63
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 08:57 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
In response to my question of what the pH of the ocean is, hightor asked "where." That was ambiguous. He should have said: At what depth.
Certainly the surface pH and the pH at i.e. 1200 m depth differs.
But since it does so in various oceans, i. e. Pacific compared to North Atlantic, the geographical question is the one to put at first.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 09:00 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
You're still on the hook, hightor.

How?
Quote:
How acidic is the ocean?

Where?
Quote:
What is the pH that reflects this acidic condition?

When?
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 09:12 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The pteropod, or "sea butterfly," is a tiny sea creature about the size of a small pea. Pteropods are eaten by organisms ranging in size from tiny krill to whales and are a major food source for North Pacific juvenile salmon. When pteropod shells were placed in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100, the shells slowly dissolved after 45 days.

What level of acidity did they project for the year 2100? What was the pH of the water that they placed the shells in. Was it just the shells of the the sea butterfly, or the sea butterfly itself.

Anyway:

If you google “ocean acidification,” the first 3 websites presented according to “Google’s truth rankings” are: 1) Wikipedia, 2) NOAA’s PMEL site featuring the graphic cartoon shown below with a dissolving pteropod shell (a sea butterfly) as the icon of ocean acidification, and 3) the Smithsonian’s Ocean Portal site similarly featuring a dissolving sea butterfly shell. However NOAA’s illustration incorrectly implies shells are dissolving near the surface due to invading anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. As will be shown, the depiction would be far more accurate if it was turned upside down, so that the downward arrows point upwards to illustrate shell dissolution happens when old carbon stored at depth is upwelled to the surface. Furthermore the horizontal depiction of extreme dissolution illustrated by their intact (green) sea butterfly shell dissolving into an extremely shriveled shell (red), rarely if ever happens in the ocean’s upper layers. Surface waters are supersaturated regards calcium carbonates. Although upwelling causes some near surface dissolution, dead sea-butterfly shells only experience such extreme dissolution when they sink to depths containing ancient corrosive waters.

As for most organisms, pteropod populations fluctuate over the short term. But research finds no significant long-term trends in pteropod abundance.

That research can be seen here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL039901

As for most organisms, pteropod populations fluctuate over the short term. But research finds no significant long-term trends in pteropod abundance. Nonetheless NOAA’s Nina Bednarsek has been preparing a preliminary report arguing sea butterflies should be listed as endangered and NOAA’s cartoon appears to be an attempt to gain support for her claims. To warrant endangered status, Bednarsek presents a hypothesis that increasing CO2 has reduced critical pteropod habitat by raising the depth of calcium carbonate saturation horizons. The threshold above which high concentrations of carbonate ions (CO32-) promote abiotic calcium carbonate precipitation but below which favors dissolution, is referred to as the saturation horizon. The horizon is quantified as 1, and higher numbers characterize supersaturated water that favor calcification. As seen below in Fig 10 from Jiang 2016, most of the globe’s surface oceans are supersaturated.


Bednarsek assumes anthropogenic carbon is mostly accumulating near the surface based on modeling results. However as detailed in Part 2, all ocean acidification models are deeply flawed based on an incorrect assumption that CO2 enters the ocean and is then transported like an inert tracer. But CO2 is not inert! When CO2 first invades sunlit surface waters, it indeed dissolves into 3 forms of inorganic carbon (DIC) and lowers pH. But in contrast to those models, DIC is rapidly assimilated into particulate organic carbon via photosynthesis, which raises pH. Particulate organic carbon (alive or dead) is heavy, and if not consumed and recycled, it sinks. For millions of years, this process created and maintained a DIC/pH gradient with high pH/low DIC near the surface and low pH/higher DIC at depth.

Gravity drives the biological pump and removes a significant proportion of organic carbon (assimilated from both natural and anthropogenic carbon). That carbon is transported to depths where it can be harmlessly sequestered for hundreds to thousands of years. However NOAA’s models fail to account for the biological pump, based on the narrow belief that carbon storage is strictly “a chemical and physical response to rising atmospheric CO2” (Sabine 2010). In contrast to Bednarsek’s anthropogenic hypothesis, an increase in the assimilation of CO2 and an efficient biological pump can prevent a decrease in surface pH and calcium carbonate saturation. In fact experiments show CO2 is often a limiting nutrient. Mesocosm experiments found that when atmospheric CO2 was increased, primary production by plankton community consumed 39% more DIC. When primary production increases, more carbon is shuttled to depth.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/01/how-noaa-and-bad-modeling-invented-an-ocean-acidification-icon-part-1-sea-butterflies/

More later.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 09:29 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I understand the log scale. Thats the point. Vinegar is a pH of 2.5 to around 4, whereas the "great Dying" caused a deep pelagic ocean pH of around 2.0 pH units (where the pH is the negative log of the H ion concentration) (or at least enough to deposit sulfate compounds derived from pyrite ( forming big banks of compounds like Gypsum, alum, siderite, chalk ,trona) etc and hundreds of more complex evaporite minerals whose names are only recalled by 11 year old rockhounds .
We can track , via the deposition of mineral strata , the geochemistry (including pH) what the ocean "health " was like just by looking at the
deposits.

Like color titration, if we incur a slight pH lowering from CO2 forming carbonic acid, it wouldnt tak nearly as much sulfitic deposits from a qorld class volcanoe to make the oceans take a pH dive down to a life/death neighborhood of 5.5 (a pH wherein toxic heavies can dissociat into solution and reall poison the pelagic and tidal zones )



farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 09:35 am
@farmerman,
we do have vertebrates and annelids that have evolved to handle really low pHs but we dont rally know how long it took the cavefish of the Mexican "cave of the Crystals" to have evolved. Extremophyles are always showing up but they represent a very small population %age of their genera.


0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 01:14 pm
Rising Seas Will Erase More Cities by 2050, New Research Shows
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 02:09 pm
@hightor,
Great! That will give industrialists like Trump places to build their Trump towers. Business as usual.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2019 05:43 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
Rising Seas Will Erase More Cities by 2050, New Research Shows

So, how many cities have already been erased because of rising seas?
_________________________________________________

1895-Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again
– New York Times, February 1895

•1902 -“Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.”
– Los Angeles Times

•1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age
–New York Times, October 1912

•1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, –
Chicago Tribune

•1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” –Washington Post

•1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age–
New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

•1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” –
Los Angeles Times

•1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” –
The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

•1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
– New York Times, March 27th, 1933

•1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?”
– Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

•1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

•1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades”
– Chicago Tribune

•1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer”
-Washington Post

•1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century”
– New York Times, August 10th, 1962

•1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing”
– U.S. News and World Report

•1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off
– Fortune Magazine

•1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures”
– New York Times

•1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two”
– New York Times, February 20th, 1969

•1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight”
– Washington Post

•1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years
– Time Magazine

•1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age”
– Washington Post

•1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed”
– Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

•1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence”
– New York Times

•1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
– New York Times, May 21st, 1975

•1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor,
New Scientist magazine, in an article in International
_______________________________________________________

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975

1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)

1970: Ice Age By 2000

1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980

1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

1972: New Ice Age By 2070

1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast

1974: Another Ice Age?

1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life

1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent

1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes

1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend

1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s

1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs

1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)

1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)

2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is

2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy

2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024

2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World

2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’

2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014

2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015

2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Oct, 2019 01:48 am
@Glennn,
Do you have children, Glenn?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 09:35 am
How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
Quote:
Few thought it would arrive so quickly. Now we’re facing consequences once viewed as fringe scenarios.

By Eugene Linden

For decades, most scientists saw climate change as a distant prospect. We now know that thinking was wrong. This summer, for instance, a heat wave in Europe penetrated the Arctic, pushing temperatures into the 80s across much of the Far North and, according to the Belgian climate scientist Xavier Fettweis, melting some 40 billion tons of Greenland’s ice sheet.

Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist. But many worst-case scenarios from that time are now realities.

Science is a process of discovery. It can move slowly as the pieces of a puzzle fall together and scientists refine their investigative tools. But in the case of climate, this deliberation has been accompanied by inertia born of bureaucratic caution and politics. A recent essay in Scientific American argued that scientists “tend to underestimate the severity of threats and the rapidity with which they might unfold” and said one of the reasons was “the perceived need for consensus.” This has had severe consequences, diluting what should have been a sense of urgency and vastly understating the looming costs of adaptation and dislocation as the planet continues to warm.

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group of thousands of scientists representing 195 countries, said in its first report that climate change would arrive at a stately pace, that the methane-laden Arctic permafrost was not in danger of thawing, and that the Antarctic ice sheets were stable.

Sign Up for Debatable
Agree to disagree, or disagree better? We'll help you understand the sharpest arguments on the most pressing issues of the week, from new and familiar voices.

SIGN UP
Relying on the climate change panel’s assessment, economists estimated that the economic hit would be small, providing further ammunition against an aggressive approach to reducing emissions and to building resilience to climate change.

As we now know, all of those predictions turned out to be completely wrong. Which makes you wonder whether the projected risks of further warming, dire as they are, might still be understated. How bad will things get?

So far, the costs of underestimation have been enormous. New York City’s subway system did not flood in its first 108 years, but Hurricane Sandy’s 2012 storm surge caused nearly $5 billion in water damage, much of which is still not repaired. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey gave Houston and the surrounding region a $125 billion lesson about the costs of misjudging the potential for floods.

The climate change panel seems finally to have caught up with the gravity of the climate crisis. Last year, the organization detailed the extraordinary difficulty of limiting warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), over the next 80 years, and the grim consequences that will result even if that goal is met.

More likely, a separate United Nations report concluded, we are headed for warming of at least 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. That will come with almost unimaginable damage to economies and ecosystems. Unfortunately, this dose of reality arrives more than 30 years after human-caused climate change became a mainstream issue.

The word “upended” does not do justice to the revolution in climate science wrought by the discovery of sudden climate change. The realization that the global climate can swing between warm and cold periods in a matter of decades or even less came as a profound shock to scientists who thought those shifts took hundreds if not thousands of years.

Scientists knew major volcanic eruptions or asteroid strikes could affect climate rapidly, but such occurrences were uncommon and unpredictable. Absent such rare events, changes in climate looked steady and smooth, a consequence of slow-moving geophysical factors like the earth’s orbital cycle in combination with the tilt of the planet’s axis, or shifts in the continental plates.

Then, in the 1960s, a few scientists began to focus on an unusual event that took place after the last ice age. Scattered evidence suggested that the post-ice age warming was interrupted by a sudden cooling that began around 12,000 years ago and ended abruptly 1,300 years later. The era was named the Younger Dryas for a plant that proliferated during that cold period.

At first, some scientists questioned the rapidity and global reach of the cooling. A report from the National Academies of Science in 1975 acknowledged the Younger Dryas but concluded that it would take centuries for the climate to change in a meaningful way. But not everyone agreed. The climate scientist Wallace Broecker at Columbia had offered a theory that changes in ocean circulation could bring about sudden climate shifts like the Younger Dryas.

And it was Dr. Broecker who, in 1975, the same year as that National Academies report playing down the Younger Dryas, published a paper, titled “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” in which he predicted that emissions of carbon dioxide would raise global temperatures significantly in the 21st century. This is now seen as prophetic, but at the time, Dr. Broecker was an outlier.

Then, in the early 1990s, scientists completed more precise studies of ice cores extracted from the Greenland ice sheet. Dust and oxygen isotopes encased in the cores provided a detailed climate record going back eons. It revealed that there had been 25 rapid climate change events like the Younger Dryas in the last glacial period.

The evidence in those ice cores would prove pivotal in turning the conventional wisdom. As the science historian Spencer Weart put it: “How abrupt was the discovery of abrupt climate change? Many climate experts would put their finger on one moment: the day they read the 1993 report of the analysis of Greenland ice cores. Before that, almost nobody confidently believed that the climate could change massively within a decade or two; after the report, almost nobody felt sure that it could not.”

In 2002, the National Academies acknowledged the reality of rapid climate change in a report, “Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises,” which described the new consensus as a “paradigm shift.” This was a reversal of its 1975 report.

“Large, abrupt climate changes have affected hemispheric to global regions repeatedly, as shown by numerous paleoclimate records,” the report said, and added that “changes of up to 16 degrees Celsius and a factor of 2 in precipitation have occurred in some places in periods as short as decades to years.”

The National Academies report added that the implications of such potential rapid changes had not yet been considered by policymakers and economists. And even today, 17 years later, a substantial portion of the American public remains unaware or unconvinced it is happening.

https://i.imgur.com/Zh4Srh0.jpg

Were the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, sea levels would rise by an estimated 225 feet worldwide. Few expect that to happen anytime soon. But those ice sheets now look a lot more fragile than they did to the climate change panel in 1995, when it said that little change was expected over the next hundred years.

In the years since, data has shown that both Greenland and Antarctica have been shedding ice far more rapidly than anticipated. Ice shelves, which are floating extensions of land ice, hold back glaciers from sliding into the sea and eventually melting. In the early 2000s, ice shelves began disintegrating in several parts of Antarctica, and scientists realized that process could greatly accelerate the demise of the vastly larger ice sheets themselves. And some major glaciers are dumping ice directly into the ocean.

By 2014, a number of scientists had concluded that an irreversible collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet had already begun, and computer modeling in 2016 indicated that its disintegration in concert with other melting could raise sea levels up to six feet by 2100, about twice the increase described as a possible worst-case scenario just three years earlier. At that pace, some of the world’s great coastal cities, including New York, London and Hong Kong, would become inundated.

Then this year, a review of 40 years of satellite images suggested that the East Antarctic ice sheet, which was thought to be relatively stable, may also be shedding vast amounts of ice.

https://i.imgur.com/au7ipES.jpg

As the seas rise, they are also warming at a pace unanticipated as recently as five years ago. This is very bad news. For one thing, a warmer ocean means more powerful storms, and die-offs of marine life, but it also suggests that the planet is more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought.

The melting of permafrost has also defied expectations. This is ground that has remained frozen for at least two consecutive years and covers around a quarter of the exposed land mass of the Northern Hemisphere. As recently as 1995, it was thought to be stable. But by 2005, the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimated that up to 90 percent of the Northern Hemisphere’s topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2100, releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.

For all of the missed predictions, changes in the weather are confirming earlier expectations that a warming globe would be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather. And there are new findings unforeseen by early studies, such as the extremely rapid intensification of storms, as on Sept. 1, when Hurricane Dorian’s sustained winds intensified from 150 to 185 miles per hour in just nine hours, and last year when Hurricane Michael grew from tropical depression to major hurricane in just two days.

If the Trump administration has its way, even the revised worst-case scenarios may turn out to be too rosy. In late August, the administration announced a plan to roll back regulations intended to limit methane emissions resulting from oil and gas exploration, despite opposition from some of the largest companies subject to those regulations. More recently, its actions approached the surreal as the Justice Department opened an antitrust investigation into those auto companies that have agreed in principle to abide by higher gas mileage standards required by California. The administration also formally revoked a waiver allowing California to set stricter limits on tailpipe emissions than the federal government.

Even if scientists end up having lowballed their latest assessments of the consequences of the greenhouse gases we continue to emit into the atmosphere, their predictions are dire enough. But the Trump administration has made its posture toward climate change abundantly clear: Bring it on!

It’s already here. And it is going to get worse. A lot worse.


livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 11:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

For decades, most scientists saw climate change as a distant prospect. We now know that thinking was wrong. This summer, for instance, a heat wave in Europe penetrated the Arctic, pushing temperatures into the 80s across much of the Far North and, according to the Belgian climate scientist Xavier Fettweis, melting some 40 billion tons of Greenland’s ice sheet.

It seems distant because of the human tendency to focus on their own generational present and regard past generational experiences as ancient history.

If you look at the Smokey Mountains today, they seem like they've always been well-forested as they are at present, but there are B&W photos from the 19th century where logging had completely plundered large areas, which have now regrown.

There are archeological studies that claim there was a time before ancient Greece when the arid land there was forest and that the forest was cleared for pasture and never allowed to reforest. To modern people, that seems more like a theoretical debate about the past than an indication that the present is in an artificially elevated state of deforestation.

People are also biased toward seeing deforestation as an issue only where human developments/cities haven't been established and culturally validated. E.g. you can look at any area where buildings stand and survey the density of tree canopy within the space and imagine what it would look like if the buildings were all removed and those few decorative trees were left standing alone.

The vast majority of human-populated areas are thus mostly deforested, but humans don't think of the cities they live in as 'deforested land.' Instead, they only think of areas that were recently cut as 'deforested forests,' and thus they think the problem of deforestation is something that happens outside cities; i.e. because they just don't think of cities as forests or deserts at all but just as cities.

In other words, people don't think about areas where humans live as simultaneously being biomes also. They think biome-classification is something for uninhabited land and inhabited land is just to be classified separately because it is inhabited.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 12:10 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
So, Americans believe that between 51 and 90 percent of scientists believe that global warming is happening. What do you think? How many scientists make up that famous 97% consensus among scientists regarding AGW?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 12:21 pm
@Glennn,
Glenn" wrote:
So, Americans believe that between 51 and 90 percent of scientists believe that global warming is happening.


Eugene Linden in NYT wrote:
https://i.imgur.com/VX8vbJr.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/UMS6dK7.jpg
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 12:22 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

So, Americans believe that between 51 and 90 percent of scientists believe that global warming is happening. What do you think? How many scientists make up that famous 97% consensus among scientists regarding AGW?

What's your point here? Are you implying that denialists are going to chip away at scientific consensus until global climate is deemed stable and unchanging, and certainly not due to human activities if it is?
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 12:46 pm
@livinglava,
Don't pretend that you didn't understand the question. How many scientists make up that famous 97% consensus among scientists regarding AGW?
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 12:58 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Don't pretend that you didn't understand the question. How many scientists make up that famous 97% consensus among scientists regarding AGW?

I'm just looking at the implications of your line of argument. You seem to be pushing toward a future in which scientific certainty about climate is replaced with something else, some kind of debate.

What exactly do you think is possible in terms of the truth about climate? Do you think it is possible that human land-use and fossil-fuel use are not causing CO2 levels to rise globally? Do you think that climate exists independently of everything that happens in the atmosphere, biosphere, oceans, and below?

Arguing about percentages is meaningless except as part of a larger strategy for pursuing truth. Do you have one?
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 01:07 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
I'm just looking at the implications of your line of argument.

No you're not. You're looking at ways to avoid answering my question. If you want debate this issue, then we're going to start at the beginning. The first thing we're going to address is the statements that have been made by various authorities whose repeated mantras have been taken as unquestionable truth.

So, let's settle that right now. How many scientists make up that famous 97% consensus among scientists regarding AGW?
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 01:25 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I'm just looking at the implications of your line of argument.

No you're not. You're looking at ways to avoid answering my question. If you want debate this issue, then we're going to start at the beginning. The first thing we're going to address is the statements that have been made by various authorities whose repeated mantras have been taken as unquestionable truth.

So, let's settle that right now. How many scientists make up that famous 97% consensus among scientists regarding AGW?

I don't care. I've never taken any consensus among any people, scientists, Democrats, or otherwise as an indication that climate change is more or less real.

I just look at how CO2 is made and how fossil-fuels form and how greenhouse gases block infrared, and how human activities (pre and post industrialization) affect the environment, how the state of the environment relates to the weather and climate patterns, etc.

I don't care whether I am in the 99%, 1%, 97%, or 50%; because no amount of other people are going to make me more or less right than I am based on the realities of how the universe actually works outside of politicized human ideologies.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 01:28 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
I don't care.

Okay.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 01:37 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I don't care.

Okay.

You are an irritating poster, because you would rather quote things out of context and avoid responding to what I said in a post and otherwise squelch anything except your stupid agenda of arguing over percentages without responding to discussion that addresses the relevance of such percentages.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/16/2019 at 07:55:06