CO2 – Dumb question

[HowiParticipant @howi]

oh! do come on chaps, this debate is getting boring, neither side will agree, there is always evidence on both sides to support whatever argument you want.

No matter what causes global warming, US or natural phenomenon, whatever WE in the UK do will have NO effect whatsoever.

I am a great believer that nature will do the sorting out of the problem.

Man has tried to tame nature throuout his existance, nature ALWAYS wins.

The global warming madness continues unabated when cows are being fined for farting – I kid you not!

Yet a few millions of years ago there were millions more dinosaurs were producing a damn site more methane than all the cows in 2022 ever could.

Try talking about global warning to China,India, Russia etc etc etc

They will all tell you to stuff it.

there you have it in a nutshell, now can we get back to sensible discussion?

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 10:06:55:

oh! do come on chaps, this debate is getting boring, neither side will agree, there is always evidence on both sides to support whatever argument you want.

No there is not evidence on both sides sufficient to support an argument. There is science on one side and ignorance on the other.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 10:06:55:

oh! do come on chaps, this debate is getting boring, neither side will agree, there is always evidence on both sides to support whatever argument you want.

No there is not evidence on both sides sufficient to support an argument. There is science on one side and ignorance on the other.

And if nobody talks about it, the ignorance will fester and grow.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

God Exists!

No he doesn't!

Yes he does!

No!

Yes!

No no no no no

Yes yes yes yes yes

So which one is the winner?

The winner is the one who gets the most money

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Err, the one with the evidence to support their conclusion.

 

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 10:43:03

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:33:23:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 15:24:23:

Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:

Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more

Yeah, don't leave us hanging.

Martin.

I never got round to answering this. For the benefit of non British folk, Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the UK Labour Party, as well as an anti-semitic supporter of any rag rag terrorist group. He was also anti NATO and anti EU (he reckoned it was a capitalist plot). Thankfully he was defeated at the last General election and has been thrown out of Labour.

And I also forgot to mention that as well as being a climate change denier, brother Piers Corbyn is also a leading anti vaxxer. His views on the grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon are unknown

Edited By duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:46:16

So what bearing on this subject does his brother Jeremy have? It seems like you've made the mistake of using the fallacy of association argument to further whatever point it is you are trying to make. Much of what you have written about him is untrue, but you should know that he is still a member of the Labour Party and has been consistantly chosen by his constituents since 1983.

Another thing you forgot to mention is this:

Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College… Qualifications which I very much doubt you have.

As you have already negated your own "grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon" comment, they can be disregarded as character assassination.

Why do you think he should be 'pro vaccine', if he doesn't think they are of a benefit?

To me, you seem to be agitated that people with views different to yours are voicing their opinion. What bothers you so much about that?

Martin.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by derek hall 1 on 18/08/2022 10:00:33:

I thought "quantum" meant very small

So when a politician says "there will be a quantum change in our manifesto"….

You can manipulate statistics to support any evidence you want it to – politicians do it all the time

Statistics = maths for politicians

Just because Piers Corbyn "has got a degree in maths, physics and bionics" (thanks to the Undertones for that one!) does not mean that he is right

I agree with Hopper and others that over 7 billion humans beings (and increasing) are doing something bad to our planet and it will not end well…

Regards to all

Derek

Does that just apply to Piers Corbyn, or can we now dismiss all climate scientist's credentials?

Martin.

[HowiParticipant @howi]

Posted by Hopper on 18/08/2022 10:30:01:

Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 10:06:55:

oh! do come on chaps, this debate is getting boring, neither side will agree, there is always evidence on both sides to support whatever argument you want.

No there is not evidence on both sides sufficient to support an argument. There is science on one side and ignorance on the other.

That's what one side always says, If you do not support the argument you MUST be ignorant.

It is what the remoaners say aboiut those who voted for Brexit – they are all ignorant.

It has always been the same – what ever I say is the truth, everyone else is ignorant.

I could go on but as I stated, it is getting boring, spats will develop, people will start getting angry, the mods will have to step in.

Experience tells us that there is no such thing as black and white, everything is a shade of grey.

If you think your argument is the right one i.e White, then you have yet to grow up and see the world for what it is.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 11:45:10:

Experience tells us that there is no such thing as black and white, everything is a shade of grey

 

But experience does tell us that science is the best way we have of understanding the world around us and of predicting future events in it. And that science is very clear on this subject.

Anyhow, I'm off to bed. Big day tomorrow riding around on old motorbikes turning fossil fuel into CO2 emissions purely for the sake of entertainment. Yes, we are all doomed. Doomed I say.

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:20:32

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Posted by blowlamp on 18/08/2022 11:44:03:

Posted by derek hall 1 on 18/08/2022 10:00:33:

I thought "quantum" meant very small

So when a politician says "there will be a quantum change in our manifesto"….

You can manipulate statistics to support any evidence you want it to – politicians do it all the time

Statistics = maths for politicians

Just because Piers Corbyn "has got a degree in maths, physics and bionics" (thanks to the Undertones for that one!) does not mean that he is right

I agree with Hopper and others that over 7 billion humans beings (and increasing) are doing something bad to our planet and it will not end well…

Regards to all

Derek

Does that just apply to Piers Corbyn, or can we now dismiss all climate scientist's credentials?

Martin.

Hi Martin,

At no point was I dismissive of Mr Corbyns qualifications, nor any of the equally qualified scientists that happen to disagree with him. I just wanted to make the point that just because a person is well qualified, they may turn out to be wrong!

In 200 years time one of the two groups of scientists bickering over this can turn to the other group and say "see…told you so!". As for which group that is, probably none of us will know…unless things happen to turn much worse and quicker than we all thought/assumed.

Kind regards

Derek

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:07:14:

Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 11:45:10:

Experience tells us that there is no such thing as black and white, everything is a shade of grey

But experience does tell us that science is the best way we have of understanding the world around us and of predicting future events in it. And that science is very clear on this subject.

Anyhow, I'm off to bed. Big day tomorrow riding around on old motorbikes turning fossil fuel into CO2 emissions purely for the sake of entertainment. Yes, we are all doomed. Doomed I say.

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:20:32

Experience is telling me that you can't explain the science of how human contribution to CO2 affects the climate. If you can, it'd probably be quicker for you to post it here than keep replying to us need-to-be-convinced types.

And scrap your planet-destroying motorbike while you're at it.

Martin.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by blowlamp on 16/08/2022 23:24:46:

Dave.

In case you are unaware: Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College…

Sounds good, but read the account of Mr Corbyn's career on Wikipedia.

More to the point, science isn't based on playing Personality Top-Trumps. It's a group activity following a disciplined process designed to eliminate error. Scientific method goes through 3 basic stages each requiring more evidence. Hypothesis, Theory, and Scientific Law.

Scientists start with a Hypothesis to be analysed by others. It begins with a reasonable explanation of an observed phenomenon and can be light on evidence. Nothing is accepted simply just because it seems to fit or sounds good, and 'reasonable' means the Hypothesis either has to be consistent with Theory and Laws or addresses why not.

More work is always needed. The validity of a Hypothesis rises when evidence is found to support it and falls when evidence counters it. Weak evidence, such as statistical correlation has far less weight than a repeatable experiment, and one experiment has less weight than many different experiments, and new data found to fit. Negative evidence is as important as positive, perhaps more so, and is numerate except when words explain numbers. Words without numbers are not evidence, nor are assertions or alternatives. How strong a Hypothesis is depends on a consensus. This reduces the possibility of fans promoting nonsense and truths going down the drain because iindividuals don't understand it. Science is hard to understand!

Hypotheses often take decades to develop. They often start close but incomplete and have to be revised. Done in a highly disciplined way and the revision has to stay consistent with everything else. Other scientists check this is so.

When enough evidence has been accumulated, a Hypothesis is promoted to a Theory. Theories are backed by a overwhelming evidence, but, although no-one has been able to show it's wrong, no one has been able to prove it's right. Proof in the strict sense it's proven 1+1 always equals 2, not sloppy 'beyond reasonable doubt legal proof '.

Considering Global Warming as three Hypotheses, and something like them have:

1. Rising temperature is a natural phenomenon. Evidence: none. Temperature is rising, and no natural phenomenon such as volcanic activity or solar activity account for the extra heat.
2. Rising temperature is due to human activity. Evidence: considerable, increasing for about 30 years, and no new evidence has arisen to gainsay it. (Disbelief is not evidence.) Repeatable experiments: the amount of heat received from the sun is known and the green-house effect of CO2 and CH4 have both been measured in the lab. The amount of CO2 in the air is consistent with trade accounts showing the amount of fossil fuels burned annually. Temperature is rising consistent with theory – predictably.
3. Rising temperature are causing Climate Change. Evidence: considerable. Thermodynamics have been studied comprehensively since James Watt and the equations have reached Law status. The science predicting Climate Change due to extra heat is exactly the same as that used to design all heat-engines. Steam Engines, Steam Turbines, Gas Turbines, Jets, Rockets, Hot Air Balloons & Guns all follow the same Thermodynamic Laws, and so does weather. Extra heat changes weather, the average shifts, and average is climate. Left unmanaged it's easy enough to calculate climate change will be disruptive because of the huge amount of energy involved, but it's hard to show exactly where the whip will fall. Safe to predict turbulent weather with more severe extreme events, but no proof my house will be washed away. But the risk to my home and to food supply and other basic human needs rising. It's as serious as it gets.

Personal opinion has almost no role in science. Evidence please, man-in-pub arguments don't help. When a scientific consensus says something is probably true, they're almost certainly right, even if the news is bad.

Dave

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

Dave ,

You really can not have your cake and eat it. By all means take an absolutist view and ignore the historical record as a local inconvenience. That in fact is your personal opinion(though paradoxically you seek to portray yourself as above mere opinion). I have no issue with that position.

However, laying aside your virtue massaging of being above the man in the pub in your insight, you can not couch your final conclusions in terms of uncertainty. So scientific “ consensus”, “is probably true”, and “ almost certainly right”, do not concord with this admirable absolutism.

You started your peroration so well too.

Paul

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by blowlamp on 18/08/2022 11:37:38:

Posted by duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:33:23:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 15:24:23:

Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:

Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more

Yeah, don't leave us hanging.

Martin.

I never got round to answering this. For the benefit of non British folk, Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the UK Labour Party, as well as an anti-semitic supporter of any rag rag terrorist group. He was also anti NATO and anti EU (he reckoned it was a capitalist plot). Thankfully he was defeated at the last General election and has been thrown out of Labour.

And I also forgot to mention that as well as being a climate change denier, brother Piers Corbyn is also a leading anti vaxxer. His views on the grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon are unknown

Edited By duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:46:16

So what bearing on this subject does his brother Jeremy have? It seems like you've made the mistake of using the fallacy of association argument to further whatever point it is you are trying to make. Much of what you have written about him is untrue, but you should know that he is still a member of the Labour Party and has been consistantly chosen by his constituents since 1983.

Another thing you forgot to mention is this:

Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College… Qualifications which I very much doubt you have.

As you have already negated your own "grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon" comment, they can be disregarded as character assassination.

Why do you think he should be 'pro vaccine', if he doesn't think they are of a benefit?

To me, you seem to be agitated that people with views different to yours are voicing their opinion. What bothers you so much about that?

Martin.

As it happens I do have a degree from Imperial College, but as Piers is a few years older than me I doubt we were there at the same time. Despite this I acknowledge that I do from time to time make a mistake. Getting involved with a discussion with zealots was one such occasion.

[lee websterParticipant @leewebster72680]

I have very little idea about what is causing climate change. I do however remember my mother telling me the main reason why our family left London to live in the new town of Hemel Hempstead in the mid to late 50s. Smog. I have never seen smog, I have tasted the foul air in many cities over my working life. But to not be able to see more than several feet in front of you, to know that people are dying because of the polution. I don't know how much of the polution was caused by coal fires, but it seemed to be the main cause.

If we did that with coal, what are we doing with oil?

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by duncan webster on 18/08/2022 16:47:21:

Posted by blowlamp on 18/08/2022 11:37:38:

Posted by duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:33:23:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 15:24:23:

Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:

Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more

Yeah, don't leave us hanging.

Martin.

I never got round to answering this. For the benefit of non British folk, Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the UK Labour Party, as well as an anti-semitic supporter of any rag rag terrorist group. He was also anti NATO and anti EU (he reckoned it was a capitalist plot). Thankfully he was defeated at the last General election and has been thrown out of Labour.

And I also forgot to mention that as well as being a climate change denier, brother Piers Corbyn is also a leading anti vaxxer. His views on the grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon are unknown

Edited By duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:46:16

So what bearing on this subject does his brother Jeremy have? It seems like you've made the mistake of using the fallacy of association argument to further whatever point it is you are trying to make. Much of what you have written about him is untrue, but you should know that he is still a member of the Labour Party and has been consistantly chosen by his constituents since 1983.

Another thing you forgot to mention is this:

Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College… Qualifications which I very much doubt you have.

As you have already negated your own "grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon" comment, they can be disregarded as character assassination.

Why do you think he should be 'pro vaccine', if he doesn't think they are of a benefit?

To me, you seem to be agitated that people with views different to yours are voicing their opinion. What bothers you so much about that?

Martin.

As it happens I do have a degree from Imperial College, but as Piers is a few years older than me I doubt we were there at the same time. Despite this I acknowledge that I do from time to time make a mistake. Getting involved with a discussion with zealots was one such occasion.

Another mistake you made is labeling people as "zealots" for having the temerity to question an unproven theory.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by blowlamp on 18/08/2022 14:30:42:

Posted by Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:07:14:

Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 11:45:10:

Experience tells us that there is no such thing as black and white, everything is a shade of grey

But experience does tell us that science is the best way we have of understanding the world around us and of predicting future events in it. And that science is very clear on this subject.

Anyhow, I'm off to bed. Big day tomorrow riding around on old motorbikes turning fossil fuel into CO2 emissions purely for the sake of entertainment. Yes, we are all doomed. Doomed I say.

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:20:32

Experience is telling me that you can't explain the science of how human contribution to CO2 affects the climate. If you can, it'd probably be quicker for you to post it here than keep replying to us need-to-be-convinced types.

And scrap your planet-destroying motorbike while you're at it.

Martin.i

I don't claim to be a scientist or to have a level of knowledge and expertise even approaching that of a scientist.

Here is a link to what the science says, with a few footnotes etc linking to their sources. link

And here is another scientific explanation for laymen on how CO2 causes global warming LINK 2

If you have a level of knowledge of geochemistry and geophysics and climatology etc that gives you a better understanding of the issues than the world's climate scientists, you should write up your findings in a scientific article and submit it to one of the scientific journals for publication. Articles are published on merit of their data/evidence, analysis/reasoning and conclusions, not the qualifications of the author, or lack there-of, so there is nothing to stop you getting published along with all the other scientists who have expert level knowledge of the topic. If you can demonstrate nearly all the world's scientists are wrong and you are right, your published work could change the course of history.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Hopper on 19/08/2022 07:22:38:

Posted by blowlamp on 18/08/2022 14:30:42:

Posted by Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:07:14:

Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 11:45:10:

Experience tells us that there is no such thing as black and white, everything is a shade of grey

 

But experience does tell us that science is the best way we have of understanding the world around us and of predicting future events in it. And that science is very clear on this subject.

Anyhow, I'm off to bed. Big day tomorrow riding around on old motorbikes turning fossil fuel into CO2 emissions purely for the sake of entertainment. Yes, we are all doomed. Doomed I say.

Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:20:32

 

Experience is telling me that you can't explain the science of how human contribution to CO2 affects the climate. If you can, it'd probably be quicker for you to post it here than keep replying to us need-to-be-convinced types.

And scrap your planet-destroying motorbike while you're at it.

 

Martin.i

 

 Here is a link to what the science explains, with a few footnotes etc linking to their sources. LINK and link

And here is another scientific explanation for laymen on how CO2 causes global warming LINK 2

 

If you have a level of knowledge of geochemistry and geophysics and climatology etc that gives you a better understanding of the issues than the world's climate scientists, you should write up your findings in a scientific article and submit it to one of the scientific journals for publication. Articles are published on merit of their data/evidence, analysis/reasoning and conclusions, not the qualifications of the author, or lack there-of, so there is nothing to stop you getting published along with all the other scientists who have expert level knowledge of the topic. If you can demonstrate nearly all the world's scientists are wrong and you are right, your published work could change the course of history.

 

 

Edited By Hopper on 19/08/2022 07:35:30

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 18/08/2022 15:34:59:

1. Rising temperature is a natural phenomenon. Evidence: none.

Dave

None? Seems a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

If you go back to 1970/80ish, whenever satellites started pointing thermometers down and we got real data to work with…

The temperature is rising. It goes up in fits and starts with flat plateaus between.

The rises coincide with el Nino events, warm water upwelling on the Pacific coastline of the Americas.

We are currently on a temperature plateau, the last el Nino temperature peak from 7 years ago has yet to be beaten.

Some think we are still climbing out of the Little Ice Age.

No climate scientist cares to explain how the heat gets into the Pacific depths to become an el Nino upwelling.

No climate scientist cares to explain why the CO2 warming, that must happen in the troposphere, has not been detected by weather balloons.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin on 19/08/2022 09:07:52:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 18/08/2022 15:34:59:

1. Rising temperature is a natural phenomenon. Evidence: none.

Dave

None? Seems a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

If you go back to 1970/80ish, whenever satellites started pointing thermometers down and we got real data to work with…

The temperature is rising. It goes up in fits and starts with flat plateaus between.

The rises coincide with el Nino events, warm water upwelling on the Pacific coastline of the Americas.

We are currently on a temperature plateau, the last el Nino temperature peak from 7 years ago has yet to be beaten.

Some think we are still climbing out of the Little Ice Age.

No climate scientist cares to explain how the heat gets into the Pacific depths to become an el Nino upwelling.

No climate scientist cares to explain why the CO2 warming, that must happen in the troposphere, has not been detected by weather balloons.

Another one that should publish his scientific findings in a scientific journal and take those silly scientists to taskt. Maybe even point out to NASA that their scientists' understanding of global warming is deeply flawed and show them your evidence and reasoning why. Who knows, they might even be impressed enough to offer you a job. You could end up on the design team of the next space shuttle or something like that. Sky is the limit when you have that kind of scientific expertise.

Edited By Hopper on 19/08/2022 09:17:31

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by Hopper on 19/08/2022 09:14:13:

Another one that should publish his scientific findings in a scientific journal and take those silly scientists to taskt.

I don't have to. The data is there for anyone who wants to see it.

There are beautiful colour images from the satellite data showing the el Nini Pacific lighting up as if a 3 bar electric fire had been switched on underneath it.

The warming is in the ocean when the theory says it should be in the atmosphere.

With no explanation, I remain unconvinced.

Eventually, some politician will need to disprove CAGW. The climate scientists will be asked to explain why the heat is in the wrong place and the whole, unscientific construction will collapse like the house of cards it is.

Nothing to do with me, you can think whatever you like that makes you happy.

I just had a 200mm, dial caliper in stainless steel, featuring a full 360 degree sweep for each millimeter of travel. Fifty quid delivered, seems to work a treat, that is my fun for today.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin on 19/08/2022 09:45:00:

Posted by Hopper on 19/08/2022 09:14:13:

Another one that should publish his scientific findings in a scientific journal and take those silly scientists to taskt.

…

The warming is in the ocean when the theory says it should be in the atmosphere.

LINK The science says otherwise. Greenhouse gasses cause ocean warming according to those silly scientists.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Robin on 19/08/2022 09:07:52:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 18/08/2022 15:34:59:

1. Rising temperature is a natural phenomenon. Evidence: none.

Dave

None? Seems a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

If you go back to 1970/80ish, whenever satellites started pointing thermometers down and we got real data to work with…

The temperature is rising. It goes up in fits and starts with flat plateaus between.

The rises coincide with el Nino events, warm water upwelling on the Pacific coastline of the Americas.

We are currently on a temperature plateau, the last el Nino temperature peak from 7 years ago has yet to be beaten.

Some think we are still climbing out of the Little Ice Age.

No climate scientist cares to explain how the heat gets into the Pacific depths to become an el Nino upwelling.

No climate scientist cares to explain why the CO2 warming, that must happen in the troposphere, has not been detected by weather balloons.

I stand by what I said!

• Satellites are not the only way of determining temperature! More important, Satellite measurements do not support the Hypothesis that rising temperatures are natural – they haven't detected any heat sources originating on the planet big enough to explain what's happening.
• Temperatures are not expected to rise in a neat straight line – measurements rarely do, and temperatures bounce about considerably. The absence of a perfect straight line is not evidence that average temperature is rising is natural.
• El-Nino does not support the hypothesis that rising temperature is natural: it doesn't contain enough heat to explain rises across the planet, and – even if it did – where does the extra heat driving el-Nino come from?
• The possibility we're coming out of the Little Ice Age isn't evidence: it's another hypothesis, with nothing in support. If we are climbing out of the Little Ice Age, what's causing it? There's always a reason; things don't "just happen".
• True science can't predict el-Nino's exact behaviour, but the root cause is well understood. As explained. el-Nino is not evidence that temperature rise is natural.
• The suggestion that warming should occur in the troposphere isn't evidence that temperature rise is natural. It's another Hypothesis that needs to evidenced, and hasn't been. It goes against the known behaviour of gases, which diffuse and mix together, rather than form layers. The heating capture caused by green-house gases occurs throughout the atmosphere, not only in the troposphere. As a non-specialist, I'd expect heat captured near the surface to cause more trouble than heat high up. The temperature data collected by weather balloons does not identify a natural cause of rising temperatures.

Note that suggesting alternatives is not evidence a hypothesis is wrong. Alternatives are low-value in scientific method unless supported by facts, more the better, and they have to be relevant.

At the moment, I'm not aware of any evidence supporting the Hypothesis that temperature rise is natural. In contrast, there is a mass of evidence supporting the Hypothesis that the cause is Green-house gases in the atmosphere, and that the source of two of the most efficient is human activity.

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 19/08/2022 10:29:50

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by Hopper on 19/08/2022 10:04:10:

LINK The science says otherwise. Greenhouse gasses cause ocean warming according to those silly scientists.

A link to show the oceans are warming. My point exactly, greenhouse warming should be in the troposphere not the oceans.

Is that the best you've got?

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 19/08/2022 10:24:52:

• El-Nino does not support the hypothesis that rising temperature is natural: it doesn't contain enough heat to explain rises across the planet, and – even if it did – where does the extra heat driving el-Nino come from?

Dave

Now that is a very good question. Where does the el-Nino heat come from?

[Author]

Posts