Hurricane Florence

[MixMasterLar]

Death toll is at 5 last I heard, storm is slowing down too I think

It's dropped to a cat1 which is sexy but that's still a shitton of rain to come

[aperson]

flash flood emergencies are going up near the pamlico sound area. the freshwater flooding event is going to pick up and get very serious throughout the next 48-72 hours

[ShAiOnEiX]

Originally Posted by j-rodd123

yea I guess we should just disregard terribly alarming warnings from the majority of climate scientists because people do their own research

Something tells me that the ones that have called me out have not actually watched the video in it's entirety. The actual funding that comes from studying climate change and to prove it relies on them entirely into finding and skewing the data to make it look like it's worse off than it really is. Watch the video cuck.

I can see it now eventually you guys are gonna start telling me that the Earth isn't flat haha gtfo my face...actually I'm just kidding about the last part sorry I almost gave you a chance to fire back at me with that comment.

[j-rodd123]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[aperson]

Originally Posted by ShAiOnEiX

Something tells me that the ones that have called me out have not actually watched the video in it's entirety. The actual funding that comes from studying climate change and to prove it relies on them entirely into finding and skewing the data to make it look like it's worse off than it really is. Watch the video cuck.

we can talk about anthropogenically forced climate change once you can give a passable explanation of how the greenhouse effect works.

[j-rodd123]

keep being a “free thinker” tho bro

Originally Posted by aperson

we can talk about anthropogenically forced climate change once you can give a passable explanation of how the greenhouse effect works.

The annoying thing is these kids watch a random YouTube video that supports their preconceived opinion and ignore facts from soooooo many sources. And as someone who has worked in academia, the funding thing skewing results is the fav comment of one of these wannabe intellectual sheep who don’t understand scientific research

Also using the word cuck lol cringe

[ShAiOnEiX]

Originally Posted by aperson

we can talk about anthropogenically forced climate change once you can give a passable explanation of how the greenhouse effect works.

Can we talk about how the carbon levels were much much higher during the dinosaur age and that we would never reach those levels of greenhouse gases and at the rate our expenditure of these gases in our modern world industry would never realistically even reach those enormous safe levels of C02 in the atmosphere millions of years ago.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by ShAiOnEiX

Can we talk about how the carbon levels were much much higher during the dinosaur age and that we would never reach those levels of greenhouse gases and at the rate our expenditure of these gases in our modern world industry would never realistically even reach those enormous safe levels of C02 in the atmosphere millions of years ago.

Sure maybe you can cite your sources on CO2 (and other GHG) levels during the Triassic-Cretaceous (or whatever the "dinosaur age" means to you, that's not really a relevant stratigraphic era) and maybe some other relevant geologic periods as well like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or the end-Permian.

Also it'd be nice to see some sources demonstrating that none of our concentration pathways could reach those numbers. Preferably you could use some sources from IPCC's AR5 since it is the largest consensus policymaking project that includes representative concentration pathways for GHG concentrations by the end of the 21st century. If you want to be exciting and use the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway models that will be used for IPCC's AR6 as well, those are pretty reputable!

[j-rodd123]

Originally Posted by aperson

Sure maybe you can cite your sources on CO2 (and other GHG) levels during the Triassic-Cretaceous (or whatever the "dinosaur age" means to you, that's not really a relevant stratigraphic era) and maybe some other relevant geologic periods as well like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or the end-Permian.

Also it'd be nice to see some sources demonstrating that none of our concentration pathways could reach those numbers. Preferably you could use some sources from IPCC's AR5 since it is the largest consensus policymaking project that includes representative concentration pathways for GHG concentrations by the end of the 21st century. If you want to be exciting and use the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway models that will be used for IPCC's AR6 as well, those are pretty reputable!

Smh you clearly didn’t watch the YouTube video

[aperson]

Also it's CO2 not C02. Easy mistake to make when you have literally no idea what you're talking about.

[Celirra]

i think everyone involved in this feud is being silly

[aperson]

Originally Posted by j-rodd123

Smh you clearly didn’t watch the YouTube video

It's funny because about 99% of people in meteorology are on board with climatologists but about 1%, like the dead Weather channel founder, Joe Bastardi, or Ryan Maue aren't. In the latter case, they just endlessly shift the goalposts of the debate as the effects of the anthropocene become more clear.

Since Coleman retired from working on the Weather Channel, they have quite good coverage of climate-related impacts from meteorological phenomena. Go figure.

[ShAiOnEiX]

Originally Posted by aperson

Sure maybe you can cite your sources on CO2 (and other GHG) levels during the Triassic-Cretaceous (or whatever the "dinosaur age" means to you, that's not really a relevant stratigraphic era) and maybe some other relevant geologic periods as well like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or the end-Permian.

Also it'd be nice to see some sources demonstrating that none of our concentration pathways could reach those numbers. Preferably you could use some sources from IPCC's AR5 since it is the largest consensus policymaking project that includes representative concentration pathways for GHG concentrations by the end of the 21st century. If you want to be exciting and use the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway models that will be used for IPCC's AR6 as well, those are pretty reputable!

Jurassic period Carbon levels were around 1900ppm if that narrows it down for you at our current state it's around 400ppm. I'm sure you can find the data since you seem to highly knowledgeable in this field. Many reputable scientists have claimed that high carbon levels are not a main contributor for climate change.

[aperson]

Cite your source that Jurassic carbon levels were 1900ppm and you still haven't explained how the greenhouse effect works.

[aperson]

ps you may have trouble finding a source that "carbon" levels were at 1900ppm because we don't measure "carbon" in ppm. We measure different greenhouse gases that contain carbon, Like CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CH4 (methane) in PPM, some other greenhouse gases, like H2O (water vapor) don't even contain carbon. Maybe you mean that Jurassic CO2 concentration was 1900ppm? Would love to see some sources on that one too!

[ShAiOnEiX]

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~dmcge..._Berner_02.pdf

Ok and no I'm not going to explain a gradeschool concept to you just because you think I do not understand how it works.

EDIT: TBH this is a TLDR source you can just use the tables to find the data I was going to just link wikipedia because it gives you that info right there but I figured you would call me out for it since it's wikipedia.

Also you know I had to use DuckDuckGo just to find this source? Google wouldn't even give me any data results on this besides wikipedia to find an actual backed accredited source pretty stupid if you ask me.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by ShAiOnEiX

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~dmcge..._Berner_02.pdf

Ok and no I'm not going to explain a gradeschool concept to you just because you think I do not understand how it works.

EDIT: TBH this is a TLDR source you can just use the tables to find the data I was going to just link wikipedia because it gives you that info right there but I figured you would call me out for it since it's wikipedia.

Also you know I had to use DuckDuckGo just to find this source? Google wouldn't even give me any data results on this besides wikipedia to find an actual backed source pretty stupid if you ask me.

No I'll call you out for using a paleoclimate reconstruction of Tr-J carbon levels from 2004 when our proxy records and constraints on carbon have dramatically improved since then.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2014GL060457

Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration (ca) for the Phanerozoic Eon is estimated from proxies and geochemical carbon cycle models. Most estimates come with large, sometimes unbounded uncertainty. Here, we calculate tightly constrained estimates of ca using a universal equation for leaf gas exchange, with key variables obtained directly from the carbon isotope composition and stomatal anatomy of fossil leaves. Our new estimates, validated against ice cores and direct measurements of ca, are less than 1000 ppm for most of the Phanerozoic, from the Devonian to the present, coincident with the appearance and global proliferation of forests. Uncertainties, obtained from Monte Carlo simulations, are typically less than for ca estimates from other approaches. These results provide critical new empirical support for the emerging view that large (~2000–3000 ppm), long‐term swings in ca do not characterize the post‐Devonian and that Earth's long‐term climate sensitivity to ca is greater than originally thought.

You also failed to provide any sort of supporting evidence that human emissions won't ever top 2000ppm in the first place, but if you want to use actual modern consensus science that exponentially improves year over year, then you'll want to set that upper bound at around 1000ppm instead of 2000. So I'll wait for you to provide some source that global CO2 levels can't surpass 1000ppm under any of our concentration pathway outcomes.


Hitting up google scholar for the first link that you think supports your view is some pretty poor confirmation bias. I'd recommend actually learning how to parse and consume scientific literature in a domain of interest so that you don't make stupid mistakes like this in the future. For paleoclimate literature you're going to want sources that are a) as recent as possible or b) meta-analyses of multiple other sources.

[aperson]

Maybe you aren't getting useful results back because you're asking a stupid question. If you're interested in carbon anomalies in paleoclimate records then you should be asking about the Permian-Triassic boundary or the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. Or hell, how about the Great Oxygenation Event for a plain fucking example of how carbon drawdown causes rapid glaciation.

[ShAiOnEiX]

I mean the article is old but it still backs my claim that carbon levels were at a much higher level 150 million years ago than they are today. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here because you keep dancing around the topic because the underlying agenda with climate change that is being pushed in the media is that we are emitting way too much Co2 in the atmosphere when it's simply not true.

[aperson]

It doesn't back your claim because the upper bound estimates of 2000 ppm have been refuted by more recent evidence. Our proxy records have high uncertainty that is slowly narrowing over time as we improve our paleoclimate record. The paper that I linked you to was from 2014 and was significantly cited because it refuted those overly high estimates. Modern scientific consensus in 2018 is better than modern scientific consensus in 2004 in the same way that our 5 day hurricane error cone in 2018 is as big as our 3 day hurricane error cone in 2004.

So your claim that carbon levels haven't significantly changed is bullshit because the ceiling is now twice as low as it was originally. And for the record, our current value of ~410ppm is higher than any other time during the quaternary altogether. It hasn't occurred since the mid Paleocene and by the late 21st century we could reach values that are more in line with modern estimates of the Eocene.

And of course, now that your claims are shown to be complete bullshit because someone waltzed into the thread that actually know the science, you're going to go back to your tired trope of calling modern climate science "agenda-driven" because you're a stupid man that can't admit when you're wrong.