on record and such is over temperature anomalies not temperatures. As for the other theories they are written and available. I see them as strong theories because we do have hard historical evidence of natural causes affecting climate. More so than I do CO2 because nobody has any definitive proof if CO2 is doing anything to our atmosphere. Feel free to read them and make your own decision.

It's an assumption say Im so keen on not 'believing' what I'm not so keen on is fanboy science which dictates anything different than their cherished beliefs is labelled b.s.

[Catfish]

@Rockstar i know you just want to troll, as much as you may paint yourself to mirror or quote "independent" science. Still i will not give up

Originally Posted by Rockstar

[...] I question the use of average temperature base lines as evidence temperatures are rising.
Are temperatures actually rising or is it because we have more weather stations around the globe than ever before taking measurements.

Certainly there were not as much weather stations placed all around the world in the cretaceous or as in recent times, the technology did not exist, nor did these f'n humans.
But it is about the last hundred thousand years, and in this time the core drillings of arctic and antarctic ice probes that have been derived by humans (tm of idiots) show the temperatures. Just like a tree's seasonal rings every being can go back in the years and determine the temperature, down to one year.
When it comes to older records the layers of sediments and precipitated chemicals tell about the earth's climate development or exceptional outliers (like in the permian and cretaceous ages). Oxygen and CO2 content can be measured along with a lot of other indications. The first oxygen abundance led to the first major extinction in those ancient oceans, not much living things of the time liked oxidizing [sic!] oxygen.

As our technology improved and the number of weather monitoring stations dramatically increased so did the global average temperatures.

This is a lie tale to suit your prejudice. You are right, temperatures rose since humans are able to directly measure it (took them long enough eh?). Before those times there were no humans. Yes i know your next phrase like "the technology to record and measure only exists since xxx years", but no!
There is indirect measuring of the times before those humans (who are so proud of themselves) roamed the world. And just of all those f'n humans are now able to determine the earth's temperature before their very own existence.

[...] It's an assumption say Im so keen on not 'believing' what I'm not so keen on is fanboy science which dictates anything different than their cherished beliefs is labelled b.s.

It is not about "fanboys of science" or about what is is "hip" now according to Fox News or Scientific American, it is just because you are obviously tired of thinking yourself and sum up obvious facts. Believing is for your human religion.
Your "cherished beliefs" you so criticize are based on exploration and logical thinking, just because you prefer to believe in conspiracy theories does not make the latter true.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Catfish

@Rockstar i know you just want to troll, as much as you may paint yourself to mirror or quote "independent" science. Still i will not give up

Cartainly there were not as much weather stations placed all around the world as in recent times, the technology did not exist.
But it is about the last hundred thousand years, and in this time the core drillings of arctic and antarctic ice probes show the temperature. Just like a tree's seasonal rings you can go back in the years and determine the temperature, down to one year.
When it comes to older records the layers of sediments and precipitated chemicals tell about the earth' climate development or exceptional outliers (like in the permian and cretaceous ages). Oxygen and CO2 content can be measured along with a lot of other indications.

This is a lie tale to suit your prejudice.


It is not about "fanboys" of science or about what is is "hip" now according to Fox News or Scientific American, it is just because you are obviously tired of thinking yourself and add the obvious facts.
Your "cherished beliefs" you so criticize are based on exploration and logical thinking, just because you prefer to believe in conspiracy theories does not make the latter true.

Tree rings might indicate past climate changes but I don't think they explain why.

So, if the NOAA says removing a weather station from a cold climate can reduce global temperature averages. It would IMO stand to reason adding weather stations to hot climates would raise the global temperature average (baseline).

And if all you can offer is some pathetic hit & run piece talking about being hip, fox news and other non-related topics which neither I or anyone here brought and without ever explaining anything why you just decreed something a lie then yes that's fanboy science. Is it because it threatens your cherished beliefs? Tell me why it's a lie otherwise it's just fanboy science and conceited fantasies which just derail anyone's effort to understand anything. Unless of course they believe what you believe then its science.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

So, if as the NOAA says by removing a weather station from a cold climate can reduce global temperature averages. It would IMO stand to reason adding weather stations to hot climates would raise the global temperature average (baseline).

Who says that? I somehow doubt this someone (and wtf is "NOAA"?) would suggest this? Where do "they" write this? If they do it would be enough to render them inappropriate.

All you can offer is SOME pathetic hit & run piece about about fox news which neither or anyone brought and without ever explaining just decide it's a lie. Is it because it threatens your cherished beliefs? Tell me why it's a lie.

I happen to threaten your cherished beliefs that oppose scientific methods and research. Fox News is brought up because August quotes it all the time, and you follow their argumentation.

edit: why don't you just read what i wrote about earth's past. It explains a lot.

[Rockstar]

You expect me to believe that in one sentence you explained a lot about earth's climate history, really? What does August, tree rings, fox news have to do what I wrote? All I did was attempt to share my understanding of the difference between global temperature average and temperature anomaly and why I think temperature averages have increased and that the end of year arguments of warming are actually over temperature anomalies? I also shared other news I found about scientific papers which discuss in some detail theories of how natural planetary forces may affect our climate. One of which is geo thermal venting that is said to be affecting arctic ice & Greenland ice caps from the bottom up as well as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as we speak.

Then you come right and without explanation decree lies lies! Running down the road rambling on about fox news, trolls and august, wth?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

it is just because you are obviously tired of thinking yourself and sum up obvious facts. Believing is for your human religion.
Your "cherished beliefs" you so criticize are based on exploration and logical thinking, just because you prefer to believe in conspiracy theories does not make the latter true.

Thinking for our self.

Are we truly thinking for our self or are we thinking what others want us to think ?

Secondly WHO of us has a degree in climatology ? I for one doesn't

When it comes to this claim about climate change-I have decided not to believe any of them--Heck I have my own theory..and I seems to be to only one with this theory..I can't post an article to tell you I'm right, 'cause there isn't any.

Markus

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Thinking for our self.
Are we truly thinking for our self or are we thinking what others want us to think ?

There is always the 'danger' to fall for some.. entity's opinion because it seems logical (or because it suits your opinion or political prejudice ) The only remedy is to get information based on facts and empiricism, and to draw your conclusions.

Secondly WHO of us has a degree in climatology ? I for one doesn't

Climatology, well. There was a time and there are nations who do not study this. Do not ask me why there are people in nations that do, still prefer to believe in other (like populistic) explanations. Must be a "human" thing
Yes we had climatology in our studies, but this means nothing. Theories change all the time.

When it comes to this claim about climate change-I have decided not to believe any of them--Heck I have my own theory..and I seems to be to only one with this theory..I can't post an article to tell you I'm right, 'cause there isn't any.

Right. Well you could present it here, no one will support or criticize it without trying to give evidence for or against it. Discussion is the best way to find the truth, and make you think.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Right. Well you could present it here, no one will support or criticize it without trying to give evidence for or against it. Discussion is the best way to find the truth, and make you think.

Let me start with the fact. The battle to decrease the CO2 emission to almost zero will not help a tiny bit

It's earth who has decided to either erase the entire human race or a majority of it.

We are like a virus on Mother earths soil.

To fight a virus the body raise its temp.(that's why people has fever when they fight some virus in their body) This is what mother earth is doing raising the temp. to fight its virus(us) Earth is only a few hours old in the history of the universe and she has all the time to slowly raise the temp.

So you see all this talk about getting the CO2 emission down to almost zero will have no effect.

I've read things like it's important that we change our behaviour, well well this should have been done thousands of years ago.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

When it comes to this claim about climate change-I have decided not to believe any of them--Heck I have my own theory..and I seems to be to only one with this theory..I can't post an article to tell you I'm right, 'cause there isn't any.

Markus

I'd be interested to hear your theory Markus. While I may not agree i certainly wouldn't belittle or judge you for it.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Secondly WHO of us has a degree in climatology ?

Would a degree in chemistry be a sufficient alternative in your opinion?

----

Watching scientific illiterates explaining "science" was funny for a short while a long time ago, but nowadays it's way too common, and way too many people are serious about the stupid things they claim to be science, about htings they believe in but haven't even understood on the most basic level (some postings in this thread fit perfectly into this scheme).

Whenever you believe the lowest level of stupidity has been reached some idiot pulls out an excavator just to dig an even deeper hole, more often enough accompanied by "It's a conspiracy" - "The government *blah blah blah*" - "The bible says..." - "Do your own research" - "There's a study/article here that says..."

I've experienced exactly this sort of bs for my entire work life, and the internet has made it far worse. The "do your own reserach" crowd has yet to produce a single individual who understands even the most basic scitentific principle and apply it correctly. Dunning-Kruger all around, and it's not just the flat earthers.

I even had the case of one of this "do your own research"-idiots telling me I wasn't able to understand a certain topic, and he linked three scientific papers with the aforementioned "do your own research" in tow - yes, you fool, I did, two of the papers were my own, for the third I was co-author.

[Dowly]

@Rockstar RE: Temperature measurements

I think it helps if you look at it at a smaller scale. Global temperatures are collected from hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of individual weather stations that take temperature measurements, usually daily. From these individual data sets, you start to build a bigger picture, first a local area then moving to wider region before somewhere down the line you pool it all together as global temperature. This data should be available from your local weather stations, so you could even download it and plonk it all in to excel and see how temperatures in your area have changed over time. (I just did, it was pretty cool!)

As for new methods and equipment, yes of course there will be difference between new and old. That's where calibration comes into play; you don't just switch off the old equipment, you keep it on and compare that data with the new data and adjust as needed. If you have the old equipment running parallel with the new one for a year and see that there's a difference of 0.1C between the two, you know how to adjust the old temperatures to match the new data from the new equipment. I am assuming the 30 year average is constantly running, so as years go by the data gets newer and newer with old temperatures dropping off from the other end.

Global temperature measurements are also not only tied to ground/sea based measurements, satellites keep track of temperatures as well and can be used to corroborate the data gathered from ground based stations.


As for your claim that there is no proof of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere. That's just not true. Just like every other known gas on Earth, CO2's properties are well known and have been studied for over a century.
One could even do their own experiment to see how CO2 interacts with the sun (or a powerful light). Take two clear containers, one with air and one with CO2 added to the mix. Point a powerful light towards them or have them sit in the sun and use something to measure the temperature inside the two containers. After a while, you will see that the temperature inside the container with added CO2 will show warmer temperatures.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

… Would a degree in chemistry be a sufficient alternative in your opinion?

. Ummm, no. topic isn’t about chemistry really.

Dunning-Kruger all around, and it's not just the flat earthers.

I even had the case of one of this "do your own research"-idiots telling me I wasn't able to understand a certain topic, and he linked three scientific papers with the aforementioned "do your own research" in tow - yes, you fool, I did, two of the papers were my own, for the third I was co-author.

Funny you should mention the Dunning-Kruger effect. I brought this up last time someone used that term the way you do. One article from Psychology Today states “that one way to avoid falling prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect, people can honestly and routinely question their knowledge base and the conclusions they draw, rather than blindly accepting them.”.

“How do you fix the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Question what you know and pay attention to those who have different viewpoints. Seek feedback from people you can trust who you know are highly skilled in your area of interest. Be open to constructive criticism and resist the impulse to become defensive. Don’t pretend to know something you don’t. Make it a priority to continue learning and growing.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-kruger-effect

——————————-

In a later article from the same magazine another states the Dunning-Kruger effect isn’t real. “ The Dunning-Kruger effect is commonly invoked in online arguments to discredit other people’s ideas. The effect states that people who know the least about a topic are the most overconfident about that topic while people who know the most tend to be more humble and accurate in their self-assessment. It seems intuitively right, and it’s often a way to undercut people who present their opinions and arguments with "absolute certainty" that they’re right. The only problem is that the Dunning-Kruger effect itself is wrong.”…

“So now if someone online says something cutting about how the person they're arguing with is too stupid to know they’re wrong, you can point them to this post. There is no Dunning-Kruger. Everyone thinks they’re better than average. How’s that for taking the wind out of a dunk?”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...uger-isnt-real

https://gwern.net/docs/iq/2020-gignac.pdf