okay, back to this again. My earlier response was incomplete. It can be found below:
//www.city-data.com/forum/52529397-post524.html
I'll add some more to it with this response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Humans are not going extinct any time so, and the most likely cause of extinction is an impact by a celestial body like an asteroid or comet.
|
Well...if you ever even attempted to explain why that is, I've missed it. The only thing I've seen you do is make arguments about why global warming
might not be caused by humanity, and many of those suggestions I've seen have been more or less refuted. I could certainly understand skepticism...but you're not skeptical. You're confident that human-made global warming is fiction, and that completely baffles me.
Quote:
|
Governments will seize on any number of things for any number of reasons to create policies for any number of reasons, good or bad, but the fact that they do, does not make it Truth.
|
Business owners have much more to gain from denying global warming exists than researchers have to gain from lying about evidence for it. They risk their careers doing that, and strong confidence in manmade global warming is an international thing. You need some kind of reason for people to believe climate scientists are lying about man-made global warming, and shown squat that I've seen...although I haven't read this whole thread.
Quote:
|
It was a good thing. It weeded out through Natural Selection the weakest members of the population and strengthened the gene pool.
|
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with improving the species. The only thing it does is make it so the members of the species best at surviving their current environment produce the most offspring. Evolution is not some kind of beneficial process. It can be...but it can be harmful too. I don't even know why it would be more likely to help the species than harm it. It all depends on what kind of environment the species is trying to survive in.
For example, octopi are highly intelligent organisms that often die after reproducing, so that reproducing helps the species to survive, but it could be argued as being harmful to the species because it results in deaths that needn't happen without the impulse to reproduce.
Social Darwinism, and Darwinian evolution, are not things to mimic. They're typically bad ways of doing things that we should be using our intelligence and empathy to steer away from, with some exceptions. In capitalism, some limited social Darwinism can spur healthy creativity and innovation...but one of the main reasons why humans are so much more successful than other life on Earth is our cooperation.
Quote:
|
It is, and you need only to look at the graph to see that H2O causes far more damage than CO2 ever could.
|
I saw no graph in the post I responded to:
//www.city-data.com/forum/52453370-post346.html
Also, from what I've read H20 is more of a heat-trapper than C02...but that's only because there's more of it. One molecule of C02 traps more heat than one molecule of H20.
However, like I mentioned (more or less) in my previous response, I don't see why that would help the arguments of climate change deniers and skeptics, regardless of how much more of a heat trapper H20 is than C02. Couldn't that just mean that Earth will keep getting warmer for longer, even after humans stop pumping C02, given that more humidity would trap more heat, which would lead to more humidity, which would lead to more heat?
I'm under the impression that process is not supposed to continue forever. I've read, for one thing, that clouds often reflect energy from the sun back into space, and if there's more humidity there would also be more clouds...so while I've read that H20 being a heat trapper would help keep Earth's temperature rising for awhile after humans stopped producing any C02, I've gotten the impression that particularly feedback loop won't last forever.
But couldn't H20 being more of a heat trapper than most people think just make Earth continue to get warmer for longer than we think, even after humans would stop producing C02?
Quote:
That's a great example of bad science. UHIs are data outliers and should be excluded in their entirety.
Proper science would have this to say:
Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have totally excluded more urban sites, since they give false readings.
Surely, you can see the difference.
|
now, back to this again:
So, first of all, if they ignored every temperature reader in urban environments, they'd lose a lot of data. Also, the link makes it sound like many of those readers in urban environments are in parks and places away from buildings. It doesn't seem like it'd be necessary to ignore those, particularly when they've compared readings in cities to wilder areas and found no significant difference in temperature increases:
When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen et al. 2001).
They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records. https://www.skepticalscience.com/urb...termediate.htm
This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures... Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/urb...termediate.htm
Now, I suppose they could all by lying about that...but I'd need some kind of evidence for that to believe they're lying first, and this group of web pages I've been linking to (Skepticalscience.com) seems to tell the same sorts of information respectable groups like NASA have been telling.
If you find actual evidence of widely respected groups of climatologists like NASA and the IPCC lying about climate change, I'd certainly be interested in seeing that, but until I see that, I'm going to see no reason not to assume they're generally telling the truth.
Even if someone finds one or two genuine incidents of lying...these groups could still be mostly right.
Quote:
|
There's still a large continent over the South Pole. It's called Antarctica.
|
I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement. Are referencing your past statements about how we've never had chaotic global warming that permanently warmed Earth before, despite having much higher levels of C02 in the past?
If so...the sun used to be cooler, and we don't know how close we came to having a disastrous global warming event that might have turned us into Venus.
Quote:
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard...rradiance.html
|
I'll just repeat this again: The data you linked to was accurate at the time, but it's now kept for records and there's no gaurantee it's still viewed as accurate, according to its page. Also, it's from 2003 and it makes no comment about whether or not the sun is getting warmer or cooler, in general. It only comments about what is occurring during periods of low sunspot activity.
However, as of now, NASA has determined that, generally speaking, the sun is now cooling (a very slight amount that won't be enough to counter much of human-made global warming) and has been for decades, and so it cannot be the cause of more than a small amount of global warming, tops. The following link was last updated July 18, 2018, according to the web page.
Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Quote:
|
I was referring to private sector science research facilities and laboratories, the very same facilities that repeatedly have provided warnings about unsafe products and substances.
|
And then, things move too slowly and bad things happen because we're essentially blind and we'd have even less of an idea what global warming does. If climate skeptics don't trust data now...how is less data going to help them, and why would data from private organizations be any more trustworthy than from ones sponsored by government grants...at least insofar as this topic is concerned? The government really isn't gaining much by issuing global warming-related. Private businesses would be gaining a lot more by lying so the oil companies will pay them off.
What would be the benefit of your idea, besides saving tax dollars...which, while a worthy thing to attempt...I have no idea how it would lead to any more truth than our current system. What's the sense of trusting private organizations more than the government? Sure, the government will be biased...but why would a private business be any less biased?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
