Greta Thunberg's Groupie

[Dazey]

8 hours ago, action said:

are humans responsible for climate change on venus too?

stupid question, but I'd like you to answer it anyway. venus is generally viewed as earth's twin planet, and it resides in the so called goldy locks region, just like earth. so please fill in the following form, after reading the above question in bold again:

A.1 if the answer is no, then what causes climate change on venus?

A.1.1 if you say, science can not explain climate change on venus, then please answer question B.1

A.1.2 if you can provide an explanation for climate change on venus, the please answer question B.2

B.1. if science can not explain climate change on venus, then how can it explain climate change on earth?

B.2. why couldn't this be a reason for climate change on earth too?

No humans are not responsible for climate change on Venus.

A.1 - From NASA - "Venus is closer to the sun than Earth and receives far more sunlight. As a result, the planet’s early ocean evaporated, water-vapor molecules were broken apart by ultraviolet radiation, and hydrogen escaped to space. With no water left on the surface, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere, leading to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect that created present conditions."

B.2 - Because the Earth's proximity to the sun means the mechanism by which the CO₂ got into the atmosphere on Venus is not credible here. However since the presence alone of the CO₂ in the atmosphere is known to be responsible for the runaway greenhouse effect the manner in which it got there is pretty irrelevant.

We know for a fact that burning of fossil fuels leads to large scale emissions of CO₂ and we know that more CO₂ in the atmosphere leads to climate change. It's really not rocket science.  

You do realise you’re arguing that increased CO₂ into Earth’s atmosphere is not a cause of climate change by using an example of a planet that has off the charts greenhouse effect due to a high level of CO₂ in its atmosphere?  

This website is a really good starting point for climate change beginners.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/

And while we all have a hard on for graphs, have a look at this one.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Dazey

[Dazey]

7 hours ago, action said:

Miss thunberg, does the thinking for us

Well in your case I guess somebody has to.  

[action]

12 hours ago, Dazey said:

No humans are not responsible for climate change on Venus.

A.1 - From NASA - "Venus is closer to the sun than Earth and receives far more sunlight. As a result, the planet’s early ocean evaporated, water-vapor molecules were broken apart by ultraviolet radiation, and hydrogen escaped to space. With no water left on the surface, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere, leading to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect that created present conditions."

B.2 - Because the Earth's proximity to the sun means the mechanism by which the CO₂ got into the atmosphere on Venus is not credible here. However since the presence alone of the CO₂ in the atmosphere is known to be responsible for the runaway greenhouse effect the manner in which it got there is pretty irrelevant.

We know for a fact that burning of fossil fuels leads to large scale emissions of CO₂ and we know that more CO₂ in the atmosphere leads to climate change. It's really not rocket science.  

You do realise you’re arguing that increased CO₂ into Earth’s atmosphere is not a cause of climate change by using an example of a planet that has off the charts greenhouse effect due to a high level of CO₂ in its atmosphere?  

This website is a really good starting point for climate change beginners.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/

And while we all have a hard on for graphs, have a look at this one.

 

I accept that CO2 is the cause for the greenhouse effect, on venus AND on earth. I used venus, specifically because CO2, like on earth, was the cause for the greenhouse effect.

My whole point is now, that I question the reason for the massive amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere. Scientists say; it's all because of humans. And while, yes, I accept that humans are responsible for a part of it, I refuse to accept that this current spike is all our doing.

There could perfectly be an unknown, natural, reason why there is so much CO2 in earth atmosphere. Maybe an unknown bacterial process is happening on earth, releasing massive amounts of CO2 on earth? methane is a greenhouse gas too, produced by biological organisms.

or

maybe CO2 is not the primary cause for the greenhouse effect on earth (it is on venus, but you'd accept that the volumes of CO2 in venus' atmosphere are exponentially more than in earth's). Maybe the sun is getting hotter? Maybe earth's core (as hot as the surface of the sun), is acting up? Earths poles are shifting, so there is something happening in earth's core.

All of this has NOT been profoundly investigated by science. They opted out of all of that, and just noticed that mankind produces lots of CO2 AND THUS this is the cause of the greenhouse effect.

Actually, its not scientists who make that intellectual jump: leftie environmentalists do. They make me think of the police officer from E.A.Poe's "the purloined letter".

Edited December 28, 2019 by action

[Dazey]

5 hours ago, action said:

I accept that CO2 is the cause for the greenhouse effect, on venus AND on earth. I used venus, specifically because CO2, like on earth, was the cause for the greenhouse effect.

My whole point is now, that I question the reason for the massive amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere. Scientists say; it's all because of humans. And while, yes, I accept that humans are responsible for a part of it, I refuse to accept that this current spike is all our doing.

There could perfectly be an unknown, natural, reason why there is so much CO2 in earth atmosphere. Maybe an unknown bacterial process is happening on earth, releasing massive amounts of CO2 on earth? methane is a greenhouse gas too, produced by biological organisms.

or

maybe CO2 is not the primary cause for the greenhouse effect on earth (it is on venus, but you'd accept that the volumes of CO2 in venus' atmosphere are exponentially more than in earth's). Maybe the sun is getting hotter? Maybe earth's core (as hot as the surface of the sun), is acting up? Earths poles are shifting, so there is something happening in earth's core.

All of this has NOT been profoundly investigated by science. They opted out of all of that, and just noticed that mankind produces lots of CO2 AND THUS this is the cause of the greenhouse effect.

Actually, its not scientists who make that intellectual jump: leftie environmentalists do. They make me think of the police officer from E.A.Poe's "the purloined letter".

Again, there is no argument that CO₂ levels in the atmosphere haven’t varied over time. That's not a point of debate to scientists. You can even see the cyclic variation in CO₂ levels in the graph below and argue quite rightly that this is independent of human influence.

You actually make a good point about variation in the Sun's temperature being a factor but this is caused by regular and predicable shifts in the Earth's orbit and is one of the factors responsible for the variation you can see below. That's a pretty easy one really.

The further the Earth is from the Sun the less heating it gets. This leads to a build up in the ice at the poles, CO₂ levels drop and consequently so do global temperatures. As the Earth gets closer to the sun it gets more heat, ice melts, releases CO₂ and temps go up*.

*massively simplified description   

The Carbon Cycle is a well understood process. More on that here from those "lefty environmentalists" at NASA.  

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page1.php

Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have corresponded closely with temperature over the past 800,000 years. Although the temperature changes were touched off by variations in Earth’s orbit, the increased global temperatures released CO2 into the atmosphere, which in turn warmed the Earth. Antarctic ice-core data show the long-term correlation until about 1900. (Graphs by Robert Simmon, using data from Lüthi et al., 2008, and Jouzel et al., 2007.)

As you can see, the temperature fluctuations correlate pretty much perfectly with the rise and fall of CO₂ content in the atmosphere. If you were to plot CO₂ vs temp you would get an R² value in the high 0.9 region, pretty close to 1. In in statistical terms this pretty much proves the link between the two data sets.

So if we can at least agree that temperature and atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are not independent of one another then it stands to reason that further increases in CO₂ would lead to further warming of the planet no? 

Now the above cycle was pretty consistent from roughly 800,000 years ago until the early 1900's. Now what has been happening from around that time to present day that hitherto had not been an issue?

Emissions of carbon dioxide by humanity (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, with a contribution from cement production) have been growing steadily since the onset of the industrial revolution. About half of these emissions are removed by the fast carbon cycle each year, the rest remain in the atmosphere. (Graph by Robert Simmon, using data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center and Global Carbon Project.)

Now taking the above into account what have we seen happen to the carbon cycle over the same time period?

So looking at the rise in CO₂ emissions since 1950 vs atmospheric carbon levels makes for pretty interesting reading.

To briefly address your other points, yes CH₄ is absolutely a greenhouse gas and is contributing to climate change. In fact it's roughly 100 times more potent than CO₂ over a 20 year period.

Coincidentally atmospheric CH₄ concentrations over the same 800,000 year time period look something like this.

Notice any similarities? Luckily, given the increased potency of CH₄ vs CO₂ the concentrations in this case are measured in PPB rather than PPM.

For the record nobody is arguing that humans are responsible for cyclic variation in atmospheric carbon. Simply that industry and other human activity is the cause of the recent acceleration. You can also throw in rampant deforestation and cow farts as another contributory factor if you like but it all comes back to human activity in one way or another. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Dazey

[Dazey]

22 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Don't remember Thomas à Becket worrying about sticking his plastics in an over sized bin outside Canterbury Cathedral? 

100% truth. One of my ancestors chopped that fucker to bits on the steps of Canterbury Cathedral.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Tracy

Gawd bless old Uncle Bill and all who sailed in him.  

[soon]

22 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Marxist environmentalist that you are.

Regardless of what I actually am, the term you're searching for is "Eco Socialist." At least get that right  Unless, in addition to rejecting climate science, you also reject political science? 

[Dazey]

22 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Collectivist mentality, thought fascists, and they are actually a number of scientists who have questioned the thing. 

@DieselDaisy "I thought science was wank at school and dropped it as soon as I was able."

also @DieselDaisy "I disagree with the established science because I know better than 97% of climate scientists."

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

@DieselDaisy "I thought science was wank at school and dropped it as soon as I was able."

also @DieselDaisy "I disagree with the established science because I know better than 97% of climate scientists."

I didn't say the second thing but may have said the first thing. Environmentalism, remain, atheism: you've adopted every cause of the Guardianista elite haha.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Regardless of what I actually am, the term you're searching for is "Eco Socialist." At least get that right  Unless, in addition to rejecting climate science, you also reject political science? 

I wouldn't care to comment on what you are beyond it requires a large amount of mind altering intoxicants. 

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I didn't say the second thing but may have said the first thing. Environmentalism, remain, atheism: you've adopted every cause of the Guardianista elite haha.

So why do you disagree with 97% of climate scientists?

[soon]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I wouldn't care to comment on what you are beyond it requires a large amount of mind altering intoxicants. 

It would require you to take a large amount of mind altering intoxicants for you to comment further?

Weird 

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, Dazey said:

So why do you disagree with 97% of climate scientists?

I couldn't give a monkeys what 97% of climate scientists think.

[soon]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I couldn't give a monkeys what 97% of climate scientists think.

Because you are edgy af?

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I couldn't give a monkeys what 97% of climate scientists think.

How is that any different from what I said then? 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

How is that any different from what I said then? 

I am not interested in environmentalism. It doesn't concern me whatever percentage of scientists deem the truth to be. It simply doesn't concern me as a subject full stop. I only posted here to highlight the religious cult like acceptance of the movement and its fascist and arrogant tendencies.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not interested in environmentalism. It doesn't concern me whatever percentage of scientists deem the truth to be. It simply doesn't concern me as a subject full stop. 

So basically your position on the economic impact of Brexit then?

[soon]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not interested in environmentalism. It doesn't concern me whatever percentage of scientists deem the truth to be. It simply doesn't concern me as a subject full stop. I only posted here to highlight the religious cult like acceptance of the movement and its fascist and arrogant tendencies.

And as a tactic you chose 'posting climate science graphs' ?? 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

And as a tactic you chose 'posting climate science graphs' ?? 

Yeah, that one really screams nonchalance doesn't it?  

Ironically the graph he posted actually backs up climate science to anybody who can walk and chew gum simultaneously. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Dazey

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

So basically your position on the economic impact of Brexit then?

It is ironic as I have posted multiple times on that subject, which you constantly stress a desire to discuss, but you've ignored instead sticking to manufactured quotes by me which you should be capable of quoting if they exist, but have so far failed to do so.

[Dazey]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is ironic as I have posted multiple times on that subject, which you constantly stress a desire to discuss, but you've ignored instead sticking to manufactured quotes by me which you should be capable of quoting if they exist, but have so far failed to do so.

Just because you've gone back and edited it doesn't mean it doesn't exist Kojak.  

[soon]

Theory: These olds who want to deny climate change just think its bad ass to be contrarian. They fancy themselves as being 'anti-establishment.' They then troll themselves into believing climate denying propaganda. And in doing so they are doing the bidding of the capitalist establishment, most notably fossil fuel. So they are the opposite of anti-establishment, they are the establishments lacky's.

Theory 2: They are obsessed with Person of the Year, Greta, and therefore cant see the larger issue, all because of issues with their own masculinity. 

 

[action]

5 hours ago, Dazey said:

Again, there is no (etc. etc.)

thanks for the insights. that was an interesting read.

just one thing, carbon emissions were much higher during the industrial revolution, when coal was burned on a large scale. you'd expect that spike to happen way before the 1950s, but it doesnt. I find that peculiar, since I was going along with your line of thought up until then.

All I know, is that I don't know anything for sure, but we're screwed anyway

Edited December 28, 2019 by action

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

Just because you've gone back and edited it doesn't mean it doesn't exist Kojak.  

It is also ironic because you say, ''I am not interested in the economic'', yet I could equally turn to you and say, ''why are you not interested in jurisprudence and governance?''. The EU, possessing a legislature, executive and court, has long since ceased to be merely an ''economic body'', so it is clear any assessment on the merits of staying or otherwise has to be multi-faceted in its approach and not merely dominated by one area of the economic! Thus far I am the only one who has employed a multi-faceted approach. 

[action]

26 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Yeah, that one really screams nonchalance doesn't it?  

Ironically the graph he posted actually backs up climate science to anybody who can walk and chew gum simultaneously. 

I'm just curious, did the guardian release a climate catern in their weekend edition, by chance, or did you come up with that long ass post earlier, all by yourself? 

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, action said:

thanks for the insights. that was an interesting read.

just one thing, carbon emissions were much higher during the industrial revolution, when coal was burned on a large scale. you'd expect that spike to happen way before the 1950s, but it doesnt. I find that peculiar, since I was going along with your line of thought up until then.

All I know, is that I don't know anything for sure, but we're screwed anyway

They use the industrial revolution just to blame Britain, its originator, seeing as we are guilt of everything these days, from killing off all the Dinosaurs to the second gunman on the grassy knoll. You can probably add ''Britain'' to that list which includes ''men'', ''white people'', ''feminine women'' and ''straight people'' as bête noire for these bleak politically correct times. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by DieselDaisy