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

[HiTekExec]

That would be the state of Confusion...

Sponsored

 

[HiTekExec]

Didn’t say anything about binge drinking or a belief in a higher power either.
You’re just ranting again, likely because you really don’t have anything worthwhile to say.
Seriously, if you’re going to get into a battle of wits, you shouldn’t come in half-armed.

 

[HiTekExec]

I was going to ask whether you've ever sought professional help for whatever conditions are skewing your thought processes, but then I recalled that unhinged people rarely think they are unhinged... You really aren't wired quite right, are you?
Can't wait for the "takes one to know one" response.

Anyone out there have a third-grader that could debate at this guy's level?

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

Hello; OK so data from 140 years out of climate cycles of hundreds of thousands of years if we limit to only the most recent ICE AGE climate events. I know this will not be a good analogy so do not make a federal case out of it.
This might be like taking the temperature for 15 minutes one day and then making calls for a year. Weak analogy to be sure.

Now if the data is used to say there is an absolute gradual warming of oceans, then you might have a case. I use a sports analogy. If records are kept in sports for s long time you can have a way to compare past players to current players unless some standard has changed. Lets use college baseball. In the past they all used wooden bats and now they use aluminum bats. Makes it hard to do direct comparisons.

If the temperature measures of the oceans were taken using a standard procedure at the same places and times of the year and other such standards have been in place then we can have confidence in the data.
It is part of using significant numbers. If I measure something using feet as my smallest unit and you measure using inches as the smallest unit, then the confidence of the combined results cannot have a confidence any closer than a foot.

I am not saying the oceans are not getting warmer. It seems they are. This is not in dispute as far as I can tell.

This doesn't make sense and becomes a philosophical argument because we only know what WE know, not what we DON'T know. The 140 years is the ONLY data set we have for hard data on ocean temperature. The previous climate cycles from my understanding are not absolute, as the data is limited.

You are now entering paleontology, which is a completely different field of study. I never studied ancient history in detail or read about the ice ages. Why is the ice age even relevant? We don't live in a past period or epoch. Life has adapted to the current conditions of this age, not something that goes way back when mammoths were around. 2,000 year ice cores from Greenland have shown a steady rise (and also variation) in the rise in temperature, and currently it is the highest it's ever been. Ideally yes a standard procedure should be used but it isn't realistic and impossible. You can't retroactively record something when we weren't even there. It is physically impossible to collect ocean data over millions of years using standard procedures today which is why mathematical algorithms are used to make an educated guess based off of the carbon in the cores. We are seeing the effects of the elevated temperatures which is due increased carbon. You are deducing one factor and not able to explain the why or how. The temperature isn't the only thing you should be looking at to determine a change. What about the pH levels back then?

The oldest known ice core is 800,000 years old and the carbon levels today are still way higher than the past. Like you said, there is variation, because the methodology is different atmospheric readings is different than ice core readings but thats all there is.

The authors of the paper you listed stated that it needs further investigation into if a 60 year dataset is viable to make assumptions for what they were doing, there are data sets that go back long before 60 years and you are moving the goal post by saying lets go back millions of years.

 

[K4fxd]

Greenland have shown a steady rise (and also variation) in the rise in temperature, and currently it is the highest it's ever been.

You are wrong, the Roman warming period was warmer than today. If I recall correctly by approximately 2 degrees C.

Why is the ice age even relevant?

Because in the earths history there have been periods when the earth is covered in ice and periods when the earth had no ice caps at the poles.

There is a cycle of warm and cold periods.

The oldest known ice core is 800,000 years old and the carbon levels today are still way higher than the past.

That is contradictory from what I have read. If you read the whole thread you will recall some of us who are older know the information being given out has changed. When I was in HS, science class had a chapter on the greenland ice cores and they showed the Co2 levels were much higher than today.

So which do we believe? When information changes without any explanation red flags go up. Lots of NOAA charts and graphs have disappeared. No longer accessible to the public. Why?

Around 300 ppm of Co2 is starvation for plant life. We are at 400 or so today, almost not enough to support plant life.

 

[CJJon]

What the actual fuck? Dude is mental or a supreme troll.

 

[HiTekExec]

Sigh...
While it has been amusing to bait you a bit and watch you go off the rails, your diatribe and drivel have become tiresome.

 

[CJJon]

This doesn't make sense and becomes a philosophical argument because we only know what WE know, not what we DON'T know. The 140 years is the ONLY data set we have for hard data on ocean temperature. The previous climate cycles from my understanding are not absolute, as the data is limited.

You are now entering paleontology, which is a completely different field of study. I never studied ancient history in detail or read about the ice ages. Why is the ice age even relevant? We don't live in a past period or epoch. Life has adapted to the current conditions of this age, not something that goes way back when mammoths were around. 2,000 year ice cores from Greenland have shown a steady rise (and also variation) in the rise in temperature, and currently it is the highest it's ever been. Ideally yes a standard procedure should be used but it isn't realistic and impossible. You can't retroactively record something when we weren't even there. It is physically impossible to collect ocean data over millions of years using standard procedures today which is why mathematical algorithms are used to make an educated guess based off of the carbon in the cores. We are seeing the effects of the elevated temperatures which is due increased carbon. You are deducing one factor and not able to explain the why or how. The temperature isn't the only thing you should be looking at to determine a change. What about the pH levels back then?

The oldest known ice core is 800,000 years old and the carbon levels today are still way higher than the past. Like you said, there is variation, because the methodology is different atmospheric readings is different than ice core readings but thats all there is.

The authors of the paper you listed stated that it needs further investigation into if a 60 year dataset is viable to make assumptions for what they were doing, there are data sets that go back long before 60 years and you are moving the goal post by saying lets go back millions of years.

The oldest ice core is 2.7 million years

 

[CJJon]

You are wrong, the Roman warming period was warmer than today. If I recall correctly by approximately 2 degrees C.


Because in the earths history there have been periods when the earth is covered in ice and periods when the earth had no ice caps at the poles.

There is a cycle of warm and cold periods.

That is contradictory from what I have read. If you read the whole thread you will recall some of us who are older know the information being given out has changed. When I was in HS, science class had a chapter on the greenland ice cores and they showed the Co2 levels were much higher than today.

So which do we believe? When information changes without any explanation red flags go up. Lots of NOAA charts and graphs have disappeared. No longer accessible to the public. Why?

Around 300 ppm of Co2 is starvation for plant life. We are at 400 or so today, almost not enough to support plant life.

What you don;t know is that the Roman Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period were regional phenomena, not globally coherent episodes.

Wrong on your conclusions again.

https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788

 

[CJJon]

Wow, the mental illness is strong in this thread.

 

[CJJon]

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

You are wrong, the Roman warming period was warmer than today. If I recall correctly by approximately 2 degrees C.


Because in the earths history there have been periods when the earth is covered in ice and periods when the earth had no ice caps at the poles.

There is a cycle of warm and cold periods.

That is contradictory from what I have read. If you read the whole thread you will recall some of us who are older know the information being given out has changed. When I was in HS, science class had a chapter on the greenland ice cores and they showed the Co2 levels were much higher than today.

So which do we believe? When information changes without any explanation red flags go up. Lots of NOAA charts and graphs have disappeared. No longer accessible to the public. Why?

Around 300 ppm of Co2 is starvation for plant life. We are at 400 or so today, almost not enough to support plant life.

That isn't true. The Roman warming period was not a global event, it was only regional, and it wasn't raised by 2 degrees globally. The temperatures today are still higher.

Still not understanding. It is well known that the earth goes through cycles. The rate that it is warming is not natural at all otherwise the observations of the effects on the ocean and other organisms would not be happening, the rate of ocean acidification is not natural.

Not everyone went to the same high school as you and read bad books. I have had plenty of shit teachers too. So, I mean if you are incapable if changing your mindset that sounds like a personal problem. The books in rotation at schools in the US vary state by state and depend on the quality of education you receive. Not really sure what you are trying to say, high school education is not good and low, there is a reason why colleges exist. You don't learn everything in high school

What do you mean information without explanation lol? NOAA charts are still accessible, and you can easily find Greenland ice core data with a simple google search. The internet wasn't big back in the 70s like it was in the 90s and early 2000s. So what charts magically vanished from the public and internet that nobody used?

300ppm? lol, try ~180 ppm. If 300ppm was the starvation point then we wouldn't have plant life, as the carbon levels have been lower than that before. The majority of photosynthesis occurs in the ocean, not on land. Forest coverage is decreasing every year due to habitat loss so there are less plants every year to lower the ppm. Plants have different optimal CO2 concentration levels as I said before, FACE experiments show this. High PPM creates a positive feedback loop because less photosynthesis occurs in the ocean

 

[K4fxd]

It may be 150 ppm.

Still other evidence shows Co2 levels far higher than today. Ice core samples.

Why would they teach in the 1970's that Co2 levels were higher in the past?
Now they teach the levels are higher.

Roman warming period;
They keep rewriting history and science journals.

I'll give you the last word because although this was a fun thread I am now bored with it.

Warmer climate? Longer growing seasons. If the oceans rise, we will move inland.
We will adapt.

 

[sk47]

That isn't true. The Roman warming period was not a global event, it was only regional, and it wasn't raised by 2 degrees globally. The temperatures today are still higher.

Still not understanding. It is well known that the earth goes through cycles. The rate that it is warming is not natural at all otherwise the observations of the effects on the ocean and other organisms would not be happening, the rate of ocean acidification is not natural.

Hello; Thank you for helping make two of my points. First is the ice core data is not necessarily representative of the globe. The older ice is only found in some limited places.
Let me fast forward to data collected currently. On the ground the stations are spread over large areas. The data from orbital sensors gathers data from all over the planet. A polar orbit perhaps. I do not have records to cite but do recall discussion about how some of the weather stations were not giving reliable data when compared to other stations.
The preserved ice may not represent global conditions. It had to be ice in the first place to trap old air. The air may be more regional than global.

Next is how what is considered natural determined when the cycles you mention are so very much longer term than the current capacity to take accurate measurements. How can it be known there were not past times of oceanic warming of similar nature to what is being observed currently. we use clues and infer from those clues what the temperatures may have been.
If you find plant pollen in the ice for example you may infer the temperature must have been within a range suitable for that plant to live. A fairly wide range of temperatures compared to a thermometer.

The "data" from ice cores and other such sources is inference data and not from direct measurement. Not necessarily bad data, but also not necessarily precise data. Again I mention significant numbers.

Yes the oceans are becoming warmer by measure currently. That is not disputed. lay it all on human activity if you wish, but expect some push back that there may be natural effects in play.

 

[sk47]

Warmer climate? Longer growing seasons. If the oceans rise, we will move inland.
We will adapt.

Hello; Yes we will adapt. This has been the hallmark of humans. We have been able to adapt to a very wide range of environments so far. I saw some years ago an estimation of how parts of Russian might become productive crop land with warming.
I enjoyed your participation in the thread.

Sponsored