Does Science Reveal Truth?

@deepthought said
I'm not engaged in the sea level rise debate. I'm questioning your use of Feynman as an expert on climate science. He was a particle physicist, and he died thirty years ago. We simply do not know what he would have thought had he been around now.

Sea level rise is a result of temperature rise. If you don't want to debate that there is nothing left to debate. Go back to watching porn.

@metal-brain said
Sea level rise is a result of temperature rise.

Deepthought didn't deny this or say anything about it.
Deepthought just said;

"I'm not engaged in the sea level rise debate. I'm questioning your use of Feynman as an expert on climate science."

Often, like now, I honestly don't know if you just pretend to be stupid or if you just simply are.

@wildgrass said
Also there's the geological data. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557064/

It shows lots of data a graphs and it says among other things;

"Here we use observations from five well-studied time slices covering the last 40 My to identify a well-defined and clearly sigmoidal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and sea level on geological (near-equilibrium) timescales. This strongly supports the dominant role of CO2 in determining Earth’s climate on these timescales
...
Data from gas bubbles in ice-core samples provide a high-fidelity CO2 record for the last 800,000 y (6–8) that, when coupled with sea-level records of similar resolution (9), illustrates that CO2 and sea level are intimately related on these timescales (Fig. 1). This relationship arises because CO2 is the principal greenhouse gas that amplifies orbital forcing and to a large extent determines the thermal state of the Earth system across glacial–interglacial cycles and thus the amount of ice stored on land (3). In detail, there are short leads and lags between Earth system components because of different timescales of inertia, but the overall relationship is strong (R2 = 0.68; n = 2051; Fig. 1).
...
A combination of data from all five time slices (Fig. 3A) reveals that on these longer timescales, there is a clearly sigmoidal relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2.
...
Our observed long-term relationship between sea level and CO2 forcing reaffirms the importance of CO2 as a main driver of changes in the Earth’s climate over the past 40 My.
...
During the Eocene, when CO2 levels were higher than 1,000 ppm, sea level was 60–70 m higher than today,
.."

So its clear that all the sea level data indirectly confirms what we already knew here which is simply what the science says; CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

@humy said
Deepthought didn't deny this or say anything about it.
Deepthought just said;

"I'm not engaged in the sea level rise debate. I'm questioning your use of Feynman as an expert on climate science."

Often, like now, I honestly don't know if you just pretend to be stupid or if you just simply are.

He isn't debating Feynman's conclusions. He is merely attacking his character and nothing more. If Einstein said the same thing he would be attacking Einstein's character and calling him a lousy father.

Like you, he wants to avoid facts by character assassination. His character has nothing to do with it. Should I bring up that Maurice Strong lived in self exile in China for violating oil for food laws for Iraq?

Al Gore lied about cause and effect and that has not changed any minds about AGW. What makes you think attacking character will sway opinion? It didn't change yours.

@humy said
It shows lots of data a graphs and it says among other things;

"Here we use observations from five well-studied time slices covering the last 40 My to identify a well-defined and clearly sigmoidal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and sea level on geological (near-equilibrium) timescales. This strongly supports the dominant role of CO2 in determining Earth’s climate on the ...[text shortened]... y confirms what we already knew here which is simply what the science says; CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

That doesn't prove what they claim.

There is a correlation between temps and sea level rise. CO2 and methane lagged behind temps in the ice core samples. I'm not surprised you didn't provide your source of information since it is bunk. They have their cause and effect backwards.

So its clear that all the sea level data indirectly confirms what we already knew here which is simply what the science says, temperatures caused methane, CO2 and sea levels to rise as a "RESULT" of temp rise.

CO2 is NOT the driver of GW in the ice core samples, it is the result of warming. How many times have I told you that? Don't you ever learn?

@humy said
It shows lots of data a graphs and it says among other things;

"Here we use observations from five well-studied time slices covering the last 40 My to identify a well-defined and clearly sigmoidal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and sea level on geological (near-equilibrium) timescales. This strongly supports the dominant role of CO2 in determining Earth’s climate on the ...[text shortened]... y confirms what we already knew here which is simply what the science says; CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Indeed CO2 levels and sea levels are very well correlated over a 60 million year period. Clearly, CO2 levels do not lag behind sea levels over geological time, as was stated by others. It's only a correlation, but when combined with temp-CO2 correlations and physical data and climate modeling and numerous other sources, the truth emerges.

@wildgrass said
Indeed CO2 levels and sea levels are very well correlated over a 60 million year period. Clearly, CO2 levels do not lag behind sea levels over geological time, as was stated by others. It's only a correlation, but when combined with temp-CO2 correlations and physical data and climate modeling and numerous other sources, the truth emerges.

What truth? What are you claiming? I have no idea what you are talking about. You could be agreeing with me for all I know. Are you?

"Clearly, CO2 levels do not lag behind sea levels over geological time, as was stated by others."

I don't recall anybody claiming that until now. Are you sure? Who else claimed that?

@metal-brain said
Sea level rise is a result of temperature rise. If you don't want to debate that there is nothing left to debate. Go back to watching porn.

What I get up to in my spare time is none of your concern. Feynman was not qualified to comment on climate science.

So, you think sea level rise is a consequence of temperature rise. What do you think temperature rise a consequence of?

@deepthought said
What I get up to in my spare time is none of your concern. Feynman was not qualified to comment on climate science.

So, you think sea level rise is a consequence of temperature rise. What do you think temperature rise a consequence of?

It just so happens your qualifications are no better than his. By your own standards, you are not qualified to comment on climate science.

@metal-brain said
It just so happens your qualifications are no better than his. By your own standards, you are not qualified to comment on climate science.

Yes, this is true, part of the reason I tend not to take part in Global warming debates. However, this cuts both ways. As far as we know you're not qualified in anything at all. What are your credentials? What makes you qualified to comment on climate?

@deepthought said
Yes, this is true, part of the reason I tend not to take part in Global warming debates. However, this cuts both ways. As far as we know you're not qualified in anything at all. What are your credentials? What makes you qualified to comment on climate?

I posted peer reviewed articles to support my position. Have you? I am relying on real science, not gossip. Why do you think gossip trumps truth?

@metal-brain said
I posted peer reviewed articles to support my position. Have you? I am relying on real science, not gossip. Why do you think gossip trumps truth?

The last "peer reviewed" paper you posted was this:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I checked them on Wikipedia and lo and behold:

OMICS has come under attack by numerous academics and the United States government over the validity of the peer review by OMICS journals, the appropriateness of its fees and marketing, and the apparent advertising of the names of scientists as journal editors or conference speakers without their knowledge or permission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group

This is not a reputable source. You are not posting peer reviewed papers, you just think you are. For goodness sake, this took me 1 minute.

@deepthought said
The last "peer reviewed" paper you posted was this:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I checked them on Wikipedia and lo and behold:[quote]OMICS has come under attack by numerous academics and the United States government over the ...[text shortened]... not posting peer reviewed papers, you just think you are. For goodness sake, this took me 1 minute.

So biased guys like you attack what you don't like. That isn't surprising. I meant sea level rise though. Can you present another peer reviewed article saying sea level is rising at an alarming rate?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

@Metal-Brain
The thing about you is this: You don't care WHERE a report comes from, if it supports your own bias, it has to be gold. And you don't care about any political bias of anything you post, most of which are right wing or ultrarightwingnut level.
So if Jeffrey Dalmer says CO2 rises after temperature rises, you post it.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
The thing about you is this: You don't care WHERE a report comes from, if it supports your own bias, it has to be gold. And you don't care about any political bias of anything you post, most of which are right wing or ultrarightwingnut level.
So if Jeffrey Dalmer says CO2 rises after temperature rises, you post it.

So biased guys like you attack what you don't like. That isn't surprising. I meant sea level rise though. Can you present another peer reviewed article saying sea level is rising at an alarming rate? Apparently not if you all are still resorting to attack the source even when it is a peer reviewed article from a respected science journal.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

I do care where an article comes from. It must be a peer reviewed article from a respected science journal or something comparable. I will not accept gossip from hack websites known for lying.