Scientists Are Freaking Out About Ocean Temperatures

[Danderman123]

Anyone who claims that scientists support the Global Warming hypothesis for the money isn't thinking this through.

 

The data that supports the Global Warming hypothesis is generated by researchers who don't get paid based on the results, their job is to operate the instruments. If the instruments were to show cooling, the scientists get paid the same.

 

I happened to know the manager of the NASA sea level measurement satellite. His salary depended on getting the data from the satellite, not whether it showed a politically correct dataset.

 

The data from his satellite is crosschecked from other spacecraft, and via ground truth. There's no mechanism to fake the data to support the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

But, the reverse is true, no way data from correctly operating instruments can disprove the Global Warming hypothesis.  Unless the planet stops warming.

[Danderman123]

The Deniers here can't provide any data that contradicts the scientific assessment that the planet is warming from human pollution. 

 

They also can't explain what part of the hypothesis that they don't agree with.

 

Is it that CO2 causes atmospheric warming? 

 

Is that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 420 ppm?

 

The Deniers don't know, because they don't have instructions about how to talk rationally about Science. Instead, all they have are generalities to mumble about.

[johng]

On 3/4/2024 at 6:26 PM, Danderman123 said:

Is that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 420 ppm?

Have humans done that by breathing in and out ? or burning

"fossil fuels" leading to a vast overall increase in world wide prosperity.

 

Whatever the case it is a miniscule % increase in the atmospheric mix,

is the "final solution" the elimination of those breathing in and out producing the deadly C02 ???

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, johng said:

Have humans done that by breathing in and out ? or burning

"fossil fuels" leading to a vast overall increase in world wide prosperity.

 

Whatever the case it is a miniscule % increase in the atmospheric mix,

is the "final solution" the elimination of those breathing in and out producing the deadly C02 ???

You must be trolling, or supremely ignorant.

 

The Greenhouse Effect was discovered long ago. If you don't understand the effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperature,  why are you posting in this topic?

 

Better that you read a book about basic science. Or this:

 

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=Without carbon dioxide%2C Earth's natural,causing global temperature to rise.

 

[Danderman123]

29 minutes ago, johng said:

 

 

Whatever the case it is a miniscule % increase in the atmospheric mix,

 

Your scientific credentials are not quite adequate to assess the impact of a near doubling of atmospheric CO2.

 

Perhaps you could support your position with a link to some scientist who has researched the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Or go back to reading talking points.

[johng]

13 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your scientific credentials are not quite adequate to assess the impact of a near doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Yep already said I'm not a scientist   that doesn't mean I should just take the word of those that claim to be scientist

(or know someone at NASA)  as "gospel truth" 

I can believe of disbelieve anything I like of my own accord.

I can also come on these here "discussion" forums and express my views even if you don't like those views or think they are wrong.

 

 

14 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You must be trolling, or supremely ignorant.

I suggest It's you who are trolling trying to goad me into an emotional response..so I won't suggest that you are supremely arrogant.

 

Though perhaps you are Elon Musk the space entrepreneur ???

 

or as postulated earlier by @thaibeachlovers

 

"I'm beginning to wonder if you can actually read or if you are in fact a real person, and not an argument bot."

[TroubleandGrumpy]

4 minutes ago, johng said:

Yep already said I'm not a scientist   that doesn't mean I should just take the word of those that claim to be scientist

(or know someone at NASA)  as "gospel truth" 

I can believe of disbelieve anything I like of my own accord.

I can also come on these here "discussion" forums and express my views even if you don't like those views or think they are wrong.

 

 

I suggest It's you who are trolling trying to goad me into an emotional response..so I won't suggest that you are supremely arrogant.

Though perhaps you are Elon Musk the space entrepreneur ???

or as postulated earlier by @thaibeachlovers

"I'm beginning to wonder if you can actually read or if you are in fact a real person, and not an argument bot."

Or a new AI generated troll maybe?

Regarding the article it would be fair to say that a lot of people in the world (a majority) do not immediately believe scientific reports or the media who make the most out of them.  From the President of Harvard faking her published reports through to Scientists greatly exaggerating/distorting their reports - it has all been getting more and more 'iffy'.

 

I recall a bloke that worked for me some 10 years ago who was highly intelligent (and naive) - he had 3 degrees and an MBA - and he was very much a 'greenie'.  He ended up getting a job in the 'Environment Department' (Greenhouse Australia), and he quit after about 1 year.  When we caught up over a coffee for a chat he 'confessed' that the reason he quit was because they were 'fake'.  None of them really gave a rat's ear about the environment, and it was all just a sham for them to have an easy job and get funding for research. He actually challenged the veracity of one published report that claimed an imminent future disaster but based on extrmely biased parameters and statistical measuring methods. He was 'hauled over the coals' for daring to question anything that supported to IPC Mandate that the vast majority of global  warming was being caused by manmade activity - specifically the burning of fossil fuels - and the world was heading for a massive disaster.  When he challenenged this, and pointed out that there was zero research being funded or encouraged to look into additional causes, or the fact that plants were abosrn=bing more CO2 and crops were booming worldwide, he was 'dead in the water'.  As he said, there is a lot or correlation going on in the global 'science' community, but they mostly have very tenuous links being made to causation - basically it is all opinion based on a few scientific facts.  He claimed that the whole 'climate industry' from IPC down was all about a self-fulfilling argument - and that the actual researchers were totally focussed on getting funded to work on research that 'complied' with the mandate (and research that was against the narrative was not funded).  He reckoned they were basically a religion and that anyone like him challenging the 'gospel' was actively pushed out of the 'Church'.  He ended up going into business growing and selling organic produce with his second wife, on small farm that they bought - last I heard he was doing very well. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/4/2024 at 12:49 PM, Danderman123 said:

The data that supports the Global Warming hypothesis is generated by researchers who don't get paid based on the results, their job is to operate the instruments. If the instruments were to show cooling, the scientists get paid the same.

 

Exactly. What the instruments don't show is the Man Made element. They show the planet is warming, but it's the tame scientists that make it about humans being naughty. If it was accepted that it's a natural cycle they would not be able to tax us for it.

Follow the money.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/5/2024 at 12:26 AM, Danderman123 said:

The Deniers here can't provide any data that contradicts the scientific assessment that the planet is warming from human pollution.

This denier of human caused global warming doesn't give a rat's bottom about whether the planet is warming from fossil fuel use or nanobots from Mars. It doesn't pass the BS threshold.

Whatever the reason for it governments are not actually doing anything about it except as an excuse to impose new taxes, ergo it's BS.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your scientific credentials are not quite adequate to assess the impact of a near doubling of atmospheric CO2.

 

Perhaps you could support your position with a link to some scientist who has researched the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Or go back to reading talking points.

I'd love to continue seeing your humerous anecdotes, but I have a nice anime to watch, so I'm outa here.

Carry on without me.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. What the instruments don't show is the Man Made element. They show the planet is warming, but it's the tame scientists that make it about humans being naughty. If it was accepted that it's a natural cycle they would not be able to tax us for it.

Follow the money.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 280 to 430+ ppm over the last decades. Increased CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.

 

The increased CO2 comes from human production.

 

There are no natural causes of the warming.

 

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Or a new AI generated troll maybe?

Regarding the article it would be fair to say that a lot of people in the world (a majority) do not immediately believe scientific reports or the media who make the most out of them.  From the President of Harvard faking her published reports through to Scientists greatly exaggerating/distorting their reports - it has all been getting more and more 'iffy'.

 

I recall a bloke that worked for me some 10 years ago who was highly intelligent (and naive) - he had 3 degrees and an MBA - and he was very much a 'greenie'.  He ended up getting a job in the 'Environment Department' (Greenhouse Australia), and he quit after about 1 year.  When we caught up over a coffee for a chat he 'confessed' that the reason he quit was because they were 'fake'.  None of them really gave a rat's ear about the environment, and it was all just a sham for them to have an easy job and get funding for research. He actually challenged the veracity of one published report that claimed an imminent future disaster but based on extrmely biased parameters and statistical measuring methods. He was 'hauled over the coals' for daring to question anything that supported to IPC Mandate that the vast majority of global  warming was being caused by manmade activity - specifically the burning of fossil fuels - and the world was heading for a massive disaster.  When he challenenged this, and pointed out that there was zero research being funded or encouraged to look into additional causes, or the fact that plants were abosrn=bing more CO2 and crops were booming worldwide, he was 'dead in the water'.  As he said, there is a lot or correlation going on in the global 'science' community, but they mostly have very tenuous links being made to causation - basically it is all opinion based on a few scientific facts.  He claimed that the whole 'climate industry' from IPC down was all about a self-fulfilling argument - and that the actual researchers were totally focussed on getting funded to work on research that 'complied' with the mandate (and research that was against the narrative was not funded).  He reckoned they were basically a religion and that anyone like him challenging the 'gospel' was actively pushed out of the 'Church'.  He ended up going into business growing and selling organic produce with his second wife, on small farm that they bought - last I heard he was doing very well. 

The bloke is a loon.

 

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing from 280 to 430+ ppm, the plants aren't "absorbing" it.

 

"My friend told me that Science is wrong" doesn't work outside of primary school. Once you get to High School, then you learn that it's necessary to provide data to win sn argument.

 

So, find a source that says that atmospheric CO2 isn't increasing. We'll wait.

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, johng said:

Yep already said I'm not a scientist   that doesn't mean I should just take the word of those that claim to be scientist

(or know someone at NASA)  as "gospel truth" 

I can believe of disbelieve anything I like of my own accord.

I can also come on these here "discussion" forums and express my views even if you don't like those views or think they are wrong.

 

 

I suggest It's you who are trolling trying to goad me into an emotional response..so I won't suggest that you are supremely arrogant.

 

Though perhaps you are Elon Musk the space entrepreneur ???

 

or as postulated earlier by @thaibeachlovers

 

"I'm beginning to wonder if you can actually read or if you are in fact a real person, and not an argument bot."

That's the long way of saying you flunked Science.

[johng]

28 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

That's the long way of saying you flunked Science.

  Did I ?   I must have flunked because I don't agree with you and the mainstream media ?

maybe I'm Elon Musk  the space entrepreneur who has friends at NASA.

[johng]

49 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

There are no natural causes of the warming.

 

Ok lets say (or make believe) we all believe you (we don't) what can the human race do to survive, mitigate or reverse this cataclysm ?

[JackGats]

Not a word about sea-floor volcanism as a major factor in ocean temperatures!

[johng]

2 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Not a word about sea-floor volcanism as a major factor in ocean temperatures!

There are so many variables,interactions and cycles going on, many of which are poorly or totally not understood, all the climate alarmism is based upon computer models and hypothesis ( hunches/guesses)

But lets assume that the models are accurate  what is the solution ? and is the "solution" worse than the "problem"  for mankind as a whole

shall we all go back to living in caves  own nothing and be happy ?

 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, johng said:

  Did I ?   I must have flunked because I don't agree with you and the mainstream media ?

maybe I'm Elon Musk  the space entrepreneur who has friends at NASA.

Nope.

 

You obviously don't understand Science because you are not sufficiently competent to explain why you think Science is wrong.

 

I could and have listed the proofs that Global Warming is manmade, but you can't deal with the facts, and instead post insults, claim that scientists are only in it for the money, anything but respond to facts.

 

That's because for you, facts are only real if you are told them by your Leadership, mostly expressed via the talking points they send you.

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, johng said:

There are so many variables,interactions and cycles going on, many of which are poorly or totally not understood, all the climate alarmism is based upon computer models and hypothesis ( hunches/guesses)

But lets assume that the models are accurate  what is the solution ? and is the "solution" worse than the "problem"  for mankind as a whole

shall we all go back to living in caves  own nothing and be happy ?

 

I'm not talking about models. 

 

The planet *has* warmed as CO2 increases.

 

Even you know the Greenhouse Effect is real, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that adding more CO2 into the atmosphere is going to cause more warming.

 

If you disagree, can you provide some facts to the contrary?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, JackGats said:

Not a word about sea-floor volcanism as a major factor in ocean temperatures!

Unless you can demonstrate an increase in sea-floor vulcanism that accounts for the ocean warming, you are off topic.

[bangkok19]

On 3/1/2024 at 8:32 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Errrr, do you want to revisit the reason the dinosaurs died out? While the meteor impact may have triggered a cold period, it wasn't a "normal" ice age as part of the climate cycle.

Theories, theories, theories...

I base my comments on stuff I've read or seen in documentaries, I wasn't here way back then, nor were you. Then again, you could believe the information you heard from a particular scientist who has said something different from the scientists I may have heard. Neither of us are right, neither of us are wrong. 

I'm just sick to death of the climate alarmism cr*p that's rammed down our throats. When people in high places with plenty of influence (U.N.) start telling the world that if we don't stop burning fossil fuels within the next 50 years the oceans will start to boil.  Puleaze......

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 280 to 430+ ppm over the last decades. Increased CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.

 

The increased CO2 comes from human production.

 

There are no natural causes of the warming.

 

In your opinion. In mine most of the hot air is from yourself.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

basically it is all opinion based on a few scientific facts.  He claimed that the whole 'climate industry' from IPC down was all about a self-fulfilling argument - and that the actual researchers were totally focussed on getting funded to work on research that 'complied' with the mandate (and research that was against the narrative was not funded). 

I can think of one poster that complies with that. Keeps going on about how the  science is proven and how it's all caused by humans. Doesn't have or refuses to post any solutions whatsoever, so I guess he doesn't actually have any.

Personally, I think it's a huge scam so the usual suspects can get even richer. Governments are doing sod all except dream up new taxes.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Unless you can demonstrate an increase in sea-floor vulcanism that accounts for the ocean warming, you are off topic.

You haven't posted much about scientists "freaking out" so you must be off topic yourself.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can think of one poster that complies with that. Keeps going on about how the  science is proven and how it's all caused by humans. Doesn't have or refuses to post any solutions whatsoever, so I guess he doesn't actually have any.

Personally, I think it's a huge scam so the usual suspects can get even richer. Governments are doing sod all except dream up new taxes.

Cheers - I think I know who you mean.  There can be rational debate as to how serious the climate changes are, and as to whether it is solely/mainly due to man made reasons. But what cannot be argued is the fact that Government and Bureacracies never solve anything the right way - all they due is create programs (employ more public servants) and increase taxes to pay for the public servants and/or change people's behaviours to what they think is needed (note paying for more public servants comes first). That is all they have and it just does not work out well - except in times of war when everyone is on the same page.

 

IMO climate change is not a problem - I am utterly unconvinced about the self-serving predictions of an impending global disaster are valid. I am also totally unconvinced that forcing everyone to drive electric cars is a viable long term solution.  Over 40 years of predictions about global disasters have proven to be false - but just like Bullwinkle they keep saying 'this time for sure' - and those that want to believe them, believe them.   Likewise, the extra emissions released in the total  manufacture of an electric car take 10 years to be offset against those emitted in the manufacture of a modern petrol car, and that does not take acount of the need for replacement batteries and the manufacture of those new batteries.

 

The solution as such is clear but they are seen as something bad by the ignorants and fools - build more nuclear power stations, more dams with hydro generators, and continue to decrease the emission made by petrol/diesel vehicles. Provide massive Govt incentives to encourage people to get rid of all vehicles over 10 years old - and then do the same for all vehicles over 5 years old. If that was implemented over a 30-50 year period, the amount of emmissions would be greaty reduced.  Meanwhile, all the money now wasted on the global 'green industry' who have not in any way solved the problem since the 1980s (just feeding off it), should be diverted to developing nuclear fusion power generators to replace the nuclear fission ones over time. 

[JackGats]

16 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Unless you can demonstrate an increase in sea-floor vulcanism that accounts for the ocean warming, you are off topic.

Rest assured. The few workers who have suspected such a cause (or other causes besides CO2) have been ignored and defunded.

[johng]

16 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The planet *has* warmed as CO2 increases.

Methane is bad too hence the  push to kill all the livestock decimating farmers and get people eating bugs and lab meat..do you like eating bugs ?

Water vapour is also "bad" for global warming should we remove H20 ?

How about a nice big space umbrella to reflect the suns warming rays

or some stratospheric particulate matter to reflect it whilst the umbrella is built.

 

So again what do we do about this "unprecedented cataclysm"     second time asking you this

do we go back to living in caves own nothing and be happy ?

 

16 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I'm not talking about models.

Yes you are because modelling AKA computer simulations is all you have in fact its all anyone could have  because we do not have a parallel earth to compare the other scenarios to.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, johng said:

 

 

Yes you are because modelling AKA computer simulations is all you have in fact its all anyone could have  because we do not have a parallel earth to compare the other scenarios to.

The planet is warmer.

 

Carbon dioxide is increasing.

 

That's not a model, that's reality. Maybe you can't handle reality.

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, JackGats said:

Rest assured. The few workers who have suspected such a cause (or other causes besides CO2) have been ignored and defunded.

Classic Conspiracy Theory. 

 

Most scientists collect data. They get paid regardless of what their data shows.

 

A scientist who "suspects" something after looking at the data may lose their jobs for any number of reasons, but the data is still there. Do you have any *data* to show that underseas volcanos cause ocean warming?

 

Spoiler alert: volcanos cause short term cooling.

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Cheers - I think I know who you mean.  There can be rational debate as to how serious the climate changes are, and as to whether it is solely/mainly due to man made reasons. But what cannot be argued is the fact that Government and Bureacracies never solve anything the right way - all they due is create programs (employ more public servants) and increase taxes to pay for the public servants and/or change people's behaviours to what they think is needed (note paying for more public servants comes first). That is all they have and it just does not work out well - except in times of war when everyone is on the same page.

 

IMO climate change is not a problem - I am utterly unconvinced about the self-serving predictions of an impending global disaster are valid. I am also totally unconvinced that forcing everyone to drive electric cars is a viable long term solution.  Over 40 years of predictions about global disasters have proven to be false - but just like Bullwinkle they keep saying 'this time for sure' - and those that want to believe them, believe them.   Likewise, the extra emissions released in the total  manufacture of an electric car take 10 years to be offset against those emitted in the manufacture of a modern petrol car, and that does not take acount of the need for replacement batteries and the manufacture of those new batteries.

 

The solution as such is clear but they are seen as something bad by the ignorants and fools - build more nuclear power stations, more dams with hydro generators, and continue to decrease the emission made by petrol/diesel vehicles. Provide massive Govt incentives to encourage people to get rid of all vehicles over 10 years old - and then do the same for all vehicles over 5 years old. If that was implemented over a 30-50 year period, the amount of emmissions would be greaty reduced.  Meanwhile, all the money now wasted on the global 'green industry' who have not in any way solved the problem since the 1980s (just feeding off it), should be diverted to developing nuclear fusion power generators to replace the nuclear fission ones over time. 

Your post is predicated on there being an underlying problem that requires mitigation of the amount of pollutions people generate.

 

You decry government programs to reduce pollution, and then propose government programs to reduce pollution.

 

So, you advocate socialist efforts to combat Global Warming.