Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by lanokia, Jan 10, 2020.
Define the evidence you are referring to.
The consequences of this have not been fully explored IMO.
You also stated:
"a practical way to reverse the harm we have done in order to extend the lifespan of our species."
Have you any idea what will have to happen for this to take place? (even though any effect on climate change that it might have, is pure speculation).
Nope, a sceptic is rational.
Indeed, what if we stop destroying the environment and create a cleaner, better world for nothing?
Anti capitalist - not met any of them. There might be a few about, but since the fall of communism in the USSR it's quite a hard argument to push. There are plenty of people however who feel that the neo-liberal hard right red in tooth and claw viciousness of American style late capitalism needs toning down so it is less evil, destructive and unavoidable. Sadly we in the UK appear to be importing it.
Anti-Trumpism - all for that. The man is an idiotic, egotistical, racist, sexist, lying, misogynistic, orange toddler and failed businessman who is quite possibly seriously mentally ill. He is probably the least appropriate person to inhabit the oval office, and it is a national shame and embarrassment to America that he does. It is interesting to ask the question though, if the presidency is important how can Trump of all people be president. Maybe the president is merely the front man...
Many people have been wrong throughout history. It is the job of science to remove as much of that error as possible. It's been very effective. The science of climate change is unambiguous. Either that or I am a shill for big Green Energy...
Good points well made.
Unnecessary and untrue comment.
Not many would disagree here although the AGW undertones are the spoilers.
Have you lived in the USA? Those I know over there love it.
This is where you expose your political bias, are you comfortable insulting many millions of US citizens who voted for President Trump (and will again soon)?
The US constitution forms the governmental structures and strictures.
Science is about establishing truth and/or separating fact from fiction.
The science of climate change is an unstructured statement with little real meaning to it and to say it is unambiguous further demonstrates your personal lack of scientific practices. Climate change is a result of many ‘chaotic’ factors and as such is observable but it can never be unambiguous IMO.
Maybe you should try talking to more people then?
I'm not at all sure why you mention me here- I've never said you should be locked up or otherwise punished for your stupidity.
That along with your cowardice is your own problem- you just have to live with it.
Oh my days.
I'm afraid there is a direct link.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
This CO2 is causing the dangerous increase in temperature.
Pure supposition at best. Explain how any isotopic differences affect climate, if you can.
In the mean time I will read into it and get back to you.
The excess heat is from CO2. It is being absorbed at those wavelengths. Natural factors are accounted for.
That CO2 has an isotopic content showing largely human origin.
Where's the tricky bit?
I suppose it would be pointless to ask yet again what is doing the heating as all natural factors are accounted for.
The suns variable activity
Earths magnetic field variability
Steady rate warming since last ice age
Models do not account for these in fact data input for modelling is far to recent for the output to be accurate.
"The excess heat is from CO2. It is being absorbed at those wavelengths. Natural factors are accounted for.
That CO2 has an isotopic content showing largely human origin."
Where is your evidence for such sweeping statements?
Also consider the data tampering to make the data fit the hypothesis:
The graphs and charts clearly show that previous much hotter weather data has been altered to fit the desired narrative (panic mongering gloom and doom).
I don't think he's saying that different isotopes have different effects, just that the isotopes indicate the source of the CO2.
Look, these can be measured. They have been measured.
They are actually keeping the Earth cooler than it otherwise would be at the moment. When this changes, the Earth will be even warmer. The fact that you do not know this shows me that you basically don't understand the climate, and don't really have a clue what you're talking about, but are just repeating things off the internet.
Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years show that there is less long-wave heat radiation escaping the atmopshere at the wavelengths associated with CO2.
CO2 isotopic content can be simply measured. As more CO2 from fossil fuels enters the atmosphere, the ration of C13 to C12 decreases. Today, this ratio is lower than at any other time in the last 10,000 years.
It's just blindingly obvious and accepted by all scientists. You can try and explain it away, but you can't explain the measurements away. Other than to say every scientist in the world is getting their computers to lie.