Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
13,310
You are, if you think there are regions within the vacuum of space that can be warmer than others.
That's not what he said. Stuff travel through the vacuum and hits earth and has an affect. How does any particles get from the sun to us? Magic?
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
7,388
You are, if you think there are regions within the vacuum of space that can be warmer than others.
There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, even in deep space. As soon as you have matter, you have have hotter or colder regions.

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

Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.
 

John Tempus

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
2,074
Great news everyone.

Smoking is also suddenly good for your health. I was planning to stop smoking but now that I got this new information I will start to smoke twice as much.

Climate change is real. The only debate even among those who deny its affects is to question who causing climate change but both sides of the isle agree climate is changing.

One the one side you have the vast majority pointing out the human element as big increasing contributor and on the other side it is argued that climate change is all just natural process (partially correct).

There is no disputing the ice core scientific results that shows since the human industrial age kicked off there was an exponential increase in global warming. No one is disputing these findings either and even the side that says humans are not to be blamed for climate change is arguing that this exponential global warming is a natural process.

So take from it what you want. To me the facts are in, the parabolic uptrend found in the ice cores is clearly evident that since the industrial age and the use of oil by humans and not some random other animal , global warming have been sped up.
 
Last edited:

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,959
You are, if you think there are regions within the vacuum of space that can be warmer than others.
You can't win this discussion. The denialists are smart enough to find references that contradict you, but not smart enough to realise that these do not bolster their argument.

There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, even in deep space. As soon as you have matter, you have have hotter or colder regions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
Technically true, but also absolutely nothing to do with earth weather. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#Interplanetary_space
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
7,388

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,792
There could be many reasons for climate change. To limit it to just a few or things happening on Earth doesn't make sense.

The Earth is not in a closed system. It's travelling through space around the Sun. The solar system is also traveling around the galaxy. The galaxy is also moving through space in sync with other galaxies, etc. etc. The Sun is also not generating exactly the same amount of heat at all times.

So it's possible that there could be regions in space we pass through that are slightly warmer. Or regions in space that have fine dust particles so less warmth reaches the Earth. So the Earth is then cooler. There's so much stuff that can affect the Earth and life on it. It's scary.
Lol. Here's some reading for you - maybe more plausible. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
7,388
Yes and what concentration of particles do you need to cause any measurable change in temperature?
It's in that link that Gordon posted.

Different densities of material can also block more or less light/heat. Space in the solar system is generally more dense than space between stars in the galaxy which is generally more dense than space between galaxies. There are anomalies like clusters of gas clouds which could cause less light/heat to reach earth if the solar system happened to pass through one.
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
7,388
Lol. Here's some reading for you - maybe more plausible. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The data/chart in there only spans 800k years. I don't deny climate change for the last 800k years but the chart is incomplete without the other 4.6billion years.

It's so extreme, it's like looking at the Bitcoin price chart for the last 10 hours and ignoring the 10 years before it.
 
Last edited:

Moto Guzzi

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
506
"Global Warming" etc has come in sync with power struggles for control of the world, I trust very little and all of these are very difficult to prove sustainably and securely, to me in any case. The world has changed a lot over many years all by itself, by nature itself. All that man made actually comes from the earth itself that includes everything, in the mean time its discussed as if we bring in chemicals from outer space and smother the earth with it ,... && as we speak space is littred with rocket stuff.

It seems that those promoting wind farm energy, really believe the wind will be predictable and usable fo the future where they install these power plants, so they at least dont expect that much changes, so where do they get their science-?

The thing is about polution perspective:Now if you overpopulate, overcook an area, you will see polution, and if you poorly design and maintain, you will see polution of various sorts.

The earth down below seems not done yet either, looking at earthquakes and lawa outbursts.

I wish Polititians and Scientists could live to age of 500 years, so they cover more than 5 generations and can experience their own doings, we just die to quickly, and seeing everything id digital to be, just one good surge wipe out of nature and the history is gone in any case.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,244
Fake news IMO.

I don't get my sources of information from dodgy sites quoting fringe scientists and discredited theories.

Edit: Everything after this comment is just feeding the trolls...
And you are just being a twat as shown.
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,959
24 hours later: I can't find a single credible mainstream source carrying this story (a few more fringe blogs).

@Swa I stand by my comments, most of which have got multiple likes from people I have never met (not just buddies). I didn't see many likes on the OP's comments.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,244
24 hours later: I can't find a single credible mainstream source carrying this story (a few more fringe blogs).

@Swa I stand by my comments, most of which have got multiple likes from people I have never met (not just buddies). I didn't see many likes on the OP's comments.
Yet you discard sources such as nature. You're just the classic bogus skeptic.
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,959
Yet you discard sources such as nature. You're just the classic bogus skeptic.
You may be late to the discussion, and must have missed my point. The OP takes two dodgy sources, and conflates them with a genuine Nature story which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, to create veneer of credibility.

This is typical of denialists, throw in just enough facts to make it seem plausible, but leaving huge logic gaps in the argument.

I am neither a skeptic nor bogus, but have learned (over many decades) to poke holes in fallacies, and disregard those with an obvious agenda.

That was all clear to me within seconds of the OP, and my first post reflects this. Everything after that is a tedious attempt to deal with multiple trolls.
 

Sl8er

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,136
24 hours later: I can't find a single credible mainstream source carrying this story (a few more fringe blogs).

@Swa I stand by my comments, most of which have got multiple likes from people I have never met (not just buddies). I didn't see many likes on the OP's comments.
Instead of waiting for mainstream sources, ever thought about getting into touch with one of the **scientists actually doing the work, Dr. Brian Tinsley?


Here are his contact details:

Brian Tinsley.png

I posted his publications earlier on in the thread -which conveniently got ignored or overlooked.
Here's the link to his publications / involvement, once more, in case you missed it:

https://profiles.utdallas.edu/brian.tinsley


** Not just one of the "jump-on-the-bandwagon-97-percenters" :p

I assume this is something that interests you quite a bit, so if you do contact him (and if he replies) please post how it went, here -or if you create a new thread, post the link here, please.
(I'd be hella curious to find out how it went :) )
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,959
You expect to find a mainstream source carrying a story that contradicts the mainstream narrative?

Have you thought that through?
Science is self correcting, over long timescales. The theory of Plate Tectonics is a classic example of that. First speculated when maps of South America and Africa showed similar coastlines, then proposed by Wegener around 1920 and supported on geological grounds by South African Alex du Toit. It was ridiculed by mainstream geologists due to lack of a plausible mechanism. Only in the 1960s with sonar surveys, magnetic surveys, earthquakes and deep-sea drilling was it established that the mid-Atlantic was a magma spreading center. This clear proof turned it from a hypothesis into a universally accepted theory.

I use this off-topic example of how science should work. IMO the theory in the OP does not pass muster on these grounds. Postulating all kinds of correlations does not prove anything, in the absence of measurable mechanisms. Today there are hundreds of satellites in orbit, continuously tracking everything from sunspots, solar storms, cosmic rays, clouds, sandstorms, sea-surface temperatures, winds, trace-gases, etc.

To now say that one crackpot mechanism disproves decades of climate science, as the OP and thread title imply, is preposterous.
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,959
Instead of waiting for mainstream sources, ever thought about getting into touch with one of the **scientists actually doing the work, Dr. Brian Tinsley?


Here are his contact details:

I posted his publications earlier on in the thread -which conveniently got ignored or overlooked.
Here's the link to his publications / involvement, once more, in case you missed it:

https://profiles.utdallas.edu/brian.tinsley


** Not just one of the "jump-on-the-bandwagon-97-percenters" :p

I assume this is something that interests you quite a bit, so if you do contact him (and if he replies) please post how it went, here -or if you create a new thread, post the link here, please.
(I'd be hella curious to find out how it went :) )
You want me to contact a crackpot scientist and engage in a discussion on a theory he has been promoting for six decades. How much time do you think I have to waste?

Many eminent scientists with great credentials come up with ridiculous theories. The most prominent example is Linus Pauling, who won two separate Nobel Prizes. His pet theory was that Vitamin C is a cure for the common cold (or cancer, I forget which). How does that theory seem to be holding up.

In any case this has nothing to do with the original topic. See my last post.
 
Top