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

[sk47]

Not sure what (Ma) stands for, but your graph shows 480,000 years ago Co2 over 6000 ppm. His graph shoes it to be below 260 ppm. Quite the difference.

Another example of, "you can't trust the data"

Hello; The two graphs have very different time scales. One which has CO2 well below current levels does go back around 800 K years. That graph makes our current levels seem very high.

The other graph is in a much longer time scale. The letters at the bottom of the graph are the eras of geologic time. Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic and so on. The first graph would fit inside a small section on the far right of the second graph.

The legend of the graphs are missing a lot of information. To the point you have to be familiar with the context or will just be left to guess. I am use to reading graphs and had to study them a bit. Often a graph is imbedded in text and the text will help with context.

I figure you are not sensitive to their jabs and attempts to put you down. You should not be. Some of the dialogue reminds me of listening to a car salesman trying to tell you about financing.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

What does (Ma) stand for?
OK moving average, Where do you get the years scale? The oldest ice core samples are 800,000 years

My god…
The chart goes back 500 MILLION years.
This would’ve been abundantly obvious to anyone who has even the most basic grasp of geology, especially when you can clearly see the Cretaceous, Carboniferous, Jurassic periods etc, being mentioned underneath.

Here you are, thinking you can defeat the most up to date science we have available and yet you can’t even properly identify such things on a graph.

As a “sceptic” shouldn’t you already have all this information tucked away in your memory bank? I mean, if you’re going to attempt to debunk something, you should at least have a sound knowledge of the ideas you’re trying to overthrow right?

 

[K4fxd]

Looking at your graph 300 million years ago Co2 levels were about the same as today., That was a valley as levels were higher before and after. Looking at your graph it appears like we are in another valley of low Co2 levels.

Looks like the last valley lasted aprox 25 million years, we are about 10 million years into this valley.

Again using your chart. Someone will say the resolution, I am estimating based on the evidence given.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; The two graphs have very different time scales. One which has CO2 well below current levels does go back around 800 K years. That graph makes our current levels seem very high.

The other graph is in a much longer time scale. The letters at the bottom of the graph are the eras of geologic time. Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic and so on. The first graph would fit inside a small section on the far right of the second graph.

The legend of the graphs are missing a lot of information. To the point you have to be familiar with the context or will just be left to guess. I am use to reading graphs and had to study them a bit. Often a graph is imbedded in text and the text will help with context.

I figure you are not sensitive to their jabs and attempts to put you down. You should not be. Some of the dialogue reminds me of listening to a car salesman trying to tell you about financing.

The “jabs” are entirely warranted when someone is attempting to refute the most current information we have available and yet can’t even read a damn graph correctly.

If he had come here asking for help in understanding it better, I‘d be far more accomodating.

 

[K4fxd]

Flame away, I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I do have the capacity to learn.

 

[sk47]

Looking at your graph 300 million years ago Co2 levels were about the same as today., That was a valley as levels were higher before and after. Looking at your graph it appears like we are in another valley of low Co2 levels.

Looks like the last valley lasted aprox 25 million years, we are about 10 million years into this valley.

Again using your chart. Someone will say the resolution, I am estimating based on the evidence given.

Hello; Yes you have read the graph correctly.

 

[K4fxd]

My whole premise is simple and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

The earth has been warmer than today, and cooler than today. It is perfectly logical to expect it to be warmer again and also cooler. All your fancy graphs do is reinforce that premise.

I got my shield up, throw some more rocks.

 

[Gregs24]

If I use the event in Texas last winter I am sure some will start to point out how the wind turbines and gas lines just were not cold hardened. Well that is the main point, that in the planning some one decided such a step was not needed.

Wind turbines work in Sweden and Antarctica so there is no fundamental reason why they shouldn't be able to cope. I suspect as you say they were not properly winterised. There were plenty of other points of failure as well. not least the isolation of Texas from the rest of the US when it comes to electricity.

The Great Texas Blackout of 2021: How does this not happen again? - Houston Advanced Research Center : Houston Advanced Research Center (harcresearch.org)

Of course global temperature increases don't always mean warmer weather in one specific location because the climate changes influence weather patterns in some interesting ways. I mentioned the Gulf Stream and polar ice caps before in this thread) so extreme weather events are becoming more common because of the greater energy in the atmosphere. Preparation within infrastructure providers is all part of the planning for the future. That will cost money if you want the lights to stay on.

 

[Gregs24]

So you are OK with wood burners equiped with filters but not gas or coal? Kind of hypocritical, no?

Not at all - once again missing the point.

Filters clean up wood burners so they don't produce PM2.5 and PM10 - FACT

Wood absorbs CO2 over the period the tree is grown (30 to 40 years) and then it is released again - FACT. This is net zero over a short period of time globally.

Coal and Oil release CO2 that has been safely trapped for millions of years - FACT

It is not possible to recapture that CO2 by 'growing' more coal or oil - FACT

 

[Gregs24]

I sure as H, E, double toothpicks am not an elite.

It was you that said you live in the suburbs and don't use public transport and don't care about the pollution in the city.

 

[Gregs24]

Which part is not accurate? Poles with no ice? That there are warm and cold cycles?

scrubbers ect....

Since you claim that poles with no ice in the past is inaccurate, who doesn't understand?

AT NO POINT have I said there were not times without ice caps or that there were not warm and cold cycles as a result of global climatic drivers. You just don't read or listen.

 

[Gregs24]

Did you not notice the date of that document? It does indeed talk about the future - and you know what - it has happened and is happening. Do you know that the US is also contributing? The various funding routes, which include grants, zero rate finance, guarantees, technical support etc have different uses in different schemes. The first link is a summary and I have included one of the schemes as an example of how they work at a local level.

Global Climate Finance Architecture – Climate Funds Update

Africa Renewable Energy Initiative (AREI) | NDC Partnership


So your plan is to implement green technology in poor countries, give them loans they can't afford, all while protecting the UK, lol. - clearly not the case


---

If you can't understand the image on page 47 as pointed out over and over again about where UK petrol comes from I am at a complete loss. As somebody once posted on here 'I can provide you with the information but I can't make you understand it'

DUKES_2020_Chapter_3.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

You don't know how your own country provides energy sources or where it comes from. - Yes I do !

 

[Gregs24]

Maybe I have you confused with another poster. That assertion was made, several times.

Maybe you have confused yourself. There have been graphs posted numerous time showing this not to be the case. I think you need to take a step back - you really are confusing yourself and going around in circles.

 

[Gregs24]

Human history is but 1 second in the history of the earth.

It is indeed - and the Earth was uninhabitable by humans for all but that second too.

 

[Gregs24]

Here is a graph that was posted claiming Co2 levels are higher today than....ever

Supposedly goes back 800,000 years.

OK here it is for the THIRD time, you even responded to it last time so surely you must have read it??????

This graph below, or similar, is often trotted out to 'back up' the argument that the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling over the years, so it is all natural and nothing to do with man, CO2 and greenhouse gasses - and it does appear that way as per the graph, BUT you need to look at the last pixel on the right on that timescale!

Firstly, CO2 is not the only driver of global temperature and there were some very strong drivers of global temperature millions of years ago that are not changing significantly at present. Secondly almost that entire graph has no human derived input until the very last little squiggle - as in it is driven by natural factors. However the link between CO2 and temperature during more recent years is dramatic and clear. The first graph below uses Ice core samples to correlate CO2 and temperature, the latter is just CO2 but shows the recent dramatic uptick. The link is VERY clear between CO2 and climate change. Then look at the huge uptick in the last 50 years and have a guess what is happening!

Sponsored