Climate change

cbroad said:
I'm probably going to regret weighing in here, but last night I was watching some videos about redating the age of the Sphinx, and how some geologists believe it was built a lot earlier than 4,000 or 5,000 b.c.

They go on to say what could have brought us out of the last ice age (younger dryas period). One thought was an extended period of coronal mass ejections from the sun/increased sun spot activity lasting a couple thousand years, which would destabilize our climate here on Earth, and cause our environment to warm significantly.

One scientist named Robert Schoch, says Earth hasn't seen this level of recent sun spot activity since about 12,000 years ago, which supposedly brought us out of the ice age.

On the video I was watching he put up some graphs of sun spot activity starting at 10,000 years ago to present time. These graphs look VERY similar to the graphs shown for increased CO2 levels and increased temperatures for present times. Could this recent coronal up swing be the cause of our current warming??? I don't know, but these graphs look pretty similar...

View attachment 212961
Click to expand...
There is a lot more to be said about Solar activity.
 
Wires_Guy_wires said:
I did my best to not assume anything, apart from the "we're all doomed" but then again, we are.. I showed a calculation, that's all. The rest of the assumptions are yours, and yours only.
Click to expand...
It's not an assumption to say CO2 levels are remarkably stable. They either are or aren't. Even the climate change frauds will admit they ate slooooooowly rising (I.e. stable). Good on you for being able to make a calculation.
 
AlainK said:
What's your source? Fox News? Oh, All right.

It's a very simplistic vision of how things work.

O2 can become O3, C can become CO2, etc.

Less CO2 in the sea and more CO2 in the air, OK, that's the same level of CO2. OK, evolution may go backwards too : but if you regress to fish because there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, you'll find there's more CO2 in the water. Both are deadly, aren't they?

So what you're saying makes no sense. It's ideology, not a valid argument, not science.



If that's what you think, sorry, believe...

To me it is pretty obvious that if "some vast intelligence designed everything", this "Vast Intelligence" has a mean sense of humour, or they was totally pissed.

It's that kind of "arguments" that definitely turned me away from all forms of religion.

Now I don't believe any longer that our world was created in 6 days some 6,000 years ago, nor that Adam and Eve joyfully rode dinosaurs when going to buy semi-automatics and ammos at the local w*lm*rt

I realised early that this was all nice stories that cavemen and cavewomen invented to feel safer, and to explain what science ouldn't decypher at a time when people had hardly discovered how to make metal tools.

I mean, I don't mind people believing in whatever "vast intelligence" they like, it's a good crutch when someone you love dies, but basing a reflexion on apocryph texts transmitted orally before the invention of the wheel, and then written much, much later by several "scribes", writing down what "priests" would tell them seems to me very weak, very feeble.

It's a bit like the "gun debate" : when there's no one else to kill, kill yurself? Actually, it's the same kind of logic. Praise Jim Jones, he was a prophet, collective suicide is redemption!

"Vast intelligence"... :rolleyes:

And if we started by "Common sense"?...
Click to expand...
"Regressing to fish" is a rational argument? Good grief.
 
papymandarin said:
haaa intelligent design, the new avatar of creationism lol

oh and the observed acidification of oceans because of all the excess co2 it has absorbed will of course have no consequences at all (the main factor into marine life destruction during permian extinction again) because co2 is "not a pollutant"
always the same argument
i'm not even surprised to see so much identity between these two fraudulous pseudo sciences, the root is the same
Click to expand...
Do you understand the concept of buffering? And do you understand just how weak an acid carbonic acid is, and how little of it is produced when CO2 is dissolved in water? This is high school chemistry stuff ....
 
Zach Smith said:
"Regressing to fish" is a rational argument?
Click to expand...

Of course not, it's just sarcastic for those who crucify Darwin, who deny the evidence of evolution.

Like "Adam and Eve riding joyfully on dinosaurs", the kind of hocus-pocus creationists believe in.

But don't worry: I'll pray for you.

Can you already feel how your situation has improved? A miracle!

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”

(Stephen Hawking, some obscure -fake?- scientist I've heard of)
 
Zach Smith said:
This is high school chemistry stuff
Click to expand...

Here, that's middle-school stuff (used to be primary school stuff in my younger days).

Don't know what high school diploma in the US are worth -and anyway in a largely privatised system, it must be very different from one place to another. I wonder how people who were raised in schools where they were taught that woman was created from the side of Adam, and still believe in that cr*p, can pretend to be "scientists".
 
AlainK said:
Here, that's middle-school stuff (used to be primary school stuff in my younger days).

Don't know what high school diploma in the US are worth -and anyway in a largely privatised system, it must be very different from one place to another. I wonder how people who were raised in schools where they were taught that woman was created from the side of Adam, and still believe in that cr*p, can pretend to be "scientists".
Click to expand...
Let's try this one: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
 
It’s very interesting how this conversation is going. The believers are for the most part European and the non believers are Americans.
It all seems to stem from political beliefs and lack of trust in the government. Sometimes that lack of trust is justified. But that’s who we have elected.
It’s like recently the Congress has reduced regulations about mercury from coal plants. The science is there that mercury is bad. Another loosening of regulation was allowing more pollution to flow into rivers near fracking areas.
How can you trust a government that doesn’t care about its people’s welfare? It’s all about the short term gain for businesses. Who donated to whom.
I for one believe in climate change. I have lived in San Diego my entire life. It’s hotter than its ever been. Weather has been weird. Few years back we had A Lot of rain in July! It never rains in July!
This year 80’s for the month of January! Then back to “winter”.
It doesn’t matter if you think climate change is man made or not. Something is happening and we need to be prepared for it.
 
Dan92119 said:
Another loosening of regulation was allowing more pollution to flow into rivers near fracking areas.
Click to expand...
On the bright side, we can look forward to a future where the Cuyahoga river (and perhaps a river near you!) burns again.
 
thankfully i didn't stop my science education at high school level, all the crap you are stating as proofs of your arguments just show you don't have the necessary knowledge to understand the phenomenom you are talking about Zach. CO2 and acidity increases are measured facts, but sure you know better than all the scientists all over the world, and prefer to believe (while science is anything but a matter of beliefs) pseudoscience that was debunked a long time ago. As early as the 60s 70's for creationists who for the most part outside USA are just seen for what they are, a religious sect frauding under pretence of science to spread a religious message (what is the nemesis of a real scientific work). I'm always amazed how people feel entitled to "do science" when they don't have the education for it. Why do people think they can do it? do they think they know better about law than a jurist or better about planes than an aeronautic engineer? ho but science no problem just because i have seen somehting on tv or the net LOL. Being a scientist is a job needing qualification, like any qualified job. What do you think we learn in the tenth of years needed to become a scientist? the most important part of it is to learn how not to be fooled by the various biases in observation, data analysis and interpretation than an untrained person is sure to fall in. Biases and distortion of reality that are not obvious for untrained people and that creationists and climate deniers are happily exploiting to spread their views.
 
amatbrewer said:
I know I am going to regret jumping into this (despite not taking a side) but as I work with statistics in my paying job every single day so here it goes...
"there are three types of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Here is a humorous example why those ignorant of statistics should avoid using, interpreting, or worse arguing about them.
View attachment 212967

Please! I beg of you, leave it to the professionals.
Click to expand...
A few points about that. Firstly, as I said before, it's correct that correlation doesn't imply causation. But when you also have a proven mechanism of causation then you can't really deny causation. Secondly, the graph you've shown shows a very weak correlation because the number of data samples is very low and so random effects don't get averaged out. The data for climate change has been collected in thousands of locations over several decades and therefore shows a much stronger correlation. I guess this was your point, but I don't believe that it should be left to professional scientists to come to conclusions based on data. This is what leads to non-scientists coming to incorrect conclusions and general mistrust science. I think that anyone can look at the graphs relating to climate change and come to an informed conclusion.
 
ho sure let's anybody draw conclusions about data they don't have the tools to understand.... just an idea, let non scientists do the job next time a space mission or something else is planned, and let's see what happens....
 
just a thought, think about your car, other transports, computers, and phone and all apparatuses making your life comfortable and nice, think about medecine...all those things are ultimately by products of the very same scientific work, the very same way to gather, work and interpret datas and measures and so on than what is done by biologists or climate experts. Also think who is really "sold" to governments, economies and way of life all based on the use of fossil energies, while scientists are claiming for decades to stop using them.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom