Made with Love

ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

the doomsday predictions are false


Correlation of global temperatures with solar activity




Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030 – Astronomy Now


I love it... did you even bother reading your own post?

"When you look at the climate models that seek to show the human influence past 1970, you do see a good correlation of the temperature with the projected CO2 influence included, while the correlation with solar cycle length weakens."

And I'll note that all your deniers have defly avoiding discussing the increasing acidity of the oceans that is caused by absorbed CO2... can't blame that on solar activity... and I suspect you don't understand what is at stake there. Certain types of Plankton form calcium shells... if the ocean is too acidic they can't survive... which means a potential collapse of the oceans ecology... this is very serious because we get 75% of our oxygen from the oceans. The acidity of the oceans is actually a more serious problem then the termperature.

i saw this very good demonstration using multiple regression on time series analysis of the impact of about 10 different factors on the temperature and human causes account for the most variance.
I'll post it for you, though I'm sure you'll neither understand it or bother reading it.
 
Last edited:
I love it... did you even bother reading your own post?

"When you look at the climate models that seek to show the human influence past 1970, you do see a good correlation of the temperature with the projected CO2 influence included, while the correlation with solar cycle length weakens."

And I'll note that all your deniers have defly avoiding discussing the increasing acidity of the oceans that is caused by absorbed CO2... can't blame that on solar activity... and I suspect you don't understand what is at stake there. Certain types of Plankton form calcium shells... if the ocean is too acidic they can't survive... which means a potential collapse of the oceans ecology... this is very serious because we get 75% of our oxygen from the oceans. The acidity of the oceans is actually a more serious problem then the termperature.

i saw this very good demonstration using multiple regression on time series analysis of the impact of about 10 different factors on the temperature and human causes account for the most variance.
I'll post it for you, though I'm sure you'll neither understand it or bother reading it.

i read the posts i also read the second link with update science on solar activity


and the C02 Ocean acidity nonsense is misleading

New paper debunks ‘ocean acidification’ scare, finds warming increases pH | Watts Up With That?

A paper published Friday in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or “acidified” if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the “ocean acidification” scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry’s Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming.

Thus, if global warming resumes after the “pause,” ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:

In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the “acidification” alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year! Summer months are of course associated with warmer temperatures and more alkaline, higher pH and winter months associated with colder temperatures and much more “acidified” lower pH values. Note also how pH varies widely over ~7.5 to 8.8 simply dependent on the depth at a given time, because colder deeper waters can hold higher partial pressures of CO2 than the warmer surface waters:

These findings completely contradict the basis of the CAGW “acidification” scare and instead show that warming should make the oceans more alkaline, not “acidic.”



Ocean Acidification Claims are Misleading – and deliberately so | Principia Scientific International

Chemistry debunks junk climate science in the ‘global warming causes ocean acidification’ debate. Established Chemistry proves that if temperatures were rising then, conversely, acidification would be falling, not increasing. Such is the woeful science ignorance (or intentional deceit) of climate alarmists.

ACID TEST

Indisputable Facts

carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved in pure water, makes a weak, unstable acid, whilst the ocean water is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8, which means it is alkaline;

there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH;

the concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere;

the mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere;

CO2 is currently only 0.04% of that atmosphere.

Discussion About Those Facts

Besides the above chemical and physical facts, it is well known that an increase in water temperature will reduce the solubility of CO2.

Leave any opened cold carbonated drink – from champagne to Coke – to warm up and see what happens to the fizz, which is CO2 in case you didn’t know. Your warmed champagne/Coke goes ‘flat’ because the carbon dioxide has escaped the liquid and entered the atmosphere.

It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water.

The oceans are outgassing CO2 due to the slight warming trend since the end of the Mini Ice Age (c. 1850’s). The exact cause of this trend IS NOT known and remains the subject of much scientific debate! There is evidence that there is a gap of many centuries between planet-wide temperature swings and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


The Climate Alarmist’s Case

Climate alarmists are stunningly contradictory and actually amusing if they didn’t hold the world at ransom over this non-problem of a slight increase in CO2 concentrations.

They point out the slight increasing trend in temperatures as alarming!

They point out the side effect of this slight increasing trend in temperatures – rising sea levels – as alarming!

Then they claim man’s CO2 emissions will increase ocean acidification – as alarming!

But you simply cannot have it both ways – that is an “Inconvenient Truth”!

Summary And Conclusion

Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.

Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.

Take Your Pick – REAL SCIENCE Says You Can’t Have Both.


Further reading on this subject may be found here:

The Carbon Sense Coalition >> Ocean Acidification – the Castle Ghost

https://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/acid-ocean-bogeyman.pdf
 
Last edited:
i read the posts i also read the second link with update science on solar activity


and the C02 Ocean acidity nonsense is misleading

New paper debunks ‘ocean acidification’ scare, finds warming increases pH | Watts Up With That?

A paper published Friday in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or “acidified” if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the “ocean acidification” scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry’s Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming.

Thus, if global warming resumes after the “pause,” ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:

In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the “acidification” alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year! Summer months are of course associated with warmer temperatures and more alkaline, higher pH and winter months associated with colder temperatures and much more “acidified” lower pH values. Note also how pH varies widely over ~7.5 to 8.8 simply dependent on the depth at a given time, because colder deeper waters can hold higher partial pressures of CO2 than the warmer surface waters:

These findings completely contradict the basis of the CAGW “acidification” scare and instead show that warming should make the oceans more alkaline, not “acidic.”



Ocean Acidification Claims are Misleading – and deliberately so | Principia Scientific International

Chemistry debunks junk climate science in the ‘global warming causes ocean acidification’ debate. Established Chemistry proves that if temperatures were rising then, conversely, acidification would be falling, not increasing. Such is the woeful science ignorance (or intentional deceit) of climate alarmists.

ACID TEST

Indisputable Facts

carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved in pure water, makes a weak, unstable acid, whilst the ocean water is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8, which means it is alkaline;

there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH;

the concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere;

the mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere;

CO2 is currently only 0.04% of that atmosphere.

Discussion About Those Facts

Besides the above chemical and physical facts, it is well known that an increase in water temperature will reduce the solubility of CO2.

Leave any opened cold carbonated drink – from champagne to Coke – to warm up and see what happens to the fizz, which is CO2 in case you didn’t know. Your warmed champagne/Coke goes ‘flat’ because the carbon dioxide has escaped the liquid and entered the atmosphere.

It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water.

The oceans are outgassing CO2 due to the slight warming trend since the end of the Mini Ice Age (c. 1850’s). The exact cause of this trend IS NOT known and remains the subject of much scientific debate! There is evidence that there is a gap of many centuries between planet-wide temperature swings and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


The Climate Alarmist’s Case

Climate alarmists are stunningly contradictory and actually amusing if they didn’t hold the world at ransom over this non-problem of a slight increase in CO2 concentrations.

They point out the slight increasing trend in temperatures as alarming!

They point out the side effect of this slight increasing trend in temperatures – rising sea levels – as alarming!

Then they claim man’s CO2 emissions will increase ocean acidification – as alarming!

But you simply cannot have it both ways – that is an “Inconvenient Truth”!

Summary And Conclusion

Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.

Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.

Take Your Pick – REAL SCIENCE Says You Can’t Have Both.


Further reading on this subject may be found here:

The Carbon Sense Coalition >> Ocean Acidification – the Castle Ghost

https://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/acid-ocean-bogeyman.pdf

No matter how much junk and nonsense you post doesn't make it real. Please read real science.
 
Last edited:
No matter how junk and nonsense you post doesn't make it real. Please read real science.

typial response don't read anything that disagree with the alarmist postion and continue to use feelings


CO2 forms an unstable weak acid in water. that's real science. that's high school chemistry ask any chemistry teacher and student. read a high school chemistry book.
 
typial response don't read anything that disagree with the alarmist postion and continue to use feelings


CO2 forms an unstable weak acid in water. that's real science. that's high school chemistry ask any chemistry teacher and student. read a high school chemistry book.


Well apparently the real world disagree with your beliefs... lol... as I said read real science. Enough of your pro-oil industry anti-science based denial. None of your sources were scientific sources (e.g., not peer reviewed scientific journals where all real science is published).

"[your] statement just flies in both the face of observational facts and a basic understanding of chemistry. I would love to hear a cogent explanation of how atmospheric CO2 levels could rise over the course of a century without producing a decrease in ocean pH." Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science.

These are real scientist (again, REAL SCIENTISTS, not Breitbart journalists) responding to the sort of non-sense you just posted trashing a stupid paper by James Delingpole which appears to contain most of your oil industry talking points you just posted... all those out of context, misleading and in many cases completely wrong statements... Please read these annotated comments. To read click on the highlighted text and the reviewers comment will appear on the right of the screen.



Additional trashing of those misleading statement you love so much, can be found here including the one I posted above by Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science:

Just a moment...


Here's some additional real science... stop reading your junk science and focus on real science please. Its easy to find real science on Google scholar. You may need to get a University library card to access some, but the abstracts generally tell the story in sufficient detail.

Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms - Kroeker - 2010 - Ecology Letters - Wiley Online Library

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834

Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/ar...ts-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-fauna-and
 
Last edited:
Nntsci and other smart members. I am very impressed with your overall knowledge. I will be back more often.
 
Boom… fish farms debunk ‘ocean acidification’ alarm

” In contrast, the aquaculture industry was farming aquatic animals at CO2 levels that far exceed end-of-century climate change projections (sometimes >10 000 μatm) long before the term ‘ocean acidification’ was coined, with limited detrimental effects reported.”

JhxxFoQ.png




full study here
 
I warned you nntsci, CCman pursues the net to find arguments that justifies his own. That's his thing, lol. Most I believe, and which you've shown, he seldom even reads. You'll exhaust yourself trying to make him see truths, even with expert knowledge and experience, such as you hold. He seems to prefer internet data from strangers, most of who he knows nothing about, rather than truths from experts and experts who have personal experience with the subject at hand.
@canadaman You are right CCman I also copy and paste stuff about pitbulls and other subjects, but I also have personal experience with the breed, LOTS of personal experience with the breed so I feel exceptionally qualified to speak about and defend the breed. I'm related to some and associate with many who are experts when it comes to most things about ALL breeds of dogs, who educate me regularly, so again, I feel far more qualified than you and justified in speaking about dogs, especially within discussions involving your copy and pastes. Have I made some mistakes, and believed some things that have been repeated on the internet, that weren't truths, maybe. Remember I'm not perfect, nor am I an expert on anything. But I do have personal experience and years of it and that is something you've not. So as I've suggested before, get off your ass and get some, instead of believing everything posted on the net you find to justify your thoughts. Then some might take your opinions more seriously.
 
Last edited:
I warned you nntsci, CCman pursues the net to find arguments that justifies his own. That's his thing, lol. Most I believe, and which you've shown, he seldom even reads. You'll exhaust yourself trying to make him see truths, even with expert knowledge and experience, such as you hold. He seems to prefer internet data from strangers, most of who he knows nothing about, rather than truths from experts and experts who have personal experience with the subject at hand.

I think it is safe to say you drink the kool-aid and Canada Man does not.

I expect you will not get him to drink the kool-aid and he will never get you to put it down.

So move on.
 
^ Yes sir! Lol, however, I don't drink kool aid, dislike it so *without* your permission I'll continue to post should I feel I've more to add to this thread. In the meantime I'm enjoying nntsci impressive posts and knowledge. I hope he continues debunking Mr. copy and paste:)
 
I warned you nntsci, CCman pursues the net to find arguments that justifies his own. That's his thing, lol. Most I believe, and which you've shown, he seldom even reads. You'll exhaust yourself trying to make him see truths, even with expert knowledge and experience, such as you hold. He seems to prefer internet data from strangers, most of who he knows nothing about, rather than truths from experts and experts who have personal experience with the subject at hand.
@canadaman You are right CCman I also copy and paste stuff about pitbulls and other subjects, but I also have personal experience with the breed, LOTS of personal experience with the breed so I feel exceptionally qualified to speak about and defend the breed. I'm related to some and associate with many who are experts when it comes to most things about ALL breeds of dogs, who educate me regularly, so again, I feel far more qualified than you and justified in speaking about dogs, especially within discussions involving your copy and pastes. Have I made some mistakes, and believed some things that have been repeated on the internet, that weren't truths, maybe. Remember I'm not perfect, nor am I an expert on anything. But I do have personal experience and years of it and that is something you've not. So as I've suggested before, get off your ass and get some, instead of believing everything posted on the net you find to justify your thoughts. Then some might take your opinions more seriously.


unlike you and company i use fact based evidence not feelings and anecdotes and personal experiences not liking them and complaining about them does not make them false. facts don't care about your feelings and anecdotes and neither do i
 
I think it is safe to say you drink the kool-aid and Canada Man does not.

I expect you will not get him to drink the kool-aid and he will never get you to put it down.

So move on.

I think you have your analogy backwards... Canada Man drinks the koolaid... in thoughtless compliance to his ideology and a rather childish adherence to a way of life that is damaging the planet.

I read science (and write science, and review science).

I consider him irrelevant, but his anti-science non-sense is seductive to others who choose not to think for themselves.
 
I think you have your analogy backwards... Canada Man drinks the koolaid... in thoughtless compliance to his ideology and a rather childish adherence to a way of life that is damaging the planet.

I read science (and write science, and review science).

I consider him irrelevant, but his anti-science non-sense is seductive to others who choose not to think for themselves.

:YMAPPLAUSE::YMAPPLAUSE::YMAPPLAUSE:Praise-BowingPraise-Bowing Amen!!!!

(Canadaman quote)unlike you and company i use fact based evidence not feelings and anecdotes and personal experiences not liking them and complaining about them does not make them false. facts don't care about your feelings and anecdotes and neither do i(unquote)

- Oh Candyman, I mean Canada man, lol, you are a funny little fellow, and obviously you do care or you wouldn't have responded to my post. Your "fact based" poop is scoop you've simply found while you were out surfing the net *again* which is laughable, since in truth, you don't have any understanding of any of it. *Again* you just grab and post any and all that will side with your opinion. Remember experience speaks volumes, and you have none:) lmao!! Just saw this... you didn't get far with your pitbull copy and pastes on the Tboard did ya, ..... ★ Pitbulls, dangerous or not dangerous?
 
Last edited:
:YMAPPLAUSE::YMAPPLAUSE::YMAPPLAUSE:Praise-BowingPraise-Bowing Amen!!!!

(Canadaman quote)unlike you and company i use fact based evidence not feelings and anecdotes and personal experiences not liking them and complaining about them does not make them false. facts don't care about your feelings and anecdotes and neither do i(unquote)

- Oh Candyman, I mean Canada man, lol, you are a funny little fellow, and obviously you do care or you wouldn't have responded to my post. Your "fact based" poop is scoop you've simply found while you were out surfing the net *again* which is laughable, since in truth, you don't have any understanding of any of it. *Again* you just grab and post any and all that will side with your opinion. Remember experience speaks volumes, and you have none:) lmao!! Just saw this... you didn't get far with your pitbull copy and pastes on the Tboard did ya, ..... ★ Pitbulls, dangerous or not dangerous?


both you and company can't find evidence to debunk me so you resort to insults and name calling and complaining and crying like 6 year olds. you constantly complain about copy and paste when you do the same when defending your dangerous pit bulls. your dogs are dangerous. on the other board they are respectful to others when they disagree with put bull apologist.
 
both you and company can't find evidence to debunk me so you resort to insults and name calling and complaining and crying like 6 year olds. you constantly complain about copy and paste when you do the same when defending your dangerous pit bulls. your dogs are dangerous. on the other board they are respectful to others when they disagree with put bull apologist.

You have no evidence, you are basing your beliefs on myths and junk science and oil industry propaganda... the real science is pretty clear we are changing and damaging the planet... please read real science... the uncertainty is how bad the result will be. The problem for you and to all denier is they don't understand probability and like many people underestimate the chance of catastrophic outcomes... a common flaw in human reasoning... to impose normal distributions onto skewed probability curve with a fat tail distribution... Actually even most scientist have difficulty with non-linear models and fat tailed probability distributions, but at least they read the science.
The same reason stock market crashes keep occurring... because people don't understand fat tail probability distributions. But in this case we are rolling the dice on a much more serious issue.
 
You have no evidence, you are basing your beliefs on myths and junk science and oil industry propaganda... the real science is pretty clear we are changing and damaging the planet... please read real science... the uncertainty is how bad the result will be. The problem for you and to all denier is they don't understand probability and like many people underestimate the chance of catastrophic outcomes... a common flaw in human reasoning... to impose normal distributions onto skewed probability curve with a fat tail distribution... Actually even most scientist have difficulty with non-linear models and fat tailed probability distributions, but at least they read the science.
The same reason stock market crashes keep occurring... because people don't understand fat tail probability distributions. But in this case we are rolling the dice on a much more serious issue.



I show multiple evidence all you do is reacting base of feelings and repeating same old tired and debunked "oil industry propaganda line" like a sheeple who blindly believe in the climate alarmist scare propaganda cooked up by the club of rome and members. who admitted in thier own writings that they invent it to create a crisis to unify humanity in their quest for global government. read "limits to growth" published by one of their members. for the past 30 years they make failed predictions saying we have a few years to act. when they failed they constantly make doomsday predictions and they do this over and over

entire_earth_history_record.gif


gisp-last-10000-new.png
 
I show multiple evidence all you do is reacting base of feelings and repeating same old tired and debunked "oil industry propaganda line" like a sheeple who blindly believe in the climate alarmist scare propaganda cooked up by the club of rome and members. who admitted in thier own writings that they invent it to create a crisis to unify humanity in their quest for global government. read "limits to growth" published by one of their members. for the past 30 years they make failed predictions saying we have a few years to act. when they failed they constantly make doomsday predictions and they do this over and over

entire_earth_history_record.gif


gisp-last-10000-new.png

You've shown no relevant evidence.
 
he means evidence he disagree with. there is a term which say "you can bring the horse to the water but you cannot make it drink" this is climate alarmism 101. and anybody remember the acid rain scare in the 1980s-early 1990s?
 
Carbon dioxide is one of several "greenhouse gases" that help in this. Carbon dioxide captures some of this radiated heat and keeps it in the atmosphere. Some other greenhouse gases are water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs. In fact, any gas with three or more atoms acts as a greenhouse gas.
Reference: answers.com/q/how_is_carbon_dioxide_a_greenhouse_gas
 
Everyone seems to want to agree with whatever supports their point of view and dismiss anything that goes against it. But do you all really believe that only "evidence" that agrees with your point of view can be accurate? Am I the only one who thinks that ALL scientists can be influenced by their own personal biases (even in contradiction to raw data) and by the need to find funding for their research? If one side can be in the pocket of "big oil" why can't the other side be in the pocket of "big Environmentalism"?

Part of the general problem we seem to be having in the world today is that everyone can only see that their own side is right. Nobody can actually talk and discuss.


I want to be the first to give a little.

I will agree that the climate is changing.
I will agree that the changes are partially due to human activity.
I will agree that developing greener technologies would be a generally good thing.

Will anyone on the other side agree that there have been errors in predictions?
Will anyone on the other side admit that there has been evidence of data tampering?
Will anyone on the other side admit that there are billions and billions of dollars at stake and some of the push comes from attempts to gain power and wealth?


Nobody knows for sure how things are going to work out. Weather models are faulty for 3 day predictions and the more complex the models, the worse they are. Climate modeling has a long way to go before it can give any kind of surety of it's predictions. With that said, it doesn't mean that the environment isn't going to warm. There may be some negative consequences of that warming. But the earth is also warming naturally. Perhaps we're just speeding things up. But science doesn't know and can only guess what is going to happen. Anyone can grab data and statistics and have the numbers predict almost anything.

What I really dislike about the entire thing....people want to use climate change as a means of controlling the life of others. I suggest that those who are concerned, make sacrifices towards a better earth. They should continue to try and research and educate the masses on what is happening. They should continue to find solutions to what they think is the problem. Be the change you want to see....give up your cars, give up your homes, reduce your carbon footprint to a minimum. But don't just point fingers and tell others that they should make sacrifices. That's just bull.


And speaking of bull.....I believe that Methane is the bigger threat when it comes to greenhouse gasses. So you may want to make sacrifices in the areas of eating meat and using leather products and any other products that come from cattle.


I'll ask the main question that nobody seems to be able to answer for me........."what temperature should the earth's climate be?" After all, it's been much warmer and it's been much cooler and yet life has always continued since it first appeared on the planet. Maybe what's ideal for humans isn't what the climate is going to be, but that doesn't make it the wrong climate.

I believe that is the point I raised in the other thread I started on the "uninhabitable earth"......but as you've said, people believe what they want. Although I do think nntsci, makes solid arguments and valid points.
Regarding the oceans, they'd have to remain alive though to absorb all the heat, and they're dying a quick death, fish stocks, coral reefs, kelp forests, are all dying off, accelerated temperatures, severe storms too are all proof of this. Typically the oceans absorb 93% of the carbon dioxide released by human activity and when they're dead, so are we......How can anyone argue that the oceans can only absorb so much and that we are feeding them more than they can absorb?..... We need to give the oceans a rest, a break, time to heal and stop producing so much carbon gas, at the very least, we need to create marine protected areas, but with Trump at the helm of the USA I shudder to think of the further damage some of his policies will do.
 
Back
Top Bottom