Sounds like you’ve read a lot of the scientific literature on climatology and have an informed understanding of their methodology? Care to tell us specifically where they went wrong? How about just breaking down those experiments 150 years ago that demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 traps heat? What was the error in their methodology?
Because they're hypothesis relies on 2 multiple points. The biggest one that is impossible to prove is the atmospheric composition thousands of millions of years ago. They use ice samples for those air samples but there is no way to verify that is the case. Also, with the discovery of thousands of volcanos on Antarctica under the ice, it substantially puts into question samples used from there as well.
What exactly is wrong with the assumption that a bubble trapped in ice 10,000 years ago contains 10,000 year old air? If you buy a sealed bottle of 30 year old Scotch, you actually expect it to contain 30 year old Scotch right? My issue with you non scientists is that because you believe because you don’t understand science that it isn’t legit. Fuck man, I don’t understand how NASA predicts eclipses but smart people have been doing that shit for hundreds of years. My lack of knowledge hardly negates the expertise of people who are far smarter than me.
Again.... Basic scientific theory states that only PROVEN facts are able to be used to substantiate a hypothesis. There is NO WAY to prove that air bubble is in fact for the time they say it is. Ice can easily melt and re-solidify and shift under other layers of ice. There is no possible way to say with 100% certainty that THAT particular air bubble is what they think it is. But they all assume that.
You know those cores have distinct annual strata like tree rings, right? If the whole column melted as you suggested those annuli would be lost. You’re making up criticisms of a process you don’t actually understand. The absurd criticism you just offered would throw out the entire study of geology (because we weren’t actually there to see the river carving that valley), paleontology (you can’t assume those fossils were once living creatures), cosmology (you can’t assume that light didn’t change in the billions of years since it left that distant galaxy), medicine (you can’t assume your experimental treatment worked and God or aliens didn’t actually intervene to save your patient), archaeology, microbiology, quantum physics, chemistry etc etc etc. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
Interesting article but it does not in any way attempt to debunk the science of climatology.Science will never be settled,lol. Read this article. So much for 97% of scientists agree on one thing.
For more than a decade, scientific journals have been the battleground for skirmishes over this impact hypothesis. The idea has drawn opponents from a spectrum of scientific fields, including paleoclimatology, physics and archaeology. The critics contend that there is little to no reproducible or incontrovertible evidence for many of the key arguments of the hypothesis.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/younger-dryas-comet-impact-cold-snap
Then, at about 12,800 years ago, something strange happened. Earth was abruptly plunged back into a deep chill. Temperatures in parts of the Northern Hemisphere plunged to as much as 8 degrees Celsius colder than today. The cold snap lasted only about 1,200 years — a mere blip, in geologic time. Then, just as abruptly, Earth began to warm again. But many of the giant mammals were dying out. And the Clovis people had apparently vanished.
“Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity,[1][2] refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time,[3] but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space.[4] Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.[5]” -wikipedia
Kinda sad when an ol' man discovers the internet and becomes a genius in his own mind by cherrypicking information to try and fit into his delusional mind. Even sadder when that ol' man is a condescending idiot filled with hate for a man he has never met or understands one iota.....
If your reading comprehension was ANYWHERE near adult level you MIGHT see was I suggested is 100% plausible and nothing like how you interpreted it. I know precisely how those ice cores are recovered and what they contain.
Even sadder when another old fool expresses opinions and doesn’t even try to back them up with facts.Kinda sad when an ol' man discovers the internet and becomes a genius in his own mind by cherrypicking information to try and fit into his delusional mind. Even sadder when that ol' man is a condescending idiot filled with hate for a man he has never met or understands one iota.....
Don’t like Wikipedia? Maybe buy yourself a copy of Charles Lyells’s 1830 book “Principles of Geology”. It’s kinda the book that started the entire science of geology and lays out the principles of uniformitarianism which directly relate to ice core analysis. To recap, that is the fundamental scientific assumption that natural processes in the past were similar to those we can observe today which allows us to draw inferences about events which occurred long ago and cannot be directly viewed now. Virtually every branch of modern science adheres to this basic assumption, but I guess you probably discount them all.
Facts? In your head, not mine or anyone with a lick of common sense. All a play on promoting junk science theories is what you throw out. Read the above post by spectra.
Given Fahrenheit did not invent the first thermometer until 1709, and paper was not invented until about 105AD, how did they record temperatures 4,600 million years ago in the precambrian era?
I also wonder given that the first tangible link to man is only about 6 million years ago, unless of course you are christian in which case it is only a few thousand years, who recorded the temps 4,600 million years ago?
It's very confusing......
Dude, never once have I said climate doesn’t fluctuate naturally and without human influence. What I and 97% of the world’s climate experts are saying is that THIS PARTICULAR cycle of global warming is caused by the 375 billion tons of CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere through combustion since the start of the industrial revolution. That is a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of a gas which 150 years ago we learned traps solar radiation as heat.GMac, the whole debate in this thread started because of a self proclaimed expert on NBC shutting down open minded discussion as saying, science is settled, GW is man made ,period!
I remembered reading about ice core samples taken in Greenland almost 20 yrs ago, so I googled it. Here it is>
Ice-core records show that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas extending into low latitudes, with less variability over historical times. These ice-core records come from high mountain glaciers and the polar regions, including small ice caps and the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/
As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability. Records of these changes are especially clear in high-resolution ice cores. Ice cores can preserve histories of local climate (snowfall, temperature), regional (wind-blown dust, sea salt, etc.), and broader (trace gases in the air) conditions, on a common time scale, demonstrating synchrony of climate changes over broad regions.
So, climate change or GW is not man made, it's a continuous and constant part of Earth's atmosphere.
I wished that all the pundits in the media and the climate nazis would read this entire article before trying to educate the masses about climate change.
Hell, the ozone depletion thing is all a theory & they don't have 100% proof of what would cause it, if it's actually happening. All theories.
Yet the "idiot facts" are they knew all this shit 150 years ago.......
see post 108
Climate Change Alarmists Caught FAKING Sea Level Rise
Oh oh, now you have done it. You provided scientific references that don’t agree with his. Be prepared for a bunch of pages of bullshit, pull up your boots.
Now you’ve opened pandora’s box of stupidity....enjoy
.
Thank you for your reply. Can you provide links for the numbers you gave on CO2 emission and the weight of the atmosphere? I do understand the carbon cycle which you described and tentatively accept that over the entirety of Earth’s history the average CO2 has been higher. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but for the first billion there was no life on the planet capable of photosynthesis. I would guess the highest [CO2] were during that Hadean and Archaeon time frame, but I don’t know that to be true. Since then, the process of photosynthesis has created a carbon sink in which on net more CO2 has been pulled from the atmosphere and then locked up as fossil fuel than is released back into the atmosphere. I also understand that other processes including volcanism and warming oceans can release CO2 back into the atmosphere, so I expect a graph of atmospheric [CO2] would not show a perfect downward trajectory but I would expect that to be the trend. Plankton in the seas and plants on land jump started the process of pulling CO2 from the atmosphere and releasing O2, while creating glucose and other carbohydrates. Inconceivable amounts of this stuff was converted under heat and geologic pressure into coal, oil, and natural gas. After nearly driving the whales to extinction for whale oil to light our lamps, humans discovered fossil fuels and ushered in the Industrial Age. The numbers I’ve seen indicate that we have put 375 billion tonnes of CO2 back into the atmosphere and that this is the equivalent of a 40% increase in [CO2] since the start of the Industrial Revolution. At the same time we begin to take some pretty sophisticated measurents of the earths temp and Find a global warming trend which perfectly correlates to CO2 concentration. Sounds like you understand that CO2 does trap solar radiation as heat (and I agree this is a good thing since I don’t particularly want to freeze on a Mars like planet with minimal atmosphere, but I also don’t want to have the flesh boiled off my bones on a planet like Venus with runaway global warming). I’m sure there’s more to unpackaged in your response but it’s too late in the evening for more now. I will challenge one assertion though- that all of the climate data is drummed up by self motivated academics looking to make a buck. I’ve published my own thesis and understand and respect the peer review process. It is designed to detect flawed methodologies and logic, and scientists are rewarded (not always immediately, but eventually) for overturning the apple cart and debunking widely believed falsehoods.
Dear Sir,
I'm just here to help. LOL
