Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The paleo records are crystal clear on that score.
     
  2. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My intention isn't to disparage anyone who denies any and all evidence that favors AGW and by necessity must deny all disciplines of science thus leading to ill conceived claims of fraud of conspiracy. I only use the label denier because it's a single word that most embodies the position of denial of science. How about this instead...anti-science ideologue? It's two words instead of one but that's no skin off my back. It's still much shorter than typing out an entire sentence describing the behavior.
     
  3. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the paleo climate record is crystal clear on CO2 concentration, but not temperature even though both often get measured using the same technique?
     
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skeptic is the best word for those of us who don't buy into the hypothesis that we are overwhelming natural causes of climate with our C02 contribution and that we are on the verge of catastrophe if we don't cease and desist. Come to think of it a better word would be rationalist and that is what I will label us from now on.

    ra·tion·al·ist
    ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)ləst/
    noun
    plural noun: rationalists
    1. a person who bases their opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's pretty clear on temperature, too. It has been far hotter in the past when CO2 was low as well as when it was high, and cooler when CO2 was high as well as when it was low. This disproves the CO2 AGW hypothesis. Periods of warm global climate used to be called, "optimums" before that term was prohibited for being politically incorrect.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to mention the test of the hypothesis over the last decade where C02 levels rose exponentially and there was a simultaneous "pause" in warming. Test fail.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Climate change denier" is an accurate term for those who believe that the natural forces that caused all previous climate changes in the earth's 4Gy history could not have caused climate to change in the last few decades.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  8. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, skeptic is a great word for a person that uses science to challenge established beliefs. It requires critically evaluating all scientific pursuits of knowledge without immediately characterizing it as a conspiracy and a fraud. Judith Curry, John Christy, and Roy Spencer are what I would call skeptics. Though in many cases I have to call them out on misinforming as well. Hell, even most AGW supporters would call me a skeptic because I do not fully support the idea that the climate sensitivity is going to be > 3.0C. I personally think it's going to be closer to 2.0C and that definitely makes me a skeptic, but I fully acknowledge all of the science and use it to support my position. I could be wrong though...shrug.

    But let's be real. A significant percentage of the dissenting opinions on climate change is full bore anti-science ideology. Even in this very forum I see posts almost on daily basis calling ALL climate scientists fraudsters and calling AGW the biggest hoax and scam in all human history. Every single piece of evidence supporting AGW is immediately met with claims of fraud. Entire lines of evidence are dismissed out-of-hand with no real justification except for "because".

    And just so we're clear. I hold the same contempt for AGW alarmists as well. There are many claims about AGW that are simply nothing more than fear-mongering. And there are probably just as many of them out there as the anti-science ideologues. I can't go a week without the media pinning every single hurricane, tornadoe, flood, or whatever directly on global warming. And don't even get me started on Al Gore.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. Fortunately all reputable climate scientists and most AGW supporters on this forum acknowledge that the natural processes that dominated climate change in the past are still in play today.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll repeat it for you since you missed the last part of my last post

    "Come to think of it a better word would be rationalist and that is what I will label us from now on."

    ra·tion·al·ist
    ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)ləst/
    noun
    plural noun: rationalists
    1. a person who bases their opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  11. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I don't think you know what "normal" means.
    Wow ... he literally, very clearly, defined exactly what he meant by "denier" within the post you quoted. You may want to start leaving a little more room when you erect a strawman this obvious. A couple posts at least.
     
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No such thing as a normal climate in the history of Earth and his definition of denier doesn't fit anyone in this forum.
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,417
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a major apples vs. oranges fallacy, being that the sun was dimmer and the continents were in very different spots in such times. In actuality, paleoclimate backs up AGW theory, since it's impossible to explain paleoclimate temps without considering CO2 levels.

    The evidence says that your "It's a natural thing!" claim is wrong. The directly measured stratospheric cooling, increased backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands have no natural explanations. Those are smoking guns for greenhouse gases being the primary cause of the warming. And you deny those smoking guns exist, purely out of ideological fervor. The data disagrees with your politics, so you deny the data. That makes you a denier.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
    iamanonman likes this.
  14. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has been far hotter and far cooler in the past. And CO2 concentration does not always correlate with the temperature like you said. But, there's more in play than just CO2. You also have to consider volcanism, solar radiation, Milankovich cycles, other atmospheric gases, atmospheric aerosols, surface albedo, and numerous other climate forcing mechanisms all of which climate scientists consider. I will say that the paleoclimate record is pretty clear that the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration is very strong especially over the last 1 million years, which by the way, happens to be the most accurate slice of that record. And what might be optimal for the proliferation of life may not be optimal for maximizing the carrying capacity for humans or for maximizing global per capita GDP.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh there are absolutely deniers on this forum. I bet I could find one right here in this very thread. D'Aleo (who you mentioned in the OP) is himself a denier...err...I mean an anti-science ideologue because he ignores the abundance of evidence that clearly demonstrates that CO2 is a greenhouse. And "the pause", as he claims, in no way refutes the CO2's greenhouse effect. D'Aleo likes to dismiss the fact that the ocean, which accounts for 90% of the accumulated heat, continued to warm significantly during the entire period of "the pause". Nevermind that CO2's greenhouse gas properties have been known and confirmed countless times over the last 150+ years. In my book when you deny the overwhelming majority of the evidence like this that makes you a denier...err...I mean an anti-science ideologue. D'Aleo is definitely in that group of people.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  16. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I see nothing wrong with your beliefs and I see nothing wrong with your unwillingness to debate your personal observations, experiment and scientific knowledge.

    But a Creationist can say exactly the same things "- it has been observed that life appears only in presence of life and all experiments since times of Frankenstein showed that animated matter cannot appear from an non-animated matter and blah, blah blah".

    The difference is that your personal belief is not only taught in schools as a state religion like scientific communism and scientific atheism were taught in the USSR but also it is taught as science.

    And that is very wrong and extremely dangerous for American liberties, more dangerous than Muslim jihad.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  17. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You really should get a life. Do you always babble off topic just to make yourself feel better. We are discussing Earth and it’s atmosphere and how it affects our species, not Venus. Thank you for clarifying your ignorance in science. Now, go off on your little tangents.
    Moving on....
     
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And speaking of Venus...it too has an atmosphere that causes it to retain heat above and beyond that which is predicted by an idealized black-body emitter. Except in the case of Venus it's 96% CO2 atmosphere gives it a +500K greenhouse effect whereas Earth only has a +33K greenhouse effect. But even that is in stark contrast to Mercury and Mar's +3K and +6K difference respectively. Note that Mercury and Mars have little if any atmosphere which explains their lack of a greenhouse effect. It only makes sense that if you add more greenhouse gas species to the atmospheric mix then the greenhouse gas effect will be stronger.

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  19. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The reason science is taught in schools vs. religion would be that there is information to teach and data that can be verified by kids. Teaching religion consists of reading words and repeating them...basically memorizing stories.
     
  20. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As soon as the “God’s” that creationists worship can get off his buttocks and save the 20k plus children under five who die each day, there would be less need for science. Without science our life expectancy would still be 35 and small pox would be killing millions more. There is practically nothing in this world worth wild , even by an atheist standards, that has not been enhanced by science. Pray tell, list them if you can. Creationists can start “denying science” by stop using satillite technology to broadcast their illogical ideas. If creationists had their way, they’d breed a generation of uneducated cattle.

    Science includes the best ideas man has ever had. That alone eliminates the ideas of creationism. If a creationist does not want science taught in our democracies, what will they do when the missiles developed by the science of communist and dictatorial nation’s start raining down upon them ? Pray to the same god who lets 20k children die each year ?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  21. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly....
    Without science, creationists would find it impossible to spread their version of their word of god. Missionaries can’t fly anywhere and satillite communication technology is too “scientific.” The world of creationism is a world filled with hypocracy. Nearly all will seek a cancer cure or biotics or science based help in time of need, after dialing 911 on their smart phones.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  22. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  23. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We don't deny the science we "deny" the hypothesis. Big difference.
     
  24. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That IS the science. No difference.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  25. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. The science is additional levels of C02 in a controlled environment raise temperature. AGW is a hypothesis that postulates that science is transferable to Earth's dynamic and far from closed environment and a rise in C02 levels will have the same test tube results. The hypothesis fails test after test but true believers doggedly hang on.


    Works in a jar so it must work in the Earth's atmosphere. LOL


    Global warming in a jar

    "Perhaps you have heard of the greenhouse effect. In a greenhouse, short-wave radiation from
    sunlight passes freely through the glass and is converted to long-wave radiation inside. But the
    long-wave radiation cannot pass back out through the glass. The result is a build-up of heat
    inside the greenhouse from the captured solar energy. Certain gases in Earth’s atmosphere –
    especially water vapor and carbon dioxide – act in much the same way as the glass in a
    greenhouse. We call this situation the greenhouse effect, and we call these gases the
    greenhouse gases, because of their ability to trap energy from sunlight. Most greenhouse gases
    occur naturally, but some are being added to the atmosphere because of human actions.
    Global warming refers to the rise in temperatures at Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere over
    the last century. Most scientists believe that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are
    contributing to global warming. The danger in this warming is that it could disrupt Earth’s climate
    patterns, cause coastal flooding, and force major adjustments in the way people live. The more
    we are able to learn about the causes and effects of global warming, the better prepared we may
    be to deal with the possible consequences of a changing environment.
    In this set of experiments you will use models of Earth’s atmosphere to see how it is warmed by
    sunlight. You will also discover how lakes and seas affect this warming by storing and releasing
    energy from the sun.
    Materials: Large pickle jars, smaller jelly jar, laboratory thermometers, white cardboard, sheets of
    8½” × 11” white paper, transparent tape, clear plastic wrap, rubber bands, water, anti-fog
    solution, timer or clock, activity log sheet, graph sheet, question-and-answer sheet.
    Preparation: This activity requires a location where there is direct sunlight for a sustained period
    of time. The experiments use three different models for Earth’s atmosphere, as shown below.
    Two different experiments are presented, each experiment using a different pair of models:

    Experiment 1: Models A and B, where A is the control, and the cover (B) is the variable.
    Experiment 2: Models B and C, where B is the control, and water (C) is the variable.
    Your teacher will tell you which experiments to do and which models to use. Directions for
    building the models are given on the next page. Note: Prepare each model out of direct sunlight"

    Global Warming in a Jar - Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History
    PDFYale University › peabody › education
     

Share This Page