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.
Wow- feelings still hurt over not knowing where the carbon compounds in your body come from?
I think you just need to get over it. I do have advanced degrees in a scientific field, have publications in the peer reviewed scientific literature, have edited papers for the scientific literature, and have held faculty positions at a university.
It is not my problem that your level of knowledge in disciplines of science is less than that of a grammer school student.
It is impossible for you to understand CO2 effects on "climate change" without basic scientific knowledge and training, nor are you able to determine what constitutes a valid study due to that lack of education and formal training.
If this issue bugs you so much, go back to college, graduate from undergrad, then go to grad school or medical school and get the formal credentials you are falsely parading. It is not a sin to be ignorant, as we cannot be all things in all areas. Just try to understand that there are many things that you cannot understand without basic tools and information and focus on areas in which you have formal education and training.
It must bug you to no end to recently have discovered that the carbon compounds in you ultimately came from that evil, dirty gas- CO2- the enemy of liberalism. It's like finding out the boogyman is your long lost father.
The 97% derives from a survey sent to 10,257 people of which the 3,146 respondents were further whittled down to 77 self selected climate “scientists “ of which 75 were judged to agree that human induced warming was taking place.What was the criteria for rejecting 3,069 respondents? There was no mention that 75 out of 3,146 is 0.03%We do not hear that 0.03% of climate scientists agreed that humans have played a significant role in changing climate despite the billions spent on climate research.
#share#Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded
And if look it up you can find dozens of other quotes that point out that it is wrong.
Ah, David Legates of the ultra-conservative, anti-science Heartland Institute. Here's what the well respected group, SourceWatch has to say about it:
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. Heartland Institute is an "associate member" of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 49 states, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom.
A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:
"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility and reliability:
"Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter.
While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."
97% of ALL scientists agree that global climate change thanks to rising levels of CO2 is very real and very detrimental. If you actually read the science and quit wasting your time cherry picking absurdities, you would understand this.
Go study up on the Arrhenius equation, a mathematical expression that describes the effect of temperature on the velocity of a chemical reaction, the basis of all predictive expressions used for calculating reaction-rate constants. In the Arrhenius equation, k is the reaction-rate constant, A and E are numerical constants characteristic of the reacting substances, R is the thermodynamic gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. The equation is commonly given in the form of an exponential function
k = Aexp(−E/RT)
and it predicts that a small increase in reaction temperature will produce a marked increase in the magnitude of the reaction-rate constant.
We have known this since at least 1903 when Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize for his work in this field. In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. From Wikipedia:
These calculations led him [Arrhenius] to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science. Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon — by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh — to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using the Stefan–Boltzmann law, he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The science is solid. The politics are a broken vessel that will leave us stranded in a dystopian future that is quickly becoming our present.
"It is not my problem that your level of knowledge in disciplines of science is less than that of a grammer school student."
"There is no excuse for ignorance."
Sometimes this forum causes rhythmical, often audible contractions of my diaphragm and other parts of my respiratory system.
"It is not my problem that your level of knowledge in disciplines of science is less than that of a grammer school student."
"There is no excuse for ignorance."
Sometimes this forum causes rhythmical, often audible contractions of my diaphragm and other parts of my respiratory system.
If you have intractable hiccups, phenothiazines can be prescribed, although with chronic use can lead to dystonic reactions.
It is unfortunate but irrelevant. What is more important is what those who are trained and qualified think about climate change, and that is very clear at this point. The scientists are in massive agreement that (a) the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and (b) the most plausible explanation for the unnaturally rapid rise in temperatures is human activity.
So people here can debate all they want, or you can debate with friends or whatever, but the debate is essentially over within the science community. The only debate now is what to do about it.
I have to say that I find it odd that people will trust science when it comes to matters of medicine, or technology, but when it comes to climate change, all of a sudden lay people are experts and question what people who are highly trained are saying. It is like going to the doctor and he/she tells you that you have MS or something and you say it is a conspiracy, that you don't believe him. Or that GPS is a conspiracy of scientists and you don't believe it. I mean really, either you trust science or you don't.
Well, you better prepare to sweat, 'cause brother, we are NOT going to do, or let you or your ilk, do anything about it. We have only one life to live, and we aren't going to have it interfered with - by ANYONE.
Anyone who says this by way of discrediting a theory doesn't understand the definition of "theory" in science.
This discussion comes from LiveScience:
Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley, defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts.
An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton's theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
The common use of the term means an idea that is unproven. Example:" I have a theory that most people buy more house than they need." This is not scientific, has no weight of evidence. It is just an observation. This is completely different from the scientific meaning of the word. Theories can change, but have a huge breadth and weight of evidence behind them. When you say "Unproven theory is not solid science," you just show how little you understand science.
It is indeed creepy to see all the pseudo science that Trumpers parade around in favor of their corporate overlords like Exxon (Rex, we hardly knew ye).
Scientists have known for a very long time that life on earth is carbon based. That's just a fact - neither good nor bad. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe. Most of Earth’s carbon—about 65,500 billion metric tons—is stored in rocks. The rest is in the ocean, atmosphere, plants, soil, and fossil fuels.
Carbon flows between each reservoir in an exchange called the carbon cycle, which has slow and fast components. Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon in the other reservoirs. Changes that put carbon gases into the atmosphere result in warmer temperatures on Earth.
Your argument is pretty convoluted, but you seem to think that carbon based life is sort of like original sin or something. Nothing is inherently wrong with carbon itself. The problem for the current life forms inhabiting the earth is that our current rate of carbon emissions is causing the atmosphere to warm more rapidly than it has at least since the Jurassic- a whole new world is already upon us and it's one we aren't going to like - not because carbon has some "good" or "bad" value, but because the warming planet will be ever more liable to famine, drought and rising oceans.
The science is solid. The politics are a broken vessel that will leave us stranded in a dystopian future that is quickly becoming our present.
I agree with this. Developing countries tries don't want to reduce emissions because it hampers their economic development and argue that the largest sources of GHG emissions, mainly developed countries, should pay the price of reducing global emissions. Developed countries that say they have implemented policies to reduce their emissions rarely reach their goals, and or use emissions accounting methods that over-state any real reductions.
97% of ALL scientists agree that global climate change thanks to rising levels of CO2 is very real and very detrimental. If you actually read the science and quit wasting your time cherry picking absurdities, you would understand this. *
Go study up on the Arrhenius equation, a mathematical expression that describes the effect of temperature on the velocity of a chemical reaction, the basis of all predictive expressions used for calculating reaction-rate constants.* In the Arrhenius equation, k is the reaction-rate constant, A and E are numerical constants characteristic of the reacting substances, R is the thermodynamic gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. The equation is commonly given in the form of an exponential function
k = Aexp(−E/RT)
and it predicts that a small increase in reaction temperature will produce a marked increase in the magnitude of the reaction-rate constant.
We have known this since at least 1903 when Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize for his work in this field. In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. From Wikipedia:
These calculations led him [Arrhenius] to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science. Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon — by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh — to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using the Stefan–Boltzmann law, he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The science is solid. The politics are a broken vessel that will leave us stranded in a dystopian future that is quickly becoming our present.
That 97% thing has been discredited for years.
The relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and surface temperatures has historically been inconsistent with large temperature fluctuations occurring while CO2 levels remain flat.
Show me a consistent linear/exponential relationship between CO2 levels and surface temperature and we'll have something to talk about.
The greenhouse effect, if it truly exists, has clearly been overstated while many non-CO2 factors (cloud cover, albedo, stratospheric Ozone levels, etc.) have been completely ignored.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
