Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I would be careful with posts like that. You are presenting factual evidence and expecting scientific reasoning and evidence, something that is considered taboo when discussing Global Warming. You will likely be accused and convicted of the high crime of heresy for even considering presenting evidence contrary to the belief system under discussion. When discussing Global Warming, science is unscientific and opinionated political agendas are scientific.

Trust me; I've been doing it for a while. Just call me a masochistic heretic.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Painterz
It's weird how climate change denial is such a strongly American thing. Pretty much the entire rest of the world understands and accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence, but, in America, we have this weird movement that continues to deny it. Even when the DoD has itself recognised it as a major strategic challenge.

Are American climate change deniers just the most naturally brilliant and intelligent and gifted people in the world despite none of them having any qualifications in climatology?

Or do they just like the lolz when it makes other people annoyed when they deny the science? And they're basically just trolling?

Utter rubbish. There are thousands of scientists all over the world that disagree with the models being pushed by Climate Change priests.

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe. People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

www.forbes.com...

This was back in 2013, when your television and newspapers were still pushing hard on their "97% agree BS". You have been conned.

So during the earth's history, Egypt once was lush and green, man once could walk from Asia/Russia to the North American continent, Antarctica at at least one point was free of ice and habitable, the CA central valley was under water, many ancient cities whose ruins are beneath ocean water were above water yet.....climate change and global warming is new.

Are humans getting dumber?

Seems so.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Just pointing out you or your sources are wrong on many instances.
here
with a thanks

a reply to: MysticPearl

Are humans getting dumber?

Depends on the humans.

You have to admit, it's pretty deft to be capable of extracting booku billions of dollars from those who don't even have it, by doing nothing more than shouting the same old disproved and incredible half-truths (and complete lies) over and over.

Nice work if you can get it, I guess. Al Gore seems to be doing well.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Just pointing out you or your sources are wrong on many instances.
here
with a thanks

Seawater PH levels have only been measured properly since 1990, which makes it largely useless to the discussion.
I think that may be why you were asked for data. Now that you have provided it, we can safely disregard your input to the question of global warming drivers.

a reply to: UKTruth

Almost thirty years. More than zero or three. Continously acidifying.

a reply to: UKTruth


You know you're quoting an opinion piece by James Taylor as your 'evidence' there?

James Taylor works for the Spark foundation. The Spark foundation is a pressure group that promotes gas fracking and burning more hydrocarbons.

He's made up his secondary sources.



You climate change deniers in this thread, along with Trump, are literally pointing at evidence of climate change, the extreme cold, and saying: 'THIS CLIMATE CHANGE PROVES THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE!'

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Just pointing out you or your sources are wrong on many instances.
here
with a thanks

Seawater PH levels have only been measured properly since 1990, which makes it largely useless to the discussion.

At something like 8 monitoring stations and some ships at sea. There's much evidence to indicate that ocean upwellings, which are poorly understood, are messing with the results.

It's why I am asking those here to provide a peer reviewed paper for discussion, so that we can get at the real data and how it was collected. So far none of the alarmists here can provide it. I will give them credit, they are great at obfuscation and slinging mud! Haven't really had it like this except when some of my friends try to talk 911 truth with me.

IPCC on acid – if they are virtually certain about ocean acidification, why does X-prize offer a reward for designing a proper ocean pH meter?

Overview

The Challenge: Improve Our Understanding of Ocean Acidification


The Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPRIZE is a $2 million global competition that challenges teams of engineers, scientists and innovators from all over the world to create pH sensor technology that will affordably, accurately and efficiently measure ocean chemistry from its shallowest waters… to its deepest depths.

There are two prize purses available (teams may compete for, and win, both purses):

A. $1,000,000 Accuracy award – Performance focused ($750,000 First Place, $250,000 Second Place): To the teams that navigate the entire competition to produce the most accurate, stable and precise pH sensors under a variety of tests.

B. $1,000,000 Affordability award – Cost and Use focused ($750,000 First Place, $250,000 Second Place): To the teams that produce the least expensive, easy-to-use, accurate, stable, and precise pH sensors under a variety of tests.

The Need for the Prize

Problem

Our oceans are currently in the midst of a silent crisis. Rising levels of atmospheric carbon are resulting in higher levels of acidity. The potential biological, ecological, biogeochemical and societal implications are staggering. The absorption of human CO2 emissions is already having a profound impact on ocean chemistry, impacting the health of shellfish, fisheries, coral reefs, other ecosystems and our very survival.

The Market Failure

While ocean acidification is well documented in a few temperate ocean waters, little is known in high latitudes, coastal areas and the deep sea, and most current pH sensor technologies are too costly, imprecise, or unstable to allow for sufficient knowledge on the state of ocean acidification.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: UKTruth

Almost thirty years. More than zero or three. Continously acidifying.

Seriously, using 30 years of PH levels in the oceans is not a data set that can be credibly used to assess global warming. It just mirrors CO2 ppm levels in the atmosphere which we already know are rising, but not in anyway that breaks from historical norms.

a reply to: Peeple

Continously acidifying.

Can you supply a peer reviewed research paper to look at to substantiate your 'claims'? If the answer is no, why not?

While ocean acidification is well documented in a few temperate ocean waters, little is known in high latitudes, coastal areas and the deep sea, and most current pH sensor technologies are too costly, imprecise, or unstable to allow for sufficient knowledge on the state of ocean acidification.

Polite reminder that Trump's Irish golf course just got permission to build a seawall.

The original application for the wall cited global warming and rising seas as a reason for needing the wall.



Maybe Trump thinks the seas will only rise in the East?

originally posted by: Painterz
a reply to: UKTruth


You know you're quoting an opinion piece by James Taylor as your 'evidence' there?

James Taylor works for the Spark foundation. The Spark foundation is a pressure group that promotes gas fracking and burning more hydrocarbons.

He's made up his secondary sources.



You climate change deniers in this thread, along with Trump, are literally pointing at evidence of climate change, the extreme cold, and saying: 'THIS CLIMATE CHANGE PROVES THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE!'

Yeah yeah - all these 'deniers' are in on a big conspiracy against the noble priests of climate change, but any notion of a conspiracy amongst the noble priests and those wanting to separate billions of people from their money... well now that would be just crazy thinking
Meanwhile, the priests have yet to prove their models. In fact their models have been proven to be way off.
You've been conned.

a reply to: UKTruth
Another hoax by manipulation of emotions and exaggeration. Frankly it is dangerous because it detracts from very real problems caused by runoff, chemical bleaching, erosion and herbicides.

a reply to: Peeple

Speaking of science... from your link:

One of the molecules that hydrogen ions bond with is carbonate (CO3-2), a key component of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells. To make calcium carbonate, shell-building marine animals such as corals and oysters combine a calcium ion (Ca+2) with carbonate (CO3-2) from surrounding seawater, releasing carbon dioxide and water in the process.

True!

Shell-building organisms can't extract the carbonate ion they need from bicarbonate, preventing them from using that carbonate to grow new shell. In this way, the hydrogen essentially binds up the carbonate ions, making it harder for shelled animals to build their homes.

False! Well, half-false anyway.

No matter how much carbonate is in the seawater, it will still ionically bind with hydrogen... that's just what it does. Bicarbonate is one of the many salts in seawater. Adding more carbonate does not cause it to start binding with hydrogen, because almost every single carbonate ion will ionically combine with hydrogen anyway. That's nothing more than baseless fear mongering.

Organisms are able to extract carbonate not because there is less of it (duh!) but because of the hydrogen bonding nature of water. Simply put, those ionic bonds are in constant flux, so it becomes a matter not of overcoming the ionic bond energy, but of opportunistic use of carbonate that has just been released during changes in the structure caused by the hydrogen bonding. In other words, more carbonate does not equal less carbonate... it equals more carbonate. (duh^2!)

I also didn't see a single word about sulfuric acid, hydrocloric acid, nitric acid... did anyone check to see what acid was responsible? It appears they just made an assumption it was all carbonic.

TheRedneck (casually drinking concentrated carbonic acid)

a reply to: UKTruth

It means corals dying a whole bunch of flora and faunas underwater dead.
That's one part of the climate and it's changing for the worse. That's the whole issue here, if we talk about Climate Change we talk about the sum of all developments we can observe, the combination of all weather and weather associated issues is climate. And if there is a good and bad scale than it's trending towards bad.
Loss of natural Habitat for a lot of species, because several kinds of effects our society has on the environment. Poisining through plastic, there is a garbage island floating around. Leed poisoning.
A lot of bad things in the air especially in big cities of the East. Threatening human life. Lots ofnseashore cities which start planing for the worst case. Because they recognise there is more heavy rain and more floods year by year. The weather patterns change.
That's climate change.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: UKTruth
Another hoax by manipulation of emotions and exaggeration. Frankly it is dangerous because it detracts from very real problems caused by runoff, chemical bleaching, erosion and herbicides.

Thank you.

All that CO2 money ought to be going to old smelting dump sites, for example. There's some seriously ravaged spots out there that are 2nd class to CO2; very poor places; that 'we' probably had a hand in if anything; that would never get attention if the Global WARMongers had their way.

Stuff that could be fixed right NOW compared to the CO2 boogeyman that is insurmountable with current tech.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I learned something. I don't know, I am approaching the topic really more in general.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: UKTruth

It means corals dying a whole bunch of flora and faunas underwater dead.
That's one part of the climate and it's changing for the worse. That's the whole issue here, if we talk about Climate Change we talk about the sum of all developments we can observe, the combination of all weather and weather associated issues is climate. And if there is a good and bad scale than it's trending towards bad.
Loss of natural Habitat for a lot of species, because several kinds of effects our society has on the environment. Poisining through plastic, there is a garbage island floating around. Leed poisoning.
A lot of bad things in the air especially in big cities of the East. Threatening human life. Lots ofnseashore cities which start planing for the worst case. Because they recognise there is more heavy rain and more floods year by year. The weather patterns change.
That's climate change.

You live on a planet that has climate change.
It's nice that you care about the consequences of nature, but it's not really relevant to a discussion on whether such climate change that we see today is unnatural.

a reply to: Peeple



Glad I could help. There are issues with our environment, serious issues that need to be addressed, but hit pieces like that one with half-truths are hurting rather than helping. I don't want to derail this thread with the details, but check the high allowable sulfur concentrations in international fuels (ships) allowed until a few short years ago. Sulfuric acid is much more acidic than carbonic acid, will displace the carbonate cycle, and the levels measured tend to align with shipping lanes adjusted for ocean currents.

That's my gripe with Global Warming. The hysteria is masking real problems to promote a false problem.

TheRedneck