Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

It did? Where?

 

You may want to read this and then pass it on to others who could benefit. I’m assuming ya’ll understand sea surface temperatures are part of global average temperatures. And the other PF member was talking about global temp not just land surface temp.

https://www2.hawaii.edu/~jmaurer/sst/

SMH.

 

Then source the difference that shows it’s man-made

 

That’s the point. Nobody knows

 

Are you serious?



Multiples of examples in that chart that greater increase and at faster times.

 

You disputed my statements with no back up whatsoever. What I said makes sense. There are two primary ways of calculating the earth's temperature. They can use satellite which uses IR. And since air itself emits little IR, they are measuring the ground temperature which varies more during the day than the air above it The diurnal temperature change takes place because the air is mostly cooled and warmed by the ground below. Most of those measurements are taken at airports for aviation purposes. There is typically a lot of concrete around an airport which makes the temperature not representative of the surrounding area. Additionally about 7/10 of the earth covered by water. The weather observations from over water are spotty at best.

Neither the ground observations nor the satellite observations can truly be said to be accurate.

 

LOL. Watch the video. Even your own man can't say world temps would fall. Mitigation is just a fancy term for temps continuing to rise. Why won't you tell people the truth that no matter what we do, even after spending 50 trillion dollars (increasing inflation even more), temps will continue to rise?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...torms-none-of-them-were-like-hurricane-maria/

 

We have known that NOT addressing climate change will be massively more expensive than addressing it since the
Stern Review in 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern...main conclusion,, health, and the environment.

One person not answering a question is not a definitive argument

 

Sorry but did you not see the links?

 

And the chart is from where?

 

From here

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/a...al-66-million-years-of-carbon-dioxide-levels/

 

Nope. "Addressing climate change" is the biggest threat.

 

Yes master! Anything else you want me to do while I am running your errand?

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261903000321
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b02989
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079194697811469

 

No see that’s the problem. If they cannot tell us what natural causes occurred which caused the increases in our past history then they cannot definitively make this statement:

“The most basic reason is that fossil fuels—the equivalent of millions of years of plant growth—are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts as high and as quickly as they have risen”

If they do not know what caused past increases in CO2 then on what grounds can they state that there is NO OTHER SOURCE. They can’t. It’s impossible because maybe the source is whatever unknown source was causing the increases in the past.

 

Specifically, what in my posts were wrong?

 

The most likely scenario is that our activity is causing an exacerbation of natural rhythmic changes in CO2 due to our orbit with the sun. If you look at that chart we are NATURALLY on an upswing from a cyclical downswing. Now has that upswing been slightly exacerbated? Yes. But as soon as we start the downswing again, as we have for literally BILLIONS of years, it will naturally correct itself to the downside.

And there’s nothing we can do or not do outside of catastrophic nuclear war to change that natural pattern that has been occurring for billions of years.

And to suggest otherwise is completely ridiculous IMO

 

Yep! NOT a peer reviewed published paper

THIS is the peer reviewed paper
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-082420-063026

And THIS is the discussion within that paper

And no one even the IPCC claims that the earth has not seen rises in CO2 levels in the past. In fact the effect of those as per the fossil records are what is worrying us most - rapid rises in CO2 are associated with mass extinction events

 

And you honestly think the scientists have not investigated that?

 

Yes it is peer reviewed and published.


Co-authored by Yige Zhang, assistant professor in the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M University, and oceanography graduate student Xiaoqing Liu, the research was conducted by an international team and recently published in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences.

 

Can you provide evidence from someone that shows that’s not what is occurring?

 

Post 388

 

No your link was to a press release about the paper

 

Simple - read the IPCC reports or go to NASA

solar influence on climate
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-4/causes-2.php
But possibly the best most succinct explanation is here
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm