Climate change propaganda

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

the other posts Youtube videos and proclaims such things as the best explanation.

I said nothing about the video I posted. Stop misrepresenting what I said.

You are wholly welcome to provide alternate theories to explain the changing climate.

But of course, you don't. Because you don't have any.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The best explanation? Not geo thermal venting, not the sun, not milankovc cycles, not earths core. There is so much more to science than it’s all our fault, Greta and YouTube.

Then show the studies and we can all have a look at them together.

[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

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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

How could the 'net post something wrong. I mean you still need a bit of common sense?
- Thermal venting - bs
- Milankovic cycles happened before w/o the earth atmosphere's temperature rising (geological record for everybody to see)
- earth's core? I already wrote that the earth's core changes spin and direction all the time, more than ten thousand times in earth's history. While the sun's radiation is being deflected more or less by the force of earth's magnetic fields (which seems to be influenced by the relative motion of the earth's core within the earth's outer shell/crust) it never had an impact. It is not visible light or the temperature wavelength anyway that is being hampered by magnetic fields, but other wavelengths.

[Rockstar]

Fortunetly “that’s b.s.” is not science.

Seems we will always have people who hold onto their cherished beliefs and can't be bothered to think about new data/results/arguments because it may contradict something they once claimed. God forbid it might make them look foolish.

[em2nought]

[Dowly]

Still waiting, Rockstar.

[August]

Originally Posted by em2nought

[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.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by em2nought

:D

JEEZE! Now I know what my real problem is!!?

[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.

[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