A challenge to Climate Change believers

Science cannot fix stupid. We can fix ignorance if folks will care to learn.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Asher47
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Spoken like a true believer!! Well done!!
Did you get indoctrinated in college?
If so you should ask for your money back.

You think that sea levels rising and buildings sinking resuls in higher water levels is college level education?

I may see the problem here.

I think some people believe liars without double checking the science. The Science on this is out there and the UN point of view is BUNK. The IPCC have fudged data and lost my trust FOREVER and EVER. DeGrasse Tyson is a liar and protects the DS.

When I taught lab I taught the students to research the data and challenge it with facts. Don't cheat because it destroys the whole process. Well the UN cheated the data, end of story for my caring what they think.

Really what research have you done into climate change or related subjects?

Links to papers published or details of data you have personally gathered would be appreciated.

Or when you say research do you mean stuff you read online?

I gave you the links go learn. I am in this field of Science for my career choice. I study atmospheric pollution.

Again

That's a link to you tube.

I think that answers my question.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Asher47
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Spoken like a true believer!! Well done!!
Did you get indoctrinated in college?
If so you should ask for your money back.

You think that sea levels rising and buildings sinking resuls in higher water levels is college level education?

I may see the problem here.

I think some people believe liars without double checking the science. The Science on this is out there and the UN point of view is BUNK. The IPCC have fudged data and lost my trust FOREVER and EVER. DeGrasse Tyson is a liar and protects the DS.

When I taught lab I taught the students to research the data and challenge it with facts. Don't cheat because it destroys the whole process. Well the UN cheated the data, end of story for my caring what they think.

Really what research have you done into climate change or related subjects?

Links to papers published or details of data you have personally gathered would be appreciated.

Or when you say research do you mean stuff you read online?

I gave you the links go learn. I am in this field of Science for my career choice. I study atmospheric pollution.

Again

That's a link to you tube.

I think that answers my question.

No it as link to the data. You tube site with the links and video. You can deny ignorance at that site.

I see all I need of your skill set.

good day.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Asher47
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Spoken like a true believer!! Well done!!
Did you get indoctrinated in college?
If so you should ask for your money back.

You think that sea levels rising and buildings sinking resuls in higher water levels is college level education?

I may see the problem here.

I think some people believe liars without double checking the science. The Science on this is out there and the UN point of view is BUNK. The IPCC have fudged data and lost my trust FOREVER and EVER. DeGrasse Tyson is a liar and protects the DS.

When I taught lab I taught the students to research the data and challenge it with facts. Don't cheat because it destroys the whole process. Well the UN cheated the data, end of story for my caring what they think.

Really what research have you done into climate change or related subjects?

Links to papers published or details of data you have personally gathered would be appreciated.

Or when you say research do you mean stuff you read online?

I gave you the links go learn. I am in this field of Science for my career choice. I study atmospheric pollution.

Again

That's a link to you tube.

I think that answers my question.

so what did you find wrong with the information in the video?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Asher47
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Spoken like a true believer!! Well done!!
Did you get indoctrinated in college?
If so you should ask for your money back.

You think that sea levels rising and buildings sinking resuls in higher water levels is college level education?

I may see the problem here.

I think some people believe liars without double checking the science. The Science on this is out there and the UN point of view is BUNK. The IPCC have fudged data and lost my trust FOREVER and EVER. DeGrasse Tyson is a liar and protects the DS.

When I taught lab I taught the students to research the data and challenge it with facts. Don't cheat because it destroys the whole process. Well the UN cheated the data, end of story for my caring what they think.

Really what research have you done into climate change or related subjects?

Links to papers published or details of data you have personally gathered would be appreciated.

Or when you say research do you mean stuff you read online?

I gave you the links go learn. I am in this field of Science for my career choice. I study atmospheric pollution.

Again

That's a link to you tube.

I think that answers my question.

so what did you find wrong with the information in the video?

He said he researched it.

I asked for details of his research or if he meant he looked stuff up online.

He replied with a link to youtube.

That answered my question.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Asher47
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Spoken like a true believer!! Well done!!
Did you get indoctrinated in college?
If so you should ask for your money back.

You think that sea levels rising and buildings sinking resuls in higher water levels is college level education?

I may see the problem here.

I think some people believe liars without double checking the science. The Science on this is out there and the UN point of view is BUNK. The IPCC have fudged data and lost my trust FOREVER and EVER. DeGrasse Tyson is a liar and protects the DS.

When I taught lab I taught the students to research the data and challenge it with facts. Don't cheat because it destroys the whole process. Well the UN cheated the data, end of story for my caring what they think.

Really what research have you done into climate change or related subjects?

Links to papers published or details of data you have personally gathered would be appreciated.

Or when you say research do you mean stuff you read online?

I gave you the links go learn. I am in this field of Science for my career choice. I study atmospheric pollution.

Again

That's a link to you tube.

I think that answers my question.

so what did you find wrong with the information in the video?

He said he researched it.

I asked for details of his research or if he meant he looked stuff up online.

He replied with a link to youtube.

That answered my question.

I said I lived it if you could read between the lines

I do this for a living and gave you a research tool.

your choice now to be an asshat or dig in and find out why you need to study this. The more you learn about it the easier it will be when the SHTF from our Sun.

ETA a question

Do you know the name of our Sun?

a reply to: Justoneman

I do this for a living and gave you a research tool

You gave me a link to a YouTube channel. Strangely enough I was aware YouTube existed.

You can find YouTube videos to support any point of view you wish.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Xtro
I love reading your comments till this one bro.

I didn't expect you to not understand it is solar. Well, it absolutely is.

Here is a great place to learn about the Sun and the daily reactions to the Solar flares and discharging of charged particles to Earth. THIS SITE BELOW is worth your time to be able to know the facts as they stand today.


the worlds leading expert, 1st they laughed at him. Now they right Scientific papers on our Solar system and the Cosmos and include his data and discuss the historical significance. The data is from Hubble and Webb telescopes and the SOHO data.

I'll look, but when we talk sun, we typically say solar min/max cycles and unless new stuff has come out, they are not some leading causes compared to volcanos and changes in ocean currents.

a reply to: Degradation33

That graph looks a little hockey stick ish… just saying….

originally posted by: EyeoftheHurricane
a reply to: Degradation33

That graph looks a little hockey stick ish… just saying….

Well it would.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: network dude
Humans have been measuring the sea level with automated instruments since about the middle of the 1800s—about the time the Industrial Revolution really cut in. I hope you can appreciate that that technique is much more accurate than eyeballing it.

That sums it up beautifully.
Don't just eyeball it. Measure it.

Question. Research. Hypothesis. Experiment. Data Analysis. Conclusion. Communication.

The scientific method > things feel fine.

a reply to: Hakaiju

Hold on there chief. Logic and measurable effects over time have no role to play. Nor the sun or volcanic produced pollution. Everyone knows by 2002 we'll be past the tipping point, common knowledge. Somewhere right now the last polar bear is crying tears of dispair on a tiny chunk of ice.

originally posted by: billxam1
a reply to: Hakaiju

Hold on there chief. Logic and measurable effects over time have no role to play. Nor the sun or volcanic produced pollution. Everyone knows by 2002 we'll be past the tipping point, common knowledge. Somewhere right now the last polar bear is crying tears of dispair on a tiny chunk of ice.

I think it was 1999 we heard it this way. Just "10 more years and the children will not know what snow looks like". Missed it by "that much".... NOT!

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Asher47
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Spoken like a true believer!! Well done!!
Did you get indoctrinated in college?
If so you should ask for your money back.

You think that sea levels rising and buildings sinking resuls in higher water levels is college level education?

I may see the problem here.

I think some people believe liars without double checking the science. The Science on this is out there and the UN point of view is BUNK. The IPCC have fudged data and lost my trust FOREVER and EVER. DeGrasse Tyson is a liar and protects the DS.

When I taught lab I taught the students to research the data and challenge it with facts. Don't cheat because it destroys the whole process. Well the UN cheated the data, end of story for my caring what they think.

Really what research have you done into climate change or related subjects?

Links to papers published or details of data you have personally gathered would be appreciated.

Or when you say research do you mean stuff you read online?

I gave you the links go learn. I am in this field of Science for my career choice. I study atmospheric pollution.

Again

That's a link to you tube.

I think that answers my question.

so what did you find wrong with the information in the video?

The video was quite a collation from credible sources such as the ESA and NASA (but which the suspicious0bservers group/person does not hold as credible, except when they want to cherry pick data from those sources to support their opinions).

However, the poster/s of the video take a doom-porn approach to many things that are mundane, simply to be controversial.

Take for instance the pole-flipping that they make a big thing out of. Paleomagnetic records tell us Earth's magnetic poles have reversed 183 times in the last 83 million years, but the pole shifts didn't cause disasters. And we've known about magnetic pole shifts for hundreds of years and moved away from reliance on magnetic compasses for navigation. We have GPS for that now, at far higher accuracy, and have had for decades. So it's not likely that wandering poles will suddenly become a problem.

And as for the relationship between solar activity and tectonic activity in the short term, there is little evidence that there is a causal link and too much evidence of geotechnic things occurring without pronounced solar activity. That is like astrologers who suggest that stars light years away are affecting human activity in near real-time.

Nor did the video provide any particular measurements or specific data, it was more dramatic and pretty pictures rather than scientific content. It was all 'feelz' for the conspiracy set.

a reply to: chr0naut

How about read the papers that Physicists have recently published before making those accusations?

Real Scientists that have a published paper on these matters is what my peers demand and there they are.

And here once again you defend the altered data team. Why do that when the data is always available that you gloss over? Is it just for that SJW agenda mouthpiece job and feeding your children, I can forgive you. But can you?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

a reply to: Tolkien
Data is lost on that one. Agenda driven can care less about the real facts, IMO. BUT I appreciate that type of data being considered by readers.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: chr0naut

How about read the papers that Physicists have recently published before making those accusations?

Real Scientists that have a published paper on these matters is what my peers demand and there they are.

And here once again you defend the altered data team. Why do that when the data is always available that you gloss over? Is it just for that SJW agenda mouthpiece job and feeding your children, I can forgive you. But can you?

Please present the data, and the papers (and note that preprints and non-peer reviewed papers don't have the credibility that I would expect to be a minimum standard).

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

a reply to: network dude
I'm neither a climate change believer, nor a climate change denier, I try to find good data and follow the data wherever that may lead. When you address your question to "Climate change believers", it's like you've pre-decided whether climate change is real or not becfore you even ask the question.

Your question looking for underwater structures I believe is overestimating predicted amounts of sea level rise, and in general demonstrating a profound level of ignorance of the topic and then using that ignorance to justify beliefs you have that are not founded in data or science.

Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years, but it's not rising so fast right now that you would expect to find entire structures underwater in a few decades as your question seems to suggest. Here's a graph of sea level rise, from time 6:06 in the following video:

www.youtube.com...


It hasn't been going up much in the last few thousand years, in fact the source below says sea levels rose 0.3 meters in the last 150 years.

Now let's look at a graph of CO2 levels in the atmosphere:

berkeleyearth.org...


What that shows is that about 1900 or so, CO2 levels started shooting up dramatically from historical levels, and it's claimed that increase is caused by human activity, I don't know if you acknowledge that or not, do you? I think it is from human activity.

Now if we ask the question, why isn't the sea level rising in correlation with that CO2 graph, my understanding of the theory relates to an analogy you may be able to identify with if you've ever tried to start a cold car with a gas engine on a cold day.
You start the engine, and turn the heater on, and what comes out of the vents for the first few minutes? Cold air!

But wait, I thought the gas engine produced heat, so why isn't the heater blasting out hot air? It's because of the thermal reservoir in the cooling system. That has to heat up first, before the heat can spread to other areas, and in this respect I think climate models have some similar properties. In the car the reservoir is the radiator and related system that contains the antifreeze mix that needs to heat up first. On Earth, the thermal reservoir is the ocean. So in theory at least you can pump a lot of energy into the ocean, but like the car that blows out cold air for the first few minutes, you may not see the effects of this increased heat immediately, in sea level rise.

That theory is reflected in this summary saying the oceans are heating up:
www.pmel.noaa.gov...

Ocean heat and global sea level were the highest on record. Over the past half-century, the ocean has stored more than 90% of the excess energy trapped in Earth’s system by greenhouse gases and other factors. The global ocean heat content, measured from the ocean’s surface to a depth of 2,000 meters (approximately 6,561 ft), continued to increase and reached new record highs in 2022. Global mean sea level was record high for the 11th-consecutive year, reaching about 101.2 mm (4.0 inches) above the 1993 average when satellite altimetry measurements began.

Now think about what would make sea levels rise. If the ice on antarctica and greenland melted, that would make sea levels go up, and it's happened before when sea levels were 30 meters higher than present, but the ocean is not in direct contact with the ice on antarctica and greenland, so higher ocean temperatures are not necessarily going to melt that ice directly. In fact the historical record shows that antarctica and greenland ice didn't melt at the same time, so some mechanism caused them to melt at different times, in previous global warming events:

Scientists looked at sea levels 125,000 years in the past. The results are terrifying

Sea levels rose 10 metres above present levels during Earth’s last warm period 125,000 years ago, according to new research that offers a glimpse of what may happen under our current climate change trajectory.

Our paper, published today in Nature Communications, shows that melting ice from Antarctica was the main driver of sea level rise in the last interglacial period, which lasted about 10,000 years...

We examined data from the last interglacial, which occurred 125,000 to 118,000 years ago. Temperatures were up to 1°C higher than today - similar to those projected for the near future.

Our research reveals that ice melt in the last interglacial period caused global seas to rise about 10 metres above the present level. The ice melted first in Antarctica, then a few thousand years later in Greenland.

Sea levels rose at up to 3 metres per century, far exceeding the roughly 0.3-metre rise observed over the past 150 years."

So, if history repeats itself in this interglacial, we might see sea levels rising at 3 meters per century instead of the 0.3 meters we have seen in the last 150 years. But conditions are not exactly the same now as they were then. Even at 3 meters per century, that's only a foot or so per decade so you won't see entire structures rapidly submerged as your question implies when you ask to see examples of those.

I asked a similar question to your question years ago on ATS, and Phage responded with some paper that said we haven't seen much dramatic sea level rise so far but we are just starting to see a confirmed increase in the rate of sea level rise. I looked for that old post and paper but couldn't find it.