Gulf Stream

[johnnyAU 3,644]

58 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like I said....."conspiratorial delusions." 

Tell us how it is the preponderance of scientists (virtually all of them) in the field as well as related fields - not to mention all of the their professional organizations - continue to publish findings that support the "propaganda"?

Are all of these scientists - operating in various different fields of study, as well as all the entire scientific infrastructure in on the "propaganda"?

Ahh, it was only a matter of time until you fell back to the proverbial mythical consensus. Publishing baseless claims, conjectures and outputs from faulty and unsubstantiated computer simulations aren't proof, fact or necessarily convincing...but it is profitable if your funding relies upon it. 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 "Feedback" mechanisms that could possibly generate accelerated warming are scary to contemplate.

For example, I read where Siberia's permafrost sequesters enormous quantities of methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2

Methane, which exists at ppb concentration in the atmosphere does even less than CO2 and its entire absorption band is shared with and completely dwarfed by water vapor. 

[homersapien 11,431]

3 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Ahh, it was only a matter of time until you fell back to the proverbial mythical consensus. Publishing baseless claims, conjectures and outputs from faulty and unsubstantiated computer simulations aren't proof, fact or necessarily convincing...but it is profitable if your funding relies upon it. 

So, you think the scientific consensus is a direct product of the conspiracy, which includes "baseless claims, conjectures, faulty computer simulations" ?

Is that about right?

 

[homersapien 11,431]

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Methane, which exists at ppb concentration in the atmosphere does even less than CO2 and its entire absorption band is shared with and completely dwarfed by water vapor.

"Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO₂ has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term."

https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-crucial-opportunity-climate-fight

Also,

 https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,014]

3 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Ahh, it was only a matter of time until you fell back to the proverbial mythical consensus. Publishing baseless claims, conjectures and outputs from faulty and unsubstantiated computer simulations aren't proof, fact or necessarily convincing...but it is profitable if your funding relies upon it. 

Universities and scientists, The list ever grows of who we can’t trust. Especially if they’re brilliant - they must have an evil plan.  

That would explain the current maga political gene pool. Only can trust the really really dumb people.

 

[Leftfield 2,651]

5 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Methane, which exists at ppb concentration in the atmosphere does even less than CO2 and its entire absorption band is shared with and completely dwarfed by water vapor. 

I guess we'd better hope it's not released in large quantities, then, yes?

You continue to call those of us disagreeing with you as being willfully ignorant, caught in echo chambers, blind to ideology, etc., yet we've freely posted links where we're getting our information. I've asked you five or six times in this thread to post proof or examples of your claims, and you have ignored me every time. Why not show us where you get your information? Wouldn't that be a true debate?

All you've said so far is that you admit that CO2 levels are increasing and the climate is warming, but you don't think those are related, and that either 1) the climate won't be warming much longer because we'll enter a cooling cycle or, 2) we'll be able to adapt to whatever warming happens without major consequences. You've given no information or reason as to why you think these things, you just say we're wrong.

If CO2 has no effect, to what do you attribute the sudden spike in temperatures the past 70 years?

 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

Full disclosure: You can count me among the skeptics who think that whatever warming has occurred is not outside the realm of natural variation.  Still, the more interesting question is what to do about it. 

Right now, the solutions all seem awfully, well, scammy.  Biden's 1.2 trillion green con job is doing almost nothing to solve the problems. It's a transfer of wealth that amounts to about $4000 per citizen going to insiders, connected politicians and democrat donors.   What are we getting for it?  1.2 trillion would buy enough nuclear power plants to make a real dent in carbon emissions.  If it's a serious problem, make a serious solution.  Don't just fund hundreds of Solydras. 

And you know when I'll believe that all those politicians flying in private jets to global warming conferences actually believe there is a problem. When they start insisting on making global warming conferences into zoom calls and start advocating for a 100% tax on jet fuel for private planes. 

Edited March 20 by Cardin Drake

[johnnyAU 3,644]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO₂ has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term."

https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-crucial-opportunity-climate-fight

Also,

 https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane

LOL at referencing 2 government funded agencies. Methane is considered "more powerful" than CO2 on a per molecule basis. The problem is that there simply isn't enough of it in the atmosphere to do anything significant and its absorption bands are narrow and it is short lived. The total amount of methane may have doubled in a couple of hundred years, but then again it was a trace gas to begin with, and remains a trace gas today. Doubling nothing is still almost nothing. 

Here is the real reason methane is being demonized along with CO2. 

 "For example, a key source of methane emissions in China is coal production, whereas Russia emits most of its methane from natural gas and oil systems. The largest sources of methane emissions from human activities in the United States are oil and gas systems, livestock enteric fermentation, and landfills."

 

Yeah, attacking oil, gas coal and farms under the guise of climate change. The ultimate road to energy and food poverty. If these agencies really cared about the survival of humanity, they'd spend more of the money on mitigation efforts and providing developing nations with affordable, reliable and available energy sources. 

Having said that, I see nothing inherently wrong with capturing and harnessing methane and CO2 for use. However, claiming it will have an immediate effect on warming or the climate is not only folly, it's akin to tilting at windmills. 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

13 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Universities and scientists, The list ever grows of who we can’t trust. Especially if they’re brilliant - they must have an evil plan.  

That would explain the current maga political gene pool. Only can trust the really really dumb people.

 

Of course, you could listen outside of your echo chamber. Here are just a few with different takes on the subject:

John Clauser, PhD Physicist, Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize

William Happer, Professor Emeritus at Princeton, Davis-Germer Prize, Pioneer in field of optically polarized atoms and hyperpolarized gases

Ivar Giaver, PhD Physicist, Nobel Prize, Oliver E. Buckley Prize

Dyson Freeman, Physicist and Mathematician, Templeton Prize, Enrico Fermi Award, Matteucci Medal

Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor of Meterology, MIT, Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, AMS Charney Award

Steven Koonin, PhD Theoretical Physics, 

Judith Curry, PhD, Geophysical Sciences, Former Professor Emeritus and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech

Of course there are many more. Start there. They sound really dumb. 🙄

[auburnatl1 5,014]

Just using Wiki. My point was that there is a deep psyche within maga to instantly distrust anyone or anything that challenges the status quo. On any subject. Every time. Simply call them “elites”, find someone to disagree and discredit, and then vote for brain trusts like mtg. Not healthy or especially useful.  I agree we should always challenge science and not blindly accept (Ive work with a lot of research scientists and engineers - brilliant but heavy introverts, totally fact based, and not the agenda driven type) but dear lord at some point the reality should start kinda setting in for anyone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#:~:text=Depending on expertise%2C between 91,climate scientists%2C 98.7% agreed.

Edited March 20 by auburnatl1

[SaltyTiger 7,854]

18 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

John Clauser, PhD Physicist, Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize

William Happer, Professor Emeritus at Princeton, Davis-Germer Prize, Pioneer in field of optically polarized atoms and hyperpolarized gases

“Fake expert” and spreader of “misinformation” according to skeptical science. Not to say you are doing a bad job Johnny.

Think we should all be good stewards of what God gave us but not buying in to total destruction of the species by man. 
 

 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

“Fake expert” and spreader of “misinformation” according to skeptical science.

Skeptical Science is the premiere source right? LOL Because they say so, and so does the political arm of the UN.  😉 Don't listen to those Nobel Prize winners tho.

"Skeptical Science is considered an authoritative resource by the climate scientist community for rebutting climate misinformation, and is often listed by media sources alongside authoritative sources such as NASA and the IPCC."

 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

40 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Just using Wiki.

Jesus Christ. Now open source Wikipedia is considered factual? 😂

[homersapien 11,431]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, you think the scientific consensus is a direct product of the conspiracy, which includes "baseless claims, conjectures, faulty computer simulations" ?

Is that about right?

 

You gave that a thumbs down Johnny.  Does that mean you agree with the premise of the question?  Logically If you believe the AGW is a hoax is it not logically necessary to think scientists are not totally involved?

Are you experiencing true cognitive dissonance or is this the first time you've thought about it?

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,431]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

LOL at referencing 2 government funded agencies. Methane is considered "more powerful" than CO2 on a per molecule basis. The problem is that there simply isn't enough of it in the atmosphere to do anything significant and its absorption bands are narrow and it is short lived.

 

Had you actually read my post, you would know that it was about vast quantities of methane that are sequestered in the permafrost of Siberia, which will - of course - be released as the global climate warms. 

[homersapien 11,431]

12 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Full disclosure: You can count me among the skeptics who think that whatever warming has occurred is not outside the realm of natural variation.  Still, the more interesting question is what to do about it. 

Right now, the solutions all seem awfully, well, scammy.  Biden's 1.2 trillion green con job is doing almost nothing to solve the problems. It's a transfer of wealth that amounts to about $4000 per citizen going to insiders, connected politicians and democrat donors.   What are we getting for it?  1.2 trillion would buy enough nuclear power plants to make a real dent in carbon emissions.  If it's a serious problem, make a serious solution.  Don't just fund hundreds of Solydras. 

And you know when I'll believe that all those politicians flying in private jets to global warming conferences actually believe there is a problem. When they start insisting on making global warming conferences into zoom calls and start advocating for a 100% tax on jet fuel for private planes. 

So, you think the scientific consensus is a direct product of the conspiracy, which includes "baseless claims, conjectures, faulty computer simulations" ?

[homersapien 11,431]

46 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Skeptical Science is the premiere source right? LOL Because they say so, and so does the political arm of the UN.  😉 Don't listen to those Nobel Prize winners tho.

"Skeptical Science is considered an authoritative resource by the climate scientist community for rebutting climate misinformation, and is often listed by media sources alongside authoritative sources such as NASA and the IPCC."

 

They are all part of the hoax.  Right Johnny?

[auburnatl1 5,014]

24 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Jesus Christ. Now open source Wikipedia is considered factual? 😂

Yep - maga commandment 1: If you don’t like the answer, always ridicule the source. Always.

Fine. Here’s a recent NASA article. Won’t quote any other articles since I’m  sure they’re all conspiring against us. Everyone from climate nerds to Barney.

Hell I don’t like having to deal with the consequences  of co2. Im a friggin Reaganite. But accepting crappy facts and dealing with them is just part of being an adult. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/amp/

 

Edited March 20 by auburnatl1

[johnnyAU 3,644]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You gave that a thumbs down Johnny.  Does that mean you agree with the premise of the question?  logically If you believe the AGW is a hoax is it not logically necessary to think scientists are not totally involved?

Are you experiencing true cognitive dissonance or is this the first time you've thought about it?

There is no real scientific consensus that either humans, CO2 or methane emissions are driving the Earth's climate or that any current warming is catastrophic.

[johnnyAU 3,644]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Had you actually read my post, you would know that it was about vast quantities of methane that are sequestered in the permafrost of Siberia, which will - of course - be released as the global climate warms. 

I know about the permafrost. Since neither you, nor any of your references have proven the amount of direct warming by the trace gas, pray tell exactly what will the concentration of methane atmosphere be after the release? It will still be a trace gas, and have an insignificant effect.

[homersapien 11,431]

8 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

There is no real scientific consensus that either humans, CO2 or methane emissions are driving the Earth's climate or that any current warming is catastrophic.

So you think the scientific consensus on the subject is part of the hoax, right?

[homersapien 11,431]

7 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I know about the permafrost. Since neither you, nor any of your references have proven the amount of direct warming by the trace gas, pray tell exactly what will the concentration of methane atmosphere be after the release? It will still be a trace gas, and have an insignificant effect.

"If the permafrost thaws too much, greenhouse gas emissions could escape and drive temperatures even higher. Beneath Svalbard's permafrost, millions of cubic meters of methane are trapped — and scientists have now learned that it can migrate beneath the cold seal of the permafrost and escape.Dec 12, 2023"

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2023/12/13/natural-gas-is-actually-migrating-under-permafrost-and-could-see-methane

 

You don't know how to research a topic do you?

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,644]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"If the permafrost thaws too much, greenhouse gas emissions could escape and drive temperatures even higher. Beneath Svalbard's permafrost, millions of cubic meters of methane are trapped — and scientists have now learned that it can migrate beneath the cold seal of the permafrost and escape.Dec 12, 2023"

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2023/12/13/natural-gas-is-actually-migrating-under-permafrost-and-could-see-methane

 

You don't know how to research a topic do you?

You failed to answer the question. What will the ensuing atmospheric concentration of methane be after said release? How much higher will temperatures be due to this trace gas? The statements you quoted above are typical for cult followers to take as fact. "If", "could", etc...

Quantify the effect. "Millions of cubic meters" is a useless metric when compared to the size of the atmosphere. You might as well provide its weight. It matters as little. 

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Just using Wiki. My point was that there is a deep psyche within maga to instantly distrust anyone or anything that challenges the status quo. On any subject. Every time. Simply call them “elites”, find someone to disagree and discredit, and then vote for brain trusts like mtg. Not healthy or especially useful.  I agree we should always challenge science and not blindly accept (Ive work with a lot of research scientists and engineers - brilliant but heavy introverts, totally fact based, and not the agenda driven type) but dear lord at some point the reality should start kinda setting in for anyone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#:~:text=Depending on expertise%2C between 91,climate scientists%2C 98.7% agreed.

Ya know; these percentages are eerily similar to *the science* of the vaccine.  Now before you jump on your MAGA theory, let me remind you most complied with the lockdowns and restrictions to our lives initially.

I mean the censorship of anything anti-vaccine or anti-COVID policy was rampant and if you haven’t heard the SCOTUS is hearing evidence of such censorship right now.

All this to say; if you stifle the opposition to a certain subject or *science* do you really find the answer that will affect change in a positive way?

[auburnatl1 5,014]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

All this to say; if you stifle the opposition to a certain subject or *science* do you really find the answer that will affect change in a positive way?

Now that’s a valid point. No, challenging things and not just going along is extremely “American”.  And over reacting is extremely 2024 American.  But at some damn point people and gov needs to sit down on this issue and come up with a balanced, imperfect answer that po’s both sides but at least does… something. Nobody’s doing end of times over having to use catalytic converters today. IMO Al gore and the extreme denialists need to just shut up and let those with an ounce of common sense figure out an achievable, not completely screw the country up plan of action.