Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[sk47]

Can you prove that?

No you have not

Got kids and grand kids. I want them to live as good or better than I do. Not some cave man style life.

Hello; Oil was apparently formed during a few special times is the latest I have heard or read about some years ago. A set of circumstance where there was enough organic matter buried in sediments on a sea floor. Then some later sediments were laid over and would form a cap of sorts so as the organic matter formed oil it would be trapped. While it does seem the conditions are not a general thing, there may be some deposits slowly cooking somewhere. Of course the time scale is immense for the cycles. But I got the joke for what it is worth.

Back many many pages ago one of the climate champions ask for someone to explain current warming if it is not CO2. Well one of us mentioned the sun, precession (wobble) of the earths axis and a couple of other things. Back those many pages ago those answers were deemed as not good enough with a serving of derisive remarks on the side.
Just a few pages ago a similar question was asked about a chart showing warming spikes while at the same time showing low CO2. The answer was the sun and other natural causes.
Somehow the answer is fine for a time when no human was around and the information is an estimate derived from limited data. I cannot say they are wrong about millions of years ago as I was not around back then either. There is a good chance I would not have been paying attention anyway.

The last is another attempt to throw a guilt trip at you.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

That link just showed ice core Co2 samples. No where did it explain natural warming and cooling of the earth.

 

[K4fxd]

I worked in the oil and gas industry and was around many engineers and geologists. The "consensus" is it is still being made.

If true I do not know.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Yes we had a short run. I find a few of things of interest. One is how the presence of the OP sends the thread from a discussion into a fuss fest. He seems more interested in conflict than making his stance understood. Even when we get some useful information out of him, he throws in some personal slurs which color the tone of things.

I began to think of why it has been so hard to find contrary information when I do a search. Then a post from a member telling how he had to use a round about method to find some old information because it was not coming up on google. He found the stuff. So the information was in effect "censored". I began to wonder if a lot of other stuff is censored in the same way. Maybe anything which goes against climate champions standards of evidence is flagged as 'misinformation" and restricted. After all we have plenty of examples of such in other areas. Perhaps the "gatekeeper" of the truth is using it's old tactics of before last November on climate change. Anyway it may be that when we are challenged to find "peer reviewed" information it is that that information is being restricted?

I would suggest that the issue stems primarily from the analytics that are generated by the user.
If you spend most of your time googling climate denial sites, you’ll likely find it harder to access good quality info.

I can access PLENTY of denial information becauseI I spend quite a bit of time looking at it. All I see is the same tired, washed up arguments being put forward. All of it had been comprehensively disproven, but they continue to perpetuate the myths to a willing group of recipients.

We see this playing out when someone claims that “more CO2 is beneficial”. This myth has been busted a million times, which indicates that our mate hasn’t bothered to do his research properly, and has instead just listened to the sources that popped up on his last google search.

Whose fault is that?

 

[Burkey]

Looking at the chart I posted, taken from the OP, simple math shows over the last 500 million years the earth has been without ice caps longer than with.

Tells me without ice caps is more normal than with.

Ok, let’s assume for a moment that the “normal” status of the Earth is one without polar ice caps.
What predictive power does that offer you with regard to the survival of the human species?

Using your logic, it seems that the “normal” status of the Earth doesn’t revolve around humans. We‘ve been here for like 0.2% of the Earth’s history.
Oh well, looks like it’s time fo us to leave then….

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I have explained the past cycles if you bothered to read it. It also explains why CO2 was indeed higher than today at some points but in a world that humans couldn't survive.

As an environmentalist, I condemn your efforts to thwart changes just to selfishly ensure Earth remains survivable for humans while at the same time making it much less habitable for countless other past, present and future plant and animal species.

 

[Gregs24]

I worked in the oil and gas industry and was around many engineers and geologists. The "consensus" is it is still being made.

If true I do not know.

So you are now a geologist as well as a climatologist and a palaeontologist. What a busy life you live .

Once again a bold statement based on ....... Please enlighten us with this consensus data

I'm sure if being pedantic a small quantity is being 'produced' now, but it is effectively a finite resource.

Interesting you worked in the oil and gas industry and explains your confirmation bias regarding global climate change denial.

 

[Burkey]

If that graph is correct, what about the other twin posting information that says Co2 has nothing to do with warming?

That’s not quite what I said…
If you consider that pretty much ALL of the GHG’s were sequestered at one point, you soon realise that things like volcanic activity and solar cycles triggered the INTIAL warming at various points. That warming thawed relatively small quantities of ice, allowing the GHG’s to take effect. Hence, you’ll see that Co2 LAGGED the initial rise in temp in those instances, but then became the dominant force.
Put simply, solar cycles and orbital tilt/wobble/insert as required don’t last long enough to explain the DURATION of the warmer/cooler planet.
So, yes, the “natural” variation we see over geologic time is indeed a combination of factors, as you’d expect.

Given that the Milankovitch cycles operate at roughly 100,000 year intervals (I’m grossly summarising), if the sun were the dominant force,you’d expect to see ave4age global temps rise and fall in concert (more or less) with those cycles. Yet we don’t see that happening.

Quite honestly, you’d do a lot better if you actually studied the science instead of the rebuttals.
The rebuttals don’t attempt to educate you on the broader topic, instead focusing in on single aspects and ignoring how those forces play into the larger picture.

 

[Burkey]

So you are now a geologist as well as a climatologist and a palaeontologist. What a busy life you live .

Once again a bold statement based on ....... Please enlighten us with this consensus data

I'm sure if being pedantic a small quantity is being 'produced' now, but it is effectively a finite resource.

Interesting you worked in the oil and gas industry and explains your confirmation bias regarding global climate change denial.

Strictly speaking, he’s correct. The issue is the time-frame and rate for the “renewal” process.
I mean, yeah, coal is being formed right now. Nowehere near enough of it to replenish that which will be taken tomorrow, but it IS forming.

An interesting read:

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/18/3691317.htm

 

[Gregs24]

That’s not quite what I said…
If you consider that pretty much ALL of the GHG’s were sequestered at one point, you soon realise that things like volcanic activity and solar cycles triggered the INTIAL warming at various points. That warming thawed relatively small quantities of ice, allowing the GHG’s to take effect. Hence, you’ll see that Co2 LAGGED the initial rise in temp in those instances, but then became the dominant force.
Put simply, solar cycles and orbital tilt/wobble/insert as required don’t last long enough to explain the DURATION of the warmer/cooler planet.
So, yes, the “natural” variation we see over geologic time is indeed a combination of factors, as you’d expect.

Given that the Milankovitch cycles operate at roughly 100,000 year intervals (I’m grossly summarising), if the sun were the dominant force,you’d expect to see ave4age global temps rise and fall in concert (more or less) with those cycles. Yet we don’t see that happening.

Quite honestly, you’d do a lot better if you actually studied the science instead of the rebuttals.
The rebuttals don’t attempt to educate you on the broader topic, instead focusing in on single aspects and ignoring how those forces play into the larger picture.

Wait for it ....

But, CO2 is really good for plants and I want better summers ......

 

[Gregs24]

Strictly speaking, he’s correct. The issue is the time-frame and rate for the “renewal” process.
I mean, yeah, coal is being formed right now. Nowehere near enough of it to replenish that which will be taken tomorrow, but it IS forming.

An interesting read:

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/18/3691317.htm

I know hence my comment about pedantry. I suspect however there is an oil engineer (or maybe a dentist) somewhere who believes that oil is still being produced by the pixies in the middle of the earth.

 

[K4fxd]

Using your logic, it seems that the “normal” status of the Earth doesn’t revolve around humans. We‘ve been here for like 0.2% of the Earth’s history.
Oh well, looks like it’s time fo us to leave then….

Nope, we will adapt. As long as this planet has a stable orbit, spin and magnetic field, we will survive.

 

[Burkey]

Nope, we will adapt. As long as this planet has a stable orbit, spin and magnetic field, we will survive.

Like the 99% of species that went before us but still perished despite their inability to alter the Earth‘s climate in a negative way?

Seems legit.
Evidence to support your hypothesis?

 

[K4fxd]

Evidence to support your hypothesis?

Humans live at the equator and humans live in the artic.

There is nothing we can do about the earth warming, or cooling so we will adapt or die out. Banning Ice cars and fossil fuels will not change anything.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Oil was apparently formed during a few special times is the latest I have heard or read about some years ago. A set of circumstance where there was enough organic matter buried in sediments on a sea floor. Then some later sediments were laid over and would form a cap of sorts so as the organic matter formed oil it would be trapped. While it does seem the conditions are not a general thing, there may be some deposits slowly cooking somewhere. Of course the time scale is immense for the cycles. But I got the joke for what it is worth.

Back many many pages ago one of the climate champions ask for someone to explain current warming if it is not CO2. Well one of us mentioned the sun, precession (wobble) of the earths axis and a couple of other things. Back those many pages ago those answers were deemed as not good enough with a serving of derisive remarks on the side.
Just a few pages ago a similar question was asked about a chart showing warming spikes while at the same time showing low CO2. The answer was the sun and other natural causes.
Somehow the answer is fine for a time when no human was around and the information is an estimate derived from limited data. I cannot say they are wrong about millions of years ago as I was not around back then either. There is a good chance I would not have been paying attention anyway.

The last is another attempt to throw a guilt trip at you.

The point that you’re missing is that various “forcings” have different impacts at different times, depending on the prevalent conditions.

One example:
Volcanoes emit aerosols that COOL the planet.
However, if the planet is covered in ice and the heat of the volcanic eruption unlocks GHG’s, you now have a very different set of circumstances. The aerosols fall out of suspension relatively quickly, whilst the GHG’s typically don’t.
Now compare that to a planet that is already super hot, with little or no ice. If most of the GHG’s are already in circulation, the net effect of the volcanic eruption is COOLING.

Even the statement I made there isn’t 100% correct, but it’s a near enough approximation of a vastly complex series of interactions.

Ergo, what could be a cooling event in some instances is a warming event in others.
A short course in geology would probably sort all this out for you.

Another example:
The Earth was frozen solid. We know that solar irradiance ALONE wasn’t great enough to unfreeze the planet.
The sun contributed enough warming to trigger the unlocking of the GHG’s from the ice, raising the temp a little. Once the temps rise a little, more water vapour can be stored in the atmosphere. Once you have water vapour do8ng it’s job, you unlock more GHG’s…on and on until you hit equilibrium.
Then, something changes, whether it be solar irradiance or any of the other forcings.

Once again, your foundational misunderstanding of the science you don’t accept isn’t a rebuttal of the science.
All you’re showing us is that you haven’t done your homework.

Sponsored