CO2 - Dumb question

If you watch the video I linked the guy with the PhD does just that, to try and explain to the armchair experts that there's an awful lot of fibbing going on. It's almost become a religion for some to screech insults at any heretics that dare to question them.

Obviously reducing pollution in general is a good thing but shooting ourselves in the foot isn't clever.

Apologies. I was referring to the first part of your comment "The problem with this it's become media fodder, the cries of 'doom' ring out daily".

As for Phillip Moore, the guy in your video, his work has been widely scientifically discredited and debunked. It is at odds with the consensus of 97 per cent of climate scientists.  His tenure at Greenpeace Canada ended in lawsuits and acrimony.  He has since worked as a paid consultant and spokesman for a number of energy industry bodies and corporations. His credibility is zero. But he is making a good living spruiking pseudoscience for pay.

Always look at the source. Always.

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 06:50:13

No problem, it's become an emotive subject!

The interglacial warming of the oceans is causing them to soak up carbon dioxide faster than limestone subduction can put it back. That is how levels became so dangerously low.

If we hadn't started burning coal and making cement we might have been heading for real trouble.

Well that's it over up here in Jockland now, 2022 the best summer since 1976, wow

I loved it, but struggled to do stuff a lot more than the last time we got a fabby summer

Was non stop rain at the start of the year and now its going to be non stop rain for goodness knows how long because these things always even themselves out

I call it the weather while others call it something else

I'll probably bf dead before the next one happens, I'll definitely be too old for it if I'm not

People pay hard cash for that experience, can't say I ever would

You're free & easy with the insults but lacking in the substance. If you have a point, try making it.

Martin.

Albert Einstein said, "It doesn't take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, all it takes is one fact".

I had to look up Scotland's recent heat wave temps. They are the same as our current weather here in Cairns, Queensland. But it's the middle of winter here! I am loving it .

It's not facts that are the problem. It's the assumptions which are magically derived from any facts

Like the existence of God, Man made global warming will always remain unproven

We all know the world has been getting hotter and the seas have been rising for 30,000 years, 400 feet so far

There's a LOT less ice nowadays, like a sliver of ice in a glass of coke the surface area to volume ratio is far higher nowadays and so the ice melts faster and counteracts less heat so we experience more heat

It's the 100% natural evolution of planet earth

We need to stop polluting, I get that one, but we can't stop things warming up and we never could

v

Edited By Ady1 on 15/08/2022 10:03:16

280ppm = .028%

421ppm = 0.0421%

An increase of 0.0141%

So .0016% was actually closer than 50% but no prizes

Err, no. Science has confirmed it. No magic involved.

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 09:58:13

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

Martin.

The "sides" of this argument don't bother me because

If I'm right we're all fkd

and if they are right we're all fkd too

so why worry

If you really want the answer to that you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.

To find the truth you have to go on a personal quest

That's a cherrypicked regional dataset (for the USA). Not useful evidence about global trends. And I'm unsure it's even accurate for the USA.

A reverse google image search shows the graph was taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn. Of course there is the "one fact vs 100 scientists" thing already quoted above, but against that, would people not agree that some souces are more credible (and likely to be correct) than others?

Here's a similar graph which does show global trends from the first vaguely credible source (a USA university) that came up on Google:

That is a heck of steep curve for a .0016 per cent increase. Or was it .0141?

So, science = propaganda = false

Googling from the armchair = personal quest = Truth.

Riiiight.

"...taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn..."

You mean this Piers Corbyn?

"Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction longrange (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, starting from an early age, on subjects ranging from meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented at many international conferences."

Your own graph doesn't look very convincing, at either the start, the middle or the end, to be honest.

Martin.

You shouldn't try to project your own lack of curiosity onto others.

Martin.

LOL. The Don Quixote school of research. Go on a personal quest and ignore the reality.