Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52996
    22 Sep '19 20:48
    @Grandmaster-bater
    Would they still tax your car if it was 100% electric?
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    22 Sep '19 23:22
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    Show me using the graph where man influenced sea level rise.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    23 Sep '19 11:422 edits
    Five-year period ending 2019 set to be hottest on record;

    https://phys.org/news/2019-09-five-year-period-hottest.html

    No known natural causes can account for this recent warming and all the evidence points to CO2 and yet, without evidence, the morons still persist in saying CO2 has nothing to do with it while convincing no intelligent person. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    23 Sep '19 14:432 edits
    @humy said
    Five-year period ending 2019 set to be hottest on record;

    https://phys.org/news/2019-09-five-year-period-hottest.html

    No known natural causes can account for this recent warming and all the evidence points to CO2 and yet, without evidence, the morons still persist in saying CO2 has nothing to do with it while convincing no intelligent person. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    You could not be more wrong.

    We have been in a warming trend since the little ice age ended. Nobody claimed the warming trend ended since then. Of course there are record warm temp records being broken. They were probably being broken in 1880 and they are being broken now. That is what happens in a continued mostly natural warming trend.

    Futhermore, I never claimed man did not have an influence on climate at all. In fact I stated the opposite, so your whole point is completely irrelevant.

    Record breaking temps prove we are still in a warming trend and that is all. It doesn't prove man is a significant factor. Your logic is flawed.
  5. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8348
    23 Sep '19 15:141 edit
    @grandmaster-bater said
    @sonhouse £157 per year for TV licence. I wouldn't mind but my car when I got it was one of the lowest CO2 output around. In the UK they change the rules constantly to increase revenue. The latest change is that those who elect to have cash rather than co car will have to pay the higher of the tax on the cash or what the company car tax would have been for the ...[text shortened]... its full of test equipment and tools for my job. I've decided to have a micky mouse car next time.
    The assumption is that you would be taxed less if there wasn't an IPCC consensus opinion on the causal relationship between CO2 emissions on climate change? But I am 100% convinced that if anthropogenic CO2 concentrations weren't linked to mean global temperatures they'd just find some other way to tax you to make up for their budget shortfalls. Makes no difference to the Government of the UK if they're raking in your money from CO2 emissions or sewer or wheel taxes or restaurant taxes (so that tax dollars can build stadiums for rich people to get richer). The government doesn't need a legitimate excuse to grift you. They do it anyways (at least here in the US) without any means for recourse.

    We just had our expired meter ticket cost go up from $16 last year to $125. Not a single voter complaint that meter tickets were too low. No public safety rationale. Not even a coherent explanation from anyone working in government. Nothing changed except a budget shortfall, so they decided to bilk the car drivers instead of making cuts elsewhere.

    Some people on this forum believe there is a vast conspiracy to doctor results on climate change. There's a substantial number of elected government officials, in fact, that believe anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. But from a public policy standpoint, there's no rationale for such a convoluted scheme. If the government wants to tax you they will do it.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    23 Sep '19 15:17
    @metal-brain said

    Record breaking temps prove we are still in a warming trend and that is all.
    Since in this case the more recent record breaking temperatures are far too high to be accounted for by natural causes alone i.e. by ignoring CO2, the more recent record breaking temperatures prove we are at least a large part if not all the part of the cause of the more recent record breaking temperatures. Exactly which part of that are you too stupid to get?
  7. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8348
    23 Sep '19 15:182 edits
    @metal-brain said
    You could not be more wrong.

    We have been in a warming trend since the little ice age ended. Nobody claimed the warming trend ended since then. Of course there are record warm temp records being broken. They were probably being broken in 1880 and they are being broken now. That is what happens in a continued mostly natural warming trend.

    Futhermore, I never claimed ...[text shortened]... a warming trend and that is all. It doesn't prove man is a significant factor. Your logic is flawed.
    I don't think the world is prepared (or even preparing) for a real Pliocene-like warming period and I expect large institutions to whom I pay large sums of money are in a competent position to address this fundamental national security challenge.

    Are we developing solutions to maintain our current climate for as long as possible, or are we preparing for Minnesota evenings that don't dip below 100 Fahrenheit?
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    23 Sep '19 15:25
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    24 Sep '19 00:00
    @wildgrass said
    I don't think the world is prepared (or even preparing) for a real Pliocene-like warming period and I expect large institutions to whom I pay large sums of money are in a competent position to address this fundamental national security challenge.

    Are we developing solutions to maintain our current climate for as long as possible, or are we preparing for Minnesota evenings that don't dip below 100 Fahrenheit?
    The Pliocene was a lot warmer than today and CO2 levels are about the same today as back then. Your Pliocene theory has been proven wrong by history. The same CO2 levels do not result in the same temps.
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    24 Sep '19 00:01
    @humy said
    Since in this case the more recent record breaking temperatures are far too high to be accounted for by natural causes alone i.e. by ignoring CO2, the more recent record breaking temperatures prove we are at least a large part if not all the part of the cause of the more recent record breaking temperatures. Exactly which part of that are you too stupid to get?
    "Since in this case the more recent record breaking temperatures are far too high to be accounted for by natural causes alone i.e. by ignoring CO2"

    What is your source of information? I think you are making it up.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    24 Sep '19 00:05
    @humy said
    @metal-brain

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX5iPPFdmY0
    The Cook paper has been proven irrelevant. Stupid video void of facts.
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    24 Sep '19 06:201 edit
    @metal-brain said
    I think you are making it up.
    Then you are delusional. I have already shown you the evidence countless times, which you just dismiss.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    24 Sep '19 10:20
    @humy said
    Then you are delusional. I have already shown you the evidence countless times, which you just dismiss.
    Nope, you are delusional. I have already shown you the evidence countless times, which you just dismiss. It is your psychological projection.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    24 Sep '19 10:25
    Once again humy has lied about consensus to digress away from sea level rise.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    Show me using the graph where man influenced sea level rise.
  15. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2477
    24 Sep '19 21:103 edits
    @metal-brain said

    There is a correlation between temps and CO2 as shown by the ice core samples. Temps caused CO2 to rise because a warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2. See Henry's Law.

    Al Gore lied about the cause and effect and still promotes the same lie shamelessly. CO2 never caused temps to rise as shown by ice core samples. CO2 lagged behind temps. There are plenty of peer revi ...[text shortened]... airly recently.

    https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/propaganda-and-lies-from-pbs-nova.176611
    You acknowledge a positive correlation between atmospheric temperature and CO2 content.

    I note you claim the dynamic is the other way around relative to the consensus (and there is a consensus). That is, CO2 is increasing because temperature is increasing. Partially true, as things stand.

    All you have described is well-known to scientists. There are many instances of positive feedback loops being observed now. Increased atmospheric CO2 increases air temperature, and increased temperature is causing more CO2 to be released from the oceans (among other places).

    Water warms more slowly than air. Increased atmospheric CO2 has caused a sustained elevated mean global atmospheric temperature, which in turn has caused (but much more slowly) the ocean temperature to increase. That increase in water temperature is causing more CO2 to be released into the air from the ocean, and it also is causing a rise in sea level. Nothing is disputed here, I trust?

    So the next question is: What has caused the air temperature to rise in the first place?
Back to Top