patrick.net

Tenpoundbass says

Great Barrier Reef experiencing ‘record high’ levels of coral coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znOidiyUnq8

It's anecdotal, but you're probably right.

They vaccinated all the coral, and it will all be dead by this time next year. Back to the Global Warming agenda.

richwicks says

It's anecdotal, but you're probably right.

IT's not anecdotal, it was the biggest talking point in 2007 that Global Warming was real because the Great Barrier Reef was bleaching. I also love how they were full of shit about how long it takes for reefs to rebound and recover. We were told it takes centuries. It seems growth spread like weeds growing in a field saturated with 1000 gallons of spilt Miracle Grow.

But they were also full of shit about how many years it takes for Plastic breakdown, with the sun it happens in months not years, and they were also full of shit about how long it takes for Nuclear contamination to neutralize and be safe for life.

It should be illegal punishable by 20 years in prison for Liberals to even think about Science. It's the human thing to do!

Remember the Coral was dying because of Sea Level rise, and the coral not being killed by colder deeper depths, were bleaching because the Ocean temperature increased 1/3 of a 1/3 degree. They said this shit with a straight fucking face, like we are all as stupid as they are.
We should call them all back here and make them explain themselves for having such a high level of stupidity.
I wonder if Dog the Bounty hunter would round them up?

Are the coral reefs due for their boosters yet?

Not familiar with Aussie media, but this comes off as an equivalent to Fox News, which is reporting to support a pre-determined conclusion. The ONE data set they showed was a graph with a long downward trend with two outlier spikes at its end in 2020. This does not prove the long term coral issues were not serious, or that they are cured long term. It's the equivalent to an American dipshit posting some January morning "8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"

Your title shows that you know nothing of science. You're not someone I can take seriously on matters of world importance. Heck, you're not even pleasant to hang around with to joke and banter about non-serious stuff for everyone who doesn't share your exact same suite of misunderstandings and delusions about the way things work.

Automan Empire says

Not familiar with Aussie media, but this comes off as an equivalent to Fox News, which is reporting to support a pre-determined conclusion. The ONE data set they showed was a graph with a long downward trend with two outlier spikes at its end in 2020. This does not prove the long term coral issues were not serious, or that they are cured long term. It's the equivalent to an American dipshit posting some January morning "8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"

Look, if there's a warm day in the middle of the winter, or a storm hits the coast, we likewise have people screaming it's the end of the world and we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED in 10 years.

There is no fundamental data to make an analysis. Climate models aren't available (and yes, I CAN run them, IF they were), original temperature data isn't available, the SUPPOSED "models" don't conform to past observations, and their future predictions are worthless.

People have good reason to distrust the whole concept of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" at this point. Government hasn't done anything real about it, it appears to be nothing more than a scam. And just how much better does infra-red radiation get reflected by CO2 versus Nitrogen anyhow? You can't even get fundamental answers like that and supposedly CO2 is a greenhouse gas. On top of it are the constantly lies, that the fires on the West Coast are caused by "global warming" or that the Arctic is "ice free", that polar bears are being driven to extinction, that the glaciers are going to disappear, etc. etc. etc.

It's all just BS.

Automan Empire says

"8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"

When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?

Not expecting a cogent answer.

Onvacation says

Automan Empire says

"8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"

When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?

ANY MOMENT NOW!!!!

richwicks says

People have good reason to distrust the whole concept of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" at this point. Government hasn't done anything real about it, it appears to be nothing more than a scam. And just how much better does infra-red radiation get reflected by CO2 versus Nitrogen anyhow? You can't even get fundamental answers like that and supposedly CO2 is a greenhouse gas. On top of it are the constantly lies, that the fires on the West Coast are caused by "global warming" or that the Arctic is "ice free", that polar bears are being driven to extinction, that the glaciers are going to disappear, etc. etc. etc.

This is a Gish Gallop of ignorant maundering. Let's address the issue of warming potential of nitrogen V CO2. You did not even conceptualize the issue correctly. The greenhouse effect isn't an effect of any atmospheric gas REFLECTING. The fundamental behavior of atmospheric gases is very well understood, is measurable, and the claims about measurements are repeatable and independently verifiable. See if you can respond to these two specific points in a scientific manner.

Onvacation says

When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?

The question presupposes a number of things in a manner counter to my understanding of climate science and global warming effects claims. I don't think "Arctic ice free by (date certain) is a legitimate question or a prediction that can be made with certainty. That people vomit out answers left and right all the time does not invalidate or disprove the concept of AGW.

Looking forward to addressing any sensible good faith questions you may furnish.

Automan Empire says

Looking forward to addressing any sensible good faith questions you may furnish.

Where the model? If there's no model, how are predictions being made?

I spent a good deal of time being all excited that I had a computer that could LITERALLY simulate a Cray supercomputer from the 1980's. I'm not kidding when I say I can do nuclear bomb simulation on my machine. Why are no climate models available, to anybody, to verify the supposed models?

Automan Empire says

This is a Gish Gallop of ignorant maundering. Let's address the issue of warming potential of nitrogen V CO2. You did not even conceptualize the issue correctly. The greenhouse effect isn't an effect of any atmospheric gas REFLECTING. The fundamental behavior of atmospheric gases is very well understood, is measurable, and the claims about measurements are repeatable and independently verifiable.

Well, re-emission of the infra-red photon then.

If CO2 is indeed more likely to retain heat than N2 - if it's a better insulator, how much better is CO2?

The "claims" as far as I'm aware of is "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". I've never seen a quantifiable number tied to that. Can you show me any other claim that is made? What measurements have been made? Who has verified the claims?

Automan Empire says

See if you can respond to these two specific points in a scientific manner.

What, specifically, do you think I don't understand?

I'm tired of this "debate". Not a single useful prediction has been made in my entire lifetime. People who thought they were scientists have wasted their ENTIRE CAREERS on what is obviously a political ploy.

richwicks says

I'm tired of this "debate".

Tired of it? You never ENGAGED it beyond superficial talking points in the first place.



richwicks says

Well, re-emission of the infra-red photon then.

Good save. From there you went back to argument from incredulity. There's plenty of good information available to anyone wanting to make a good faith effort to understand the topic.

HunterTits says

That's rich coming from AE.

You have a specific beef about something I didn't respond to? Or just bringing memes to a discussion of science?

HunterTits says

That's rich coming from AE.

Your contribution to the thread meanwhile: One post with a cartoon, an unattributed chart, a meme, and an 11 year old cover from an openly anti-AGW biased publication.

That's rich indeed.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

I'm tired of this "debate".

Tired of it? You never ENGAGED it beyond superficial talking points in the first place.

But I have, many many many times, on BOTH sides of the issue, until I realized I was wrong. I don't know a single prediction that has been correct, and the lies, which I once believed, all belong to the side claiming there's impending doom. There were claims back in the "naughts", I guess is the word, the arctic had been ice free one summer. This was complete BS of course, but I now recognize our "news" will lie about easily verified facts all the time. It's always been this way.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

Well, re-emission of the infra-red photon then.

Good save. From there you went back to argument from incredulity.

There's no evidence that CO2 retains heat more than N2. None that I've seen anyhow, and it's easy to check.

A mile long straight pipe filled with each gas should block an infra-red laser (or scatter it) more or less in a quantifiable way. No experiment such as that has been done.

This whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect is based on Venus from the 1970's, but the atmosphere is 93 bar, it's 95% CO2, and about 1 bar. Attributing it's much hotter atmosphere to just the atmosphere is silly, given that the sun dumps 2x the amount of energy on that planet than ours.

I spent a considerable amount of time trying to find a model. Then raw data (you can find that at NOAA, but it had to be sued to be obtained, and they adulterated the data), so you can't trust it. Ocean levels have no risen, and we've had far FAR higher concentrations of CO2 in this atmosphere before. It, paradoxically, appears to be greening the planet, not killing life. It's gone up from 280 ppm to around 410 since 1800.

Al Gore hasn't helped, go watch an Inconvenient Truth and try to find a prediction he made that was right.

This has been 35 years of hysteria, in which I believed it from 1985 to around 2010. Now they are pulling out Greta Thunberg. I don't see why a 16 year old high school dropout with a family that has been involved with acting and entertainment is more credible than a model, which they will NOT provide.

It's pointless to argue about this from my point of view. It's become a religion, one based on faith. The mysterious, unobtainable models are wrong so wrong, this can't even be considered a science. But anybody that questions it, points out the history of ridiculously wrong predictions, is always called stupid, or ignorant, or whatever. They aren't, they are just a lot more skeptical than I was, and good for them. They had less reason to be skeptical, it took me 25 years of being stymied in doing ANY verification before I realized, you can't verify it at all. I wanted to model it back in 2005 and 15 years later go "HA! SEEE! This was predicted!" but you can't do it.

richwicks says

This whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect is based on Venus from the 1970's

Conditions on Venus have nothing to do with the way Earth warming models were developed and refined. This sounds like as crude a rejection as OP. "They modeled it after Venus so obvs false on Earth."

richwicks says

A mile long straight pipe filled with each gas should block an infra-red laser (or scatter it) more or less in a quantifiable way. No experiment such as that has been done.

A cartoonishly absurd test setup, of COURSE nobody has done THAT. For scale, the gas bench used to measure car exhaust for smog checks is smaller than a loaf of bread. Crude experiments can be done at the elementary school science fair level showing heat retention effect in mason jar size samples. Actually quantifying the heat retention effect by CO2 concentration is a college freshman or HS AP level task.

richwicks says

Al Gore hasn't helped

You assume everyone not skeptical of AGW must be "following" him or something? I've been hearing him since the dawn of the Clinton presidency, and never liked the guy, and never uncritically "bought in" to his predictions. At this point, his overselling wrecked his own credibility and reputation AND that of the very concept of AGW among skeptics, and won few long term fans among those of us not skeptical.

Al Gore is beside the point. I see plenty of evidence the earth is warming rapidly, and that human activity is a big driver.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

This whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect is based on Venus from the 1970's

Conditions on Venus have nothing to do with the way Earth warming models were developed and refined. This sounds like as crude a rejection as OP. "They modeled it after Venus so obvs false on Earth."

No. Stupid model. Why would they ascribe the heat of Venus to CO2? I don't know why, but they did. What basis did they make THAT decision??

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

A mile long straight pipe filled with each gas should block an infra-red laser (or scatter it) more or less in a quantifiable way. No experiment such as that has been done.

A cartoonishly absurd test setup, of COURSE nobody has done THAT. For scale, the gas bench used to measure car exhaust for smog checks is smaller than a loaf of bread. Crude experiments can be done at the elementary school science fair level showing heat retention effect in mason jar size samples. Actually quantifying the heat retention effect by CO2 concentration is a college freshman or HS AP level task.

I have NEVER seen this done. Been to plenty of science fairs. And yes, it's cartoonishly simple, but it's not done. I've never seen a comparison of heat retention of N2 versus CO2. You'd think they'd do this since they are claiming CO2 is the PRIMARY DRIVER of Climate Change.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

Al Gore hasn't helped

You assume everyone not skeptical of AGW must be "following" him or something?

What the fuck is "AGW"? I guess that's Al-Gore? I'm pointing out he made a film that was filled with bad predictions. I assume he had SOME competent people involved with making that film, and if he did, well, they were all fucking way off on their predictions.

Automan Empire says

Al Gore is beside the point. I see plenty of evidence the earth is warming rapidly, and that human activity is a big driver.

Well demonstrate it.

That's never done. Just fucking lie after lie after lie about what has happened.

richwicks says

It's pointless to argue about this from my point of view. It's become a religion, one based on faith. The mysterious, unobtainable models are wrong so wrong, this can't even be considered a science. But anybody that questions it, points out the history of ridiculously wrong predictions, is always called stupid, or ignorant, or whatever. They aren't, they are just a lot more skeptical than I was, and good for them. They had less reason to be skeptical, it took me 25 years of being stymied in doing ANY verification before I realized, you can't verify it at all. I wanted to model it back in 2005 and 15 years later go "HA! SEEE! This was predicted!" but you can't do it.

I agree it would be nice to play with models ourselves. Once you start thinking in those terms REALLY seriously, it becomes obvious the problem of combinatorial explosion. I think it's less a problem of "The models are fake and calibrated to "prove" AGW" and more one of needing to practically build a scale model of the Earth in order for it to attain decent predictive power.`Even the best state of the art computing power brought to bear on the problem of WEATHER prediction goes exponentially fuzzy just 12-24-48 hours out. Even the best weather modeling algorithms, from any start point in recent history with terabytes of real world actuarial data to plug in, can't predict what ACTUALLY HAPPENS NEXT very far into the future. It's not because the model makers have ulterior motives... it's because what they're trying to model is complex beyond our memory and processor power. (Ninja edit, as if modelling chaotic systems is even possible.)

It's pretty ambitious to want to run climate models on par with the state of the art on your own computer. I think participating in a distributed solution akin to SETI@home is the closest we'll personally get even with a virtual CRAY in our home office.

richwicks says

What the fuck is "AGW"

Let's call it a shibboleth then. Kind of like hearing someone say nuke-you-lurr energy. It's a marker that the person's depth of knowledge of the topic doesn't correspond to their heights of passion for discussing it.

richwicks says

Crude experiments can be done at the elementary school science fair level showing heat retention effect in mason jar size samples. Actually quantifying the heat retention effect by CO2 concentration is a college freshman or HS AP level task.

I have NEVER seen this done. Been to plenty of science fairs.

Cool, so you just used your personal experience at science fairs to model what actually happened at every science fair at every school in the country every year for decades?

How does that set up the gravitas of your opinions on climate modeling?

HunterTits says

the next doubling of PPM WILL NOT mean a corresponding doubling of temperatures anyway.

Congratulations, you just debunked an argument that makes no mathematical sense, and that nobody but enthusiastic but uneducated groupie-level AGW enthusiasts, nor myself, ever made.

Automan Empire says

Cool, so you just used your personal experience at science fairs to model what actually happened at every science fair at every school in the country every year for decades?

No, I'm pointing out even the SIMPLEST experiments haven't been done. Even the most OBVIOUS tests haven't been done. CO2 does not appear to be a greenhouse gas and I have seen no evidence it is other than assertions which aren't backed up with anything.

Automan Empire says

How does that set up the gravitas of your opinions on climate modeling?

I am not doing climate modelling.

I'm pointing out, it doesn't appear anybody actually is.

The claims of climate change being catastrophic, or really even noticeable, are vastly overstated. They don't even do simple tests, I doubt they do complicated ones.

NOAA's real work is keeping track of weather for shipping and travel. Anything beyond that is just BS.

There's been 35 years of hysteria. It's destroyed trust in our scientific community. I listen to Neil Degrass Tyson or Bill Nye about this garbage, and just have to laugh at this point. Not a SINGLE CORRECT PREDICTION in 35 years.

The whole climate change crap is another grab for power, and I'm sick of people falling for it. That's what this stupid pandemic is about, another grab for power. It's fucking obvious, you have 300 people at a party, only people masked are the servants. It's disgusting people can't see it for what it is. They don't believe in this shit, and they think you're stupid if YOU believe in this shit.

Do you think AOC really thinks the world ends in 10 years? The Green New Deal is nothing more than a way to take a bunch of money, build a bunch of worthless infrastructure, and have a bunch of people skim off the top to make bank.

Automan Empire says

Your title shows that you know nothing of science. You're not someone I can take seriously on matters of world importance. Heck, you're not even pleasant to hang around with to joke and banter about non-serious stuff for everyone who doesn't share your exact same suite of misunderstandings and delusions about the way things work.

Well I don't hang around sniveling little Libtards, and Fucksticks that wouldn't be fun for me either.

Models aren't evidence: GIGO.

If Models were evidence, permanent plateaus in the housing markets would have been with us since 2008.

There's a reason Hockey Stick Mann drops all his irritant suits against his skeptics the moment the discovery phase is reached for his raw data.

Automan Empire says

Onvacation says

When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?

The question presupposes a number of things in a manner counter to my understanding of climate science and global warming effects claims.

yup

Automan Empire says

Looking forward to addressing any sensible good faith questions you may furnish.

OK. What about the "wetbulb"?

My predictions that water would come from land and not from the sea has been far more correct than any Global Warming, Climate Change, Sea rise bullshit.
The ocean is peaked out at 30K feet deep. It just can't give any more. The pressure pumps the water back into the crust, it shifts plates and creates more volcanos and earthquakes around the world. Fishers are opening up as the crust is rising from the extra water of the ice melt. Extinct rivers are coming back to life, new rivers are being created, old lakes are springing back to life, and existing lakes are drying up. As the water source it once had, is being redirected or cut off from all of the crust activity. Still no fucking sea level rise.
I can take you all over the fucking world and the geological changes since Al Gores Propaganda film that you hold to like a damned religion, where changes can actually be seen and measured. Where you can't show me one single coast line that has experienced sea level rise. Not one! There's been erosion, but mostly because humans have cleared the protective marshes, coastal marshes, and mangrove barriers. That has nothing to do with Cow Farts and neither does the extra inland water. That is also being displaced by a very active Atlantic thunderstorm season. it's getting everything nice and wet from the African West coast to the whole of the US Midwest. Again creating more measurable inland geological activity, than even one iota of sea level rise.
Just the earth doing what it de doing for millions of years. Sometimes coral and shit be white.
Know what I'm sayin'?

Tenpoundbass says

All of those Pseudo Scientist that was here on Patnet from 2007 - 2015 assuring us all that Global warming was real and we were stupid for not following the science.

They have it backwards as usual. Stupid people are those that follow "THE SCIENCE". Smart people follow Science.

Onvacation says

OK. What about the "wetbulb"?

What ever happened to the "WETBULB DUDE"?

HunterTits says

You forgot 2020: The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.

The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.
In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said. But tight maintenance budgets made it impossible for the park to immediately change the sign

Automan Empire says

I see plenty of evidence the earth is warming rapidly, and that human activity is a big driver.

Yes, in the same way that a Creation Science type sees plenty of evidence that Noah's arc existed and included dinosaurs as passengers.

CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere. Human activity has made CO2 a slightly higher trace element at best. It is also heavier than air. When more CO2 is introduced, plants tend to grow faster. That has been demonstrated in simple "AP High School" type environments.

280 ppm to around 410 since 1800. Just how did they measure atmospheric CO2 in 1800?

HeadSet says

280 ppm to around 410 since 1800. Just how did they measure atmospheric CO2 in 1800?

I'm uncertain, but I know ice cores have been used in the past to estimate it. I bet you could even do radiocarbon dating on it. From what (admittedly) little I know, I believe it's done by finding air bubbles in ice cores.

There's issues with the ice cores. It's believed there may be outgassing when the ice first forms: It occasionally melts here and there before finally freezing and staying frozen. Something to do with Ammonia Concentration, and near-equator ocean vs. polar ocean chemical content.

Of course, the global CO2 levels were much, much higher in the past and life was absolutely prevalent in all ecosystems.




Just 5 MYA, as late as when mammals became dominant, the CO2 levels were about double today's. It's been well over 2000 at least twice, again during plentiful life and higher order (and really, the largest) land and sea animals. We also know life is fine and dandy in times of no ice caps, too.

Global cooling is far worse, but we've known that during the existence of homo sapiens, when much of Europe was under a glacier. Later, modern humans could walk from Germany to Scotland to Norway without getting their feet wet and the Thames flowed into the Rhine.

richwicks says

we've had far FAR higher concentrations of CO2 in this atmosphere before. It, paradoxically, appears to be greening the planet, not killing life. It's gone up from 280 ppm to around 410 since 1800

It's not paradoxical - CO2 concentrations less than 200 ppm are nearly fatal to plants. During ice ages they get way too low to support plant life.

The below link on badtube from Dan Britt is an excellent talk on paleoclimatology. TLDR: Ice ages (excepting snowball earth due to the great oxygenation catastrophe back about 1 billion years ago) have only been occurring for the last 50 million or so years. The reason is that the Indian subcontinent collided with Asia, raising the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. This caused ferocious amounts of rock weathering, which depletes atmospheric CO2. This makes the Earth's climate susceptible to the variations in insolation caused by the Malankovitch cycles. In fact, based on the current phase of the Malankovitch cycles, we should already be in the early stages of the next glaciation period. Fossil fuels are in fact saving the planet from the next ice age.

Dan Britt - Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of Climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

Ceffer says

Are the coral reefs due for their boosters yet?

Why do you want to kill off coral reefs?

Who fucking cares? Let's just make shit more efficient. We'd do it naturally anyway, just don't force it on businesses and people. The reality is we need less people. CO2, science, etc. don't matter in the conversation at all. I don't care if warming is or isn't happing. It doesn't matter. This isn't a science debate. It's a human life debate.

That said, if I or my kids or eventually great grandkids die from global warming, who fucking cares? You're dead. Enjoy the life you have. Pollute as little as possible, be clean, otherwise have as much fucking fun as you can. We cannot control climate and never will be able to. We have boat captains that cannot even anchor a boat without hitting a marked pipeline.

stereotomy says

CO2 concentrations less than 200 ppm are nearly fatal to plants. During ice ages they get way too low to support plant life.

Yes, and this leads to a paradox. During the North American ice age, the continent was heavily populated with large herbivores like woolly mammoths, mastodons, rhinos, and horses. How did an ice environment support enough plants to feed all these giants?

Another mystery comes from the fossil of a dragonfly with a 4 foot wing span. Since insects breath through spiracles, they are size limited by how much oxygen they can infuse through what is essentially a tunnel to cells. So how could such a large insect exist? On a PBS "Eons" show, the lady explained that the atmosphere had twice as much oxygen at the time that could support that dragonfly and many other giant insects. If that is so, where did that oxygen go? It did not convert to CO2, since CO2 is so rare in today's atmosphere that if all the CO2 was broken down into carbon and oxygen, it would not release enough oxygen to to increase oxygen levels by even 1%. And if the atmosphere was 40% oxygen, imagine the epic forest fires, unless the plants of the era were very damp club mosses or very damp pithy structures.

HeadSet says

the fossil of a dragonfly with a 4 foot wing span

Can you imagine that hitting your windshield of getting stuck in your radiator or AC condenser?