My reply to you is here: Climate Change
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
If only there was a real-world example of such a thing... or perhaps, real world example...
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/
Atmospheric oxygen entered a positive feedback loop after photosynthesising organisms started producing it without any organisms yet existing to deplete oxygen from the atmosphere. The atmosphere we have today is in a steady state because oxygen production has reached equilibrium with oxygen depletion.
As an aside, you disregarded my point regarding the release of methane deposits under Siberian ice sheets, stating that methane is not a greenhouse gas. It very much is: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm
How is this being mentioned again after I brought it up three or four pages ago? It's the same cyclic argument of people presenting empirical facts and this guy rejecting them in favour of theories he has extrapolated from tidbits of data he has cherry picked from various sources and meshed together to present an argument that doesn't work because none of the data is actually joined up.
You were given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to amend your rhetoric.
The fact that you didn't, and continue with the 'I'm right you're just not getting me' rhetoric while also now moving the goalposts re 'When i said natural world, I din't mean living world' is a bit of a red flag. If you were intelligent enough, you would have said this from the start, as it is extremely important for that particular aspect of your 'argument' to do so. This is why you were given that first chance to say 'what I actually meant was...' The fact that you didn't recognize that offer and graciously take it also calls your ability into question.
To do this while trying to re-frame/append re: 'climate, chemistry, physics, astronomy' seemingly without realizing that the examples given to you are based on the same principles of energy transfer also calls your ability into question, to put it gently.
If you had perhaps countered while mentioning the word 'emergent' or expressing why/how 'living world' 'positive feedback' is different, that would be grounds for cutting you some more slack, but you didn't. This also calls your ability into question.
Maybe you could have done so given enough time and these things just didn't occur to you
Let's make it easy on you. Where's a potential line - if not the line - between 'life/non-life' systems. (Hint: it's right up one of the alleys you've been arguing. And it's not the 'genes/arbitrary interpretation as positive feedback within a larger framework' thing)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48447394
“Climate change link to puffin deaths”
The models are wrong!!!
“Climate change link to puffin deaths”
The models are wrong!!!
You have not made any scientific points. You're the person posting rhetoric. Everything I posted about the sun dominating climate change is settled science.
Go away. The topic is climate change not:
You explain why you think the sun does not dominate climate change.
Cause he is a charlatan who knows nothing, but once has read an article posted in Facebook and now thinks that he is illuminated and knows more than thousands of scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to this argument.
You think you are an expert on climate then? Fine, Mr "Expert". Please explain to us all why you think the sun does not dominate climate change.
Or are you nothing but wind-ups and mouth?
No, I am not. I am also not arrogant enough to think that I know better than thousands of experts who have been studying climate change for decades, just cause I sit all day long in my computer and once read an article in Facebook.
You made the controversial claim that experts are wrong. The burden of proof is on you. What are your qualifications, where did you get your PhD, how many articles you published in strong journals/conferences that support your view, what the other scientists say about those articles?
Measurements of the Sun’s energy incident on Earth show no net increase in solar forcing during the past 30 years, and therefore this cannot be responsible for warming during that period. The data show only small periodic amplitude variations associated with the Sun’s 11-year cycle.
Source: TSI data from Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, Switzerland.
Your last sentence, Mark, is at risk of causing a singularity to develop and engulf the whole planet due to the sheer mass of hypocrisy.
Despite observable evidence that singularities exist, the models that predict them are wrong.
Mark reads like a big energy shill.
Despite observable evidence that you posted this post, you clearly didn't. And you're wrong.
Says a big troll. I'm posting under my own name here.
Forcing is a pseudoscientific concept. Solar physicists ain't going to use it. They prefer TSI, or measures of actual climate change such as: temperature changes, glacier cover, tree lines.
Nor is your source peer-reviewed.
This troll: Classical Mechanic, insults my character, because he is not knowledgeable enough to answer my arguments. He certainly knows his insult is a lie, yet he does not care, because insulting random people, presumably gives his ego a boost.
Stop trolling. You've had several peer-reviewed papers linked to you, and that did nothing to persuade you. You just ignored and moved on, like you've done this entire thread. In fact, you yourself quoted a peer-reviewed paper, and when someone rightly pointed out that the actual paper was saying the literal opposite of what you were claiming, you immediately turned around and claimed that the paper was unscientific. And apparently you never reflected on the fact that if the entire paper really is unscientific, that invalidates your own argument as well. But, again, you just deflect, ignore and move on.
It's blatantly clear that you don't argue in good faith. It's also blatantly clear that you don't actually understand any of the terms you're using.
A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
but in any case, as others have said, you're clearly trolling.
And searching your name in Google Scholar, doesn't return anything, which means that a) you're not a scientist; b) your self-inflated opinion that a non-scientist is right while thousands of scientists are wrong is laughable; consequently meaning that you're either a troll or you're arguing in bad faith.
So what? I studied maths and science: chemistry mostly, but also biology and physics. I've read, and understood, over 50 books on climate science and even more papers. I'm perfectly able to read and understand papers on climate science. It's nor hard, just detailed. I'm also able to detect pseudoscience and confident enough to call it.
Since I'm posting under my own name you can check everything I say about myself. What can I check about you, posting under an anonymous name?
How come you're happy with a cabal of trolls here posting climate science claims, but you insist only I need credentials?
I'm almost falling over laughing at the army of trolls here impinging my character behind their cowardly, anonymouse, accounts.
Oh is this your name? Thought it was a homage to the baseball player of the same name.
Oh come off it. Remember that you were the one who told people not to debate science with you unless they had studied it. As for using your real name on the internet, that's obviously not a good idea. It's such a bad idea that using your real name on RedCafe is one of the very few instances where the admins will agree to change your username. I've been trying to get rid of this capital M for years, but as niMic isn't actually my real name I've had no luck.
I'm clearly posting under my real name. You are the anonymouse.
I may be winding people up, but that's not trolling because you lot here clearly know nothing about the role of the sun in climate change. At most we have a few Environmental Science graduates here who memorized their climate catechism about carbon dioxide.
You think memorizing some sciency-sounding memes ( 'forcing' ) and using woke character assassination techniques is enough to bully people into thinking you are all climate experts?
If you really knew what you were talking about you would never need to employ any character assassination techniques; and would not be stupid enough to do it so early.
I guess the cabal here were trained on moderated forums where you were able post what you wanted about other people without any criticism. Because you ejected your critics from the forum. I guess the tide of insults directed at my character is designed to provoke me into same behaviour; so you TOSs me off the forum. I've seen your woke politics in action before. Not falling for it.
Post some science please - leave out the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo 'forcing'
Just so we're absolutely clear here, are you making a joke, or are you genuinely considering the possibility that people who disagree with you were trained on moderated forums for the purpose of getting rid of you? This is a genuine question.
Mr 'I post under my own name', is your name Mark Pawelek or Jack Eddyfier?
It's just I took your advice to check who you were and found a Twitter account which currently goes by the second name, but clearly used to go by the first, posting the same climate bollocks as you are here.
It's just I took your advice to check who you were and found a Twitter account which currently goes by the second name, but clearly used to go by the first, posting the same climate bollocks as you are here.
@Damien change him back to ninemic
Genuinely possible they're been around certain tightly-moderated, and controlled facebook forums, or Starmer & other climate forums. Also possible they are completely inept, and think character assassination is the best way to win an argument. It may be the best way to win an argument at modern universities, but not where I come from; since I studied philosophy as well as science and maths.
Of course, I could just be projecting on them as "woke activists", in same way they project onto me as a "shill". I prefer my odds. I've never encountered a single "fossil fuel shill" in any internet discussion forum. I think they are a myth. I have encountered hundreds of woke activists.
Yeah, studying some science in high school doesn't make you qualified in climate change. Pretty much everyone has studied math and science sometime in their life, that doesn't make them scientists. Doing science is pretty hard, you cannot just do it as a side hobby and then think that you're smarter than thousands of people who are doing it 60 hours per week. If you're that good, why you haven't published anything to support your view that is totally contrary to what scientists think? You might think that you're an Albert Einstein, but you look more to be another Alex Jones.
I insist in your credentials because you are the one who is claiming that everyone else is wrong. Similarly, when you claim that Earth is flat and vaccines are a fraud, I will ask for your credentials again.
About anonymity, many of the regular posters here know my name and the other way around. Nothing cowardly on posting with a nickname.
Stupid question.
You think you know something about climate change eh? But you don't know who Jack Eddy was? Even after I told you we're now entering the Eddy minimum. Who do you think that minimum was named after?
Climate experts who are so ignorant about climate science they don't know who Jack Eddy was. Where do such people come from?
The unjustified hubris on display is just 
There’s a Nobel to be earned and shitload of money thrown your way if you can actually prove that the climate models are wrong. So Mister ‘I’ve read 50 books on Climate Change’, there’s your shot, go ahead, the world is your oyster.
There’s a Nobel to be earned and shitload of money thrown your way if you can actually prove that the climate models are wrong. So Mister ‘I’ve read 50 books on Climate Change’, there’s your shot, go ahead, the world is your oyster.
Also, anyone who knows anything about science knows that 'books' are not where the research is published. The moment you finish your master degree, you will rarely read scientific books, instead, you will read scientific papers where the real science happens.
All you had to do was ask me. Changed.
I never wanted to take advantage of our beautiful Hax-friendship. That said, I meant Nimic, but I guess I should be careful what I wish for. At least now I'm prepared for when I find a genie in a bottle.
This is a lot less teenager-y though, so I appreciate it.
i literally just did in the post you replied to. i'll repeat:
A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
all lower case is where it's at, man.
The first letter should be capitalized, it is known.
Are you a cabal of comics? I told you that character assassination does not work in open internet forums. Especially when it comes from sniveling, little, anonymouse posters. Yet you only know one trick. It's like watching bots in action. You only do one thing, even after you were warned it will not work.
Who among you has actually studied any climate science?