Ocean News

The link between conspiratorial thinking and science denial has serious and practical consequences. Conspiracy theorists are immune to scientific evidence, as any evidence conflicting with their beliefs is considered part of a conspiracy. The implication is that the most effective approach is not changing the mind of the unchangeable. Rather a more fruitful approach is communicating the realities of climate change to the large, undecided majority who are open to scientific evidence. A crucial part of the puzzle is explaining the techniques of science denial. This has the powerful effect of inoculating people against the misinformation of climate science deniers

 

Climate Change Denier?
No.
The climate is and has always been in a state of constant change. Do I deny mankind is responsible for the change in climate? Yes!

 

1, 2 and 3 are not contradictory, but complimentary. You might try re-reading the explanations before you so glibly ignore them.

In previous posts we've discussed whether warming preceded CO2 increases, or followed them. I won't continue that argument here. But that discussion has to do with how the ice ages ended, not with what has happened in the last century or so, which is what we're talking about here.

 

Really, Yob, you're embarrassing yourself. The explanations do make sense; it's you whose not making any substantive counter-arguments. You're just saying that you can't understand it, so it must not be true.

 

Again, you're making glib statements with no substance behind them. How do you explain all the pieces of this puzzle, (lowering O2 levels, and CO2 levels not as high as they 'should' be given the amount of fossil fuels being burnt) only by invoking natural means, and by not invoking the burning of fossil fuels?

 

Yobs rants on saying WE all the time, I suppose he means "hoytetow" and that he is the majority when stupidly produces a poll chart a child could read but he can not understand in simple picture form that clearly shows he is by far the huge minority, then rants on about conspiracy's, scams and the majority "97%" climate scientist are corrupt.

 

If someone says in an argument, that something is too small by a factor of 10, they hope you wil dismiss it as inconsequential without thinking.
If they said it was responsible for 10%, you wouldn't be so quick to ignore it.

Too small by factor of 10, means it would take 10 times the amount to total all, or 100%. 1/10th of 100% is 10%.
What was your reason for saying I embarrass myself?
I understood what the writer was TRYING to say in statement 10, but a very poorly constructed sentence.
'due to warming" is clearer than 'with temperature".

 

"the very slight decrease in the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere. These factors are reasonably, but not exactly known. It is important to note that because the fall in O2 concentration is significantly less than that predicted from known combustion of fossil fuels,"

Easy to account for!
Decrease in O2 is tiny, and can be the oxygen combining with carbon in accelerated decaying biomass, producing the extra CO2 decay contributes because bacteria proliferate when it's warmer. in addition to the decay's normal emission, always a far greater quantity of CO2, than mans modest CO2 from carbon fuel use.

And the decrease in O2 is LESS by a significant amount (read significant as a LOT less) than the climate models predictions, because they were expecting combustion of fossil fuels would have made a marked difference in oxygen level. It didn't!


And all this hullabaloo about CO2 is senseless. The data PROVES temperature isn't rising with CO2.

And aren't you embarrassed to claim, though CO2 followed warming after the ice-ages, recently the laws of physics changed in modern time, and so now warming follows CO2?
Irrational Number!

I well understand why AGWers try to brush off the CO2 follows warming data.
Your position is untenable!

 

When I say, WE, myark, I mean my fellow Americans and I.
The socialists are a minority in this country, and I predict there'll be even fewer in a few years.
I invite socialists to come to Florida during tourist season.
I'm working on convincing our legislature to declare it an OPEN season, no bag limit!

 

"almost exactly correlates" with means equals
3." is less than' means Not equal.

I call those two statements contradictory.

If that's complimentary (augmenting) in your POV? English must not be your native language.

 

No, correlate does not mean equal. Look it up

 

When I read the SkepticalScience explanation for #6 I think I understand what they are saying, though I have to assume that their data and analysis is correct. When I read your explanation I have a very hard time understanding what you are saying, and I a very low level of confidence in its accuracy, because you don't give any scientific references to back your assertions.

 

Paleoclimatic records such as ice cores and ocean sediments indicate that the cycling of ice ages over the past several million years has been controlled by changes in the intensity of sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere summer due to variations over tens of thousands of years in the orbit of the Earth around the sun (the so-called Milankovitch cycles).

Positive feedback mechanisms related to the release of greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane amplify the effect of the orbital cycles and lead to large changes in Earth's climate. CO2 increased during interglacials because a warmer ocean doesn't hold as much carbon dioxide as a cold ocean and so oceans released some back into the atmosphere as the planet warmed. This increase in atmospheric CO2 then further warmed the planet leading to the release of even more carbon dioxide. Given this understanding of the ice ages, we would expect increases in greenhouse gasses to lag increases in temperature at the end of a glacial period, which is just what we see in the geologic record.

Just because carbon dioxide was not the factor driving climate change during the ice ages, does not mean that it is not today. Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are initiating the cycle of warming through a different mechanism then what happened previously during inter-glacials, but the warming effect of CO2 is the same in both cases.

There is also plenty of evidence in the longer geological record that greenhouse gases have had a major influence on planetary temperature in the past. Examples are the Palecoene-Eocene boundary (55 million years ago) and the late Cretaceous (around 80 million years ago).

 

Are you illiterate or do you have a visual impairment?

 

We already have too many socialists in Florida spending other people's money. Let them stay up north and enjoy the sub-zero degree global warming.

No bag limit? I thought you were a monogamist.