On 16 Aug 2023 at 3:15pm Tom Pain wrote:
Are one thing but what about the world outside. A 100%CO2 atmosphere is very different from earth's air which has 400 parts per million! It's called a TRACE gas after all. In a lab one can control the conditions, but the earth is whizzing about in space, orbiting the sun in a slightly eccentric fashion. The sun itself is not constant and gives out variable amounts of heat all the time. Without CO2 the earth would be dead.
On 17 Aug 2023 at 9:05am pedant wrote:
The experiment wasn't about creating an accurate model of global warming it was a simple bench top setup to illustrate the properties of CO2. In the previous thread you mentioned there was no proof that CO2 was responsible for warming which the experiment debunks. The higher the concentration of CO2 in the balloon the slower the rate of cooling. Scale that up further and what conclusions can you make from that result?
On 17 Aug 2023 at 9:54am Green Sleeves wrote:
Tom Pains new gangster/street nickname will be "Conspira-TP"
On 17 Aug 2023 at 10:16pm Tom Pain wrote:
That experiment probably debunks other experiments but it doesn't debunk the fact that a warmer sea gives off CO2. If the resultant CO2 further warmed the planet the loop would have ended life on earth before it started. There's a lot of other factors involved. The point I was making is that the earth and solar system are a wee bit bigger than a test tube and totally, like wild.
On 18 Aug 2023 at 8:28am pedant wrote:
Yes the sea is getting warmer, why would that be? The earth is somewhat bigger than a balloon which is why you scale the results up. The natural release of CO2 from sources such as ocean outgassing, rotting vegetation and volcanoes is offset by 'sinks' such as photosynthesis by land plants, creation of peat and absorption into the ocean. It's like filling a bath at a rate the overflow can safely drain off the excess water but then opening the taps up fully so the bath water spills over.
On 18 Aug 2023 at 12:46pm Nevillman wrote:
I find it interesting that you put so much energy into trying to prove that global warming is not man made Tom. Why is that? Do you actively like the smell of cars? Are you keen to make sure we use as much of the fossil fuels in your lifetime as possible and not leave it for future generations? Are you encouraged by statistics on health problems in areas of high traffic? Were you bullied by a science teacher at school? Are you still frightened by the prospect of global warming you find it easier to deny any responsibility for it? Are you being paid huge fees by big oil to persuade the people of Lewes to keep polluting?
The people of Lewes in Sussex and Delaware have a right to know Tom.
On 18 Aug 2023 at 2:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
Tell the whole world- the answers NO nev. Whatever gave you that idea? NO, NO and No again. It's just your prejudice. The big oil canard ran out of traction years ago. The people who own it have been putting their money into renewables and of course Chinese industry. Perhaps you could tell us what happens to the temperature after an ice age, is it supposed to get colder? We deserve to know.
On 18 Aug 2023 at 2:44pm Nevillman wrote:
Whatever reason you do have for continuing to denounce man made climate change I'm disappointed that you don't financially benefit from it Tom. Your question is unanswerable. It depends.
On 18 Aug 2023 at 4:17pm Tom Pain wrote:
On the ice melting.
On 18 Aug 2023 at 4:37pm Nevillman wrote:
Generally after an ice age the temperature will rise until the planet enters another ice age. There are many variations in the meantime eg the medieval warming period, the little ice age from the last millennium. We appear to be entering another period of warming. Period of climate change can have a number of different causes.The vast majority of scientists think the current one is caused by the man made release of co2 since the industrial revolution. I understand that you don't but you haven't produced any science to back this up. I was trying to make the point that even if you are right and global warming is not caused by the massive release of co2 it would still be a good idea to stop using all the fossil fuels.
On 18 Aug 2023 at 8:35pm Tom Pain wrote:
I said all that pedant. If co2 is the only agent of warming, that warming would be constant and the earth would have blown up in the Cambrian period. Also your experiment used 100% co2, so if our atmosphere was like that it would be relevant but as it is 400 parts per million, it just ain't no matter what size it is. If you drank 100% alcohol you'd be dead; if it was diluted in the same ratio you wouldn't even be squiffy. If we stopped using fossil fuels nev, 400 parts per million of the population would be dead. No good.
On 18 Aug 2023 at 11:51pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Nobody had ever thought of that Conspira-tp, not even scientists....Well done. You win the Internet.
On 19 Aug 2023 at 9:39am pedant wrote:
Clearly you don't understand the science here Tom and conveniently brush over anything that might challenge your view. Consider the variables of the balloon experiment and think about what might occur between the two extremes. The reasons for cycles in CO2 levels I've already covered but what man made intervention has made this less effective? As for the statement on 400 part per million of the population being dead that's just plain bonkers but it made me laugh so a good joke.
On 20 Aug 2023 at 10:58pm Tom Pain wrote:
I think I must have missed the reasons you gave for co2 cycles. The geogical record shows warming followed by levels rising and cooling followed by levels rising! So it's possible that they are unconnected. This talk about "the science" is somewhat pointless because it's just a media report of science and unless you are personally involved: it's all hearsay. The 70s reports I have mentioned just show how the scientists and the media made a mountain out of a molehill from the cooling trend from the 40s to the mid 70s. However, you have still not revealed the connection between a highly controlled experiment in a laboratory with a balloon of pure co2 and the unpredictable weather and climate of a planet hurtling through space clothed by an atmosphere containing 400 parts per million of co2. The Grandmaster baiter has added his usual ad hominem ejaculations. My joke analogy was obviously exaggerated but have you considered the implications of net zero? You're going to get very cold and extremely hungry, that's your choice but not mine and I'll suffer too. No good.
On 21 Aug 2023 at 7:06pm Pedant wrote:
It appears I was correct in my statement that you don't understand the science. You say it's all hearsay from the media then why not go direct to source? You would rather trust the conmen who make a living via 'donations to the cause' over the research scientists who have to have their research verified and reviewed with evidence. Did you look at the trend in global temperatures between 1940 and 2020? I guess not.
What do you think 'net zero' is exactly?
On 21 Aug 2023 at 8:12pm Tom Pain wrote:
I've certainly seen the temperature record from the last hundred years, it mainly comes from NAmerica and Europe. There's virtually nothing from the rest of the world so obviously it must be estimated. Who are these conmen, do they rely on laboratory experiments like the only one I'm familiar with, endlessly repeating ad hominems?
On 21 Aug 2023 at 9:41pm pedant wrote:
That the thing with conmen they tell you want you want to hear rather than fact. What does the global temperature record for the last 100 years tell you? What's net zero?
On 22 Aug 2023 at 9:00am Tom Pain wrote:
I think we all know the habits of conmen but who are the specific ones you mention and to what cause do they make donations? The record for the last 100 years tells me that, among other things, the thirties produced the highest temperatures and confirms that it's getting warmer since the little ice age tapered off which is no surprise. Another little piece of information that's come my way is that leading Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has confirmed that the sun determines the earth's climate which seems obvious to me. Whilst researching the veracity of that statement you could also look up the meaning of net zero, why ask me when you endlessly claim that I don't understand "the science"? I'm agog to know about these co2 cycles that I've never heard of too. All in all, I haven't seen any proof that the famous co2 balloon experiment has anything to offer in the way of understanding climate cosidering the tiny amount of it in the atmosphere. In fact it looks like yet anothe red herring, of which you appear to be a keen fisherman.
On 22 Aug 2023 at 9:23am Green Sleeves wrote:
I have never understood why climate-change conspiracy theorists think they can interpret scientific data better than climate scientists (although i must add a lot of bogus data or plain irrelevant data is included by the conspiracy nuts). But there you go, that is the arrogance and hubris of them. They are typically self-taught "experts" on a variety of subjects as well (be it vaccines, 5g, viruses or climate). It would really be quite impressive if anything they said was actually meaningful and credible.
On 22 Aug 2023 at 8:36pm Tom Pain wrote:
Why don't you tell us what is real and what is bogus then we can evaluate it, pedant and sleevie? Do a thread telling us what you know. Because you can't. Who is being arrogant and hubristic about what? No clue whatsoever is given. Any fool can do that. Put up or shut up. Tell us about Nir Shaviv. Show that he is a con artist. Show that he is not a scientist. Debunk him! You can't or you would. You're a couple of blowhards with empty heads. Come on, prove me wrong. Let's see your thread.
On 22 Aug 2023 at 8:53pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Easy - Nir Shaviv isn't a climate change scientist, he's an astrophysicist. His credibility on the cosmos is more of note than anything related to climate change. Even just a cursory bit of googling on the dude, and it appears he's made a few claims which have been debunked on CO2 and warming predictions.
Granted, he's probably a lot more credible than any of us in here when it comes to climate change science, but this isn't his area of expertise or what he has won scientific awards for. Its a bit like asking Lewis Hamilton about motorbike racing.....i'm sure he's got some ideas and tips, but he isn't Valentino Rossi. Although it does appear that this particular scientist is probably now more famous for being a man-made climate change denier. I suspect its quite a profitable grift.
On 22 Aug 2023 at 9:00pm pedant wrote:
So we're getting somewhere that you admit the trend is warming over the last 100 years which debunks your previous statement about cooling. The little ice age was a regional event not global but you keep coming back to that for some reason. Yes I'm aware of Nir Shaviv and his study. The sun can influence climate change however the warming seen over recent decades is far too rapid to be a result of orbital changes or solar activity.
I know what net zero is but you seem to have side stepped the question again. I'm also detecting a bit of anger in your posts Tom. I think we all know what that means.
On 22 Aug 2023 at 10:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
Yes , it means I'm fed up with your conceited, smug, know-all attitude , you and sleevie. Also your dishonesty. As I said and you deliberately ignore it- lying by omission- the only reliable long term data is from the northern hemisphere the rest is made up, pure self serving fiction. Have you heard of solar flares? And I'm not talking about your horrlble trousers. Of course you have, but play it dumb- they can cause a bit of heat eh, enough to crisp us all, even omniscient school teachers. You tell me what net zero is, I'm not one of your unfortunate pupils, how arrogant can you get? Do your own thread,
prove how clever you are then criticise others. Also, once agqin, who are these con men? The lying toads of the climate gate emails? You believe those charlatans? There's one born every minute.
On 22 Aug 2023 at 11:12pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Ah, i see Nir Shaviv is also a contributor for The Heartland Institute....a perfectly rational, right-wing conservative american public policy think tank that rejects scientific consensus on climate change and the health impacts of smoking.......i.e. "the good guys" lol
Sorry Tom, but you are a bit of a joke to me, and I just wanted to share that honest take. Perhaps you became a bit of a pet project, and that i've been rather unkind towards you at times. I don't like punching downwards, and that is what it feels like with you at this point (and in fact for a fair while now, i sadly confess). I will try my best to just leave you alone, as i can predict almost every position and thought you hold, just by process of elimination and the kind of rabbit holes you've landed yourself in.
I do sorta love you really though Tom Pain of Lewes. You are kind of adorable in a pet-type way. I really need to stop being so mean to you.
On 23 Aug 2023 at 9:13am pedant wrote:
Tom, when you post something on a public forum you must expect to get challenged. You made a statement about net zero being "not good" but now tell us you don't know what 'net zero' is. I don't know where you get the idea that southern hemisphere temperatures are estimated or made up.
I know what a solar flare is and I also know they only make a very small impact on global temperatures. Solar flares tend to last for minutes or hours not decades.
Those climate gate emails? Well you really backed the wrong horse there. When climate deniers got involved they vastly misrepresented the contents by taking phrases out of context which is what they do. One thing the emails did show is the constant harassment by climate deniers using the FOI process.
CO2? Well why is the temperature of Venus hotter than mercury after all mercury is closer to the sun.
Your reaction to challenges is what I've seen on many forums when conspiracy theorists are challenged. Conspiracy theorists can't use facts to back up their argument so they get frustrated and that's when the anger or name calling comes out. I would say you remained more composed than most though Tom.
Have a good day Tom but I think we can consider the subject of climate change closed unless you have some compelling evidence that is backed by fact and not an small extract of a 60 year old newspaper article.
On 23 Aug 2023 at 12:10pm Tom Pain wrote:
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly at the begining of this thread but no one has commented on my main point which you don't need to be a scientist to understand. We're all agreed that the oceans give out co2 when they warm. Thus the atmosphere has a higher co2 content which it is claimed will make the planet warmer. This would make the sea warmer and give out more co2 which would make make the planet even warmer, which would make the sea warmer and release more co2 etc etc. Thus my conclusion that the planet really would boil. This obviously has not happened. Therefore co2 can not be a major influence on climate. Can someone please tell me if there's a flaw in my logic. I'm afraid comments like " It's been debunked" will only produce replies like- " my debunker is bigger than yours and he's debunked your debunker." For all you natural climate deniers I would like to ask- "why is it warmer here in the northern hemisphere in the summer when we are tilted closer to the sun if the sun is not the geatest driver of climate".
On 23 Aug 2023 at 12:58pm Pedant wrote:
I thought we had addressed that point Tom. Natural sinks keep the naturally occurring CO2 sources in. check. Plants and the ocean absorb CO2. The earth's tilt does not bring us closer to the sun. The earth's orbit does slightly however it's winter in the northern hemisphere when we are closest to the sun.
On 23 Aug 2023 at 7:27pm Nevillman wrote:
I thought it was just green and me who came in for the personal abuse when we had the temerity to disagree with Tom but looks like it's anyone pedant. You really do have to question whether there is any point in trying to have a discussion with him. Well done for not rising to it. I sometimes try that approach but the abuse comes anyway and you have to put up with being accused of having a " conceited smug know all attitude" just for trying to make a point that Tom would not have properly read or remotely understood but he thinks disagrees with the view of whichever conspiracy theorist he happens to be parroting. It is just a shame how he seems to have discouraged so many posters from bothering at all.
On 23 Aug 2023 at 11:19pm Tom Pain wrote:
If it's winter in the northern hemisphere when the planet is closest to the sun, the tilt must be the cause of it being colder here because we are further away than the south, who are enjoying their summer. The tilt must be the defining factor. Or are you implying that the sun doesn't heat the earth because it's winter here when the earth is closest to it, so something else does. It must be that wicked co2 eh? To put it simply- if one end of an object is tilted away from anything it will be further away than the other end which must, perforce be tilted nearer. Is the earth not signed up to this law? Another question. How does the planet tell the difference between naturally occurring co2 and man made in order to not sink it? You can't answer the question of why the earth hasn't boiled due to the co2 chain reaction can you? Perhaps that explains all the unnecessary distractions. Sleep easy.
On 23 Aug 2023 at 11:40pm pedant wrote:
Tom the tilt does not alter the distance of earth from the sun. The earth is a globe so it's axial tilt does not affect distance only it's orbit can. The tilt is responsible for the seasons due to the surface area change that gets direct rays from the sun as opposed to indirect. If distance was the main factor, as I've mentioned before, why is Venus hotter than Mercury. The planet won't distinguish between man made and natural CO2 but that's not what I said. It's the amount of CO2 released that matters and man is releasing much more than can be naturally dealt with. You keep going back to this global boiling chain reaction statement no matter how many times I explain it.
Thanks Nev. I know how Tom must come across but there are worse people out there and indeed have been previously on this forum. It's the fact Tom knows he can't win the debate because he can't back it up with any fact or evidence. He feels cornered and has to lash out. If you think about it would this forum still exist if it wasn't for Tom and the last few contributors left or would it pick up if the debate was more interesting? Would it bother anyone if it disappeared? Not sure about that.
On 23 Aug 2023 at 11:42pm Tom Pain wrote:
I should have known better than to pit my wits against you nev. OK, I'm to blame for the forum's decline and not only that! I freely admit that I alone caused brexit, global warming and the decline and fall of the british empire. It's a fair cop gov.
On 24 Aug 2023 at 8:41am Nevillman wrote:
I wouldn't mind if you did "pit your wits" Tom. It's the ignoring of what other people say and the abuse I was commenting on Tom.
On 24 Aug 2023 at 10:04am Tom Pain wrote:
Can you explain how the earth coped with much higher levels of co2 in the past, has it forgotten how to do it? You're right, I didn't put that tilt stuff at all clearly. Due to the spherical nature of the planet, the surface of the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun in summer than the southern by a distance one could calculate from the angle of tilt and the planet's diameter but it's the time that it is facing the sun more directly that makes it much warmer in summer. A small point but it still shows how the sun is obviously the driver of climate. I do appreciate the chap in the dark grey suit with contrasting sleeve's notion that a scientist's political leanings indicate the veracity of his thinking far more than the results of his calculations- very droll. Viva Lysenkoism!
On 24 Aug 2023 at 12:11pm Nevillman wrote:
The debate isn't about how the earth copes. It's dealt with much more extreme conditions and many kinds of atmosphere. It's about how inhabitable it is for humans. We've only existed as a species for about 250,000 years. Most of that time we only lived in Africa.
The atmosphere is part of earth, held there by gravity. The constituents of the atmosphere affect the influence of the sun on the climate.
On 24 Aug 2023 at 10:32pm Tom Pain wrote:
I'd say the existence of the species data is highly conjectural, an educated guess and completely impossible to prove. Pretty much the same as the effect of four hundred millionths of the atmosphere. What do you reckon the chances are of pedant finding another petty nit picking, mega pedantic way of confusing the cause of summer and winter eh Super Moan? I get the feeling he could go on forever. I suppose the Snide Sniper could fire one of his magic "its been debunked" bullets but he reserves them for me. Let's hope this thread runs out soon. I think your bore, sorry war of attrition is going to wear me out soon and you can have it all for yourselves with no one disagreeing with you.
On 25 Aug 2023 at 9:02am Nevillman wrote:
I'm sure you're right about the existence of our species, earth's atmosphere, the stupidity of scientists and everything else you've said Tom. It must get very tedious for you having to correct us all on the basics like this all the time. As for pedant going on about what "scientists" have debunked all the time..... Well done for only being a bit rude back Tom.
Yet another thread in which you have unleashed the sword of truth and comprehensively won Tom. I'm now going to sit in my car and leave the engine running all day to celebrate.
On 25 Aug 2023 at 9:12am Tom Pain wrote:
Also.....The out of Africa theory is just that. If I introduced it you'd say it was a conspiracy theory. The ancient Greek aristocracy got their higher education in Egypt so it might be right. They put the beginning of man way, way before your estimate but if you want to debunk it you'd have to dig right into Plato and his predecessors, who were familiar with atomic theory oddly enough. Let's have an explanation for that all you soi disant experts! They also went to India and their knowledge goes way back too. I just can't wait for a rebuttal based on my grammar, punctuation and spelling, lads, as well as the inevitable, omniscient - that's been debunked.
On 25 Aug 2023 at 9:20am pedant wrote:
Tom, If 'nit picking' is presenting facts in a debate you started then why would I stop.? You're clearly 'clutching at straws' now you run out of responses and ignoring any questions that you can't counter with misrepresentation of evidence.
When the earth had much higher CO2 levels than today these were driven by excess volcanic activity and led to mass extinction events. The increase of CO2 during those times occurred on a much more gradual curve than we see today. The earth was a much different place back then than it is today and mostly populated by aquatic life.
As for evidence of humans the oldest is around 300 thousand years old. As we've mentioned before within the last 800 thousand years CO2 has not been higher than we see today.
I'll await in inevitable dispute but no matter how many times you keep cherry picking articles that exclude factual information or the full scope of research it won't change anything.
Understand what the current crisis is and understand what 'net zero' is and it might change your mind.