87 thousand doctors & nurses denounce both Covidiocy and the vaccine

submitted by [deleted] from gvid.tv

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

since CO2 has been rising steadily,

not true. goes up and down as it rises.

You know what 0.2C/decade translates into per day? ~1/18,300th of a degree. You know what that translates into over the two hour period you're using? ~1/210,000th of a degree, or about 5 micro Kelvin. You're not going to see a few micro kelvin in a fucking waterfall plot

unless CO2 is a potent cooling agent. Run the data.

You missed the point. Rate of cooling is to the infinite void of space, so the few degrees variance over time of actual temperature results in very small changes to the earth/void gradient, so the signal, which is CO2s cooling effect, becomes quite clear when you control for clouds and wind.

run the data

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Steady cyclical effects are still steady. CO2 levels fluctuate over the course of the year, an effect which, apparently you need to have pointed out to you, was being cancelled out when you made an axis of your (brilliant, AGW debunking) chart the day of the year.

You missed the point. Rate of cooling is to the infinite void of space, so the few degrees variance over time of actual temperature results in very small changes to the earth/void gradient, so the signal, which is CO2s cooling effect, becomes quite clear when you control for clouds and wind.

And writing shit like this continues to show how you really don't even understand the basics. Radiation is proportional to temps to the 4th power. No, a few degrees change isn't noise. What a clown show.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

you always make me laugh. You manage to spout the official narrative, word perfect, as if you understand.

Radiation is proportional to temps to the 4th power.

right ho. You didn't run the data, did you. Because if you did, you'd know that all this 'out of your arse' debunking really doesn't get close to touching on the issue.

But let's play in your inane world. When I run the data, it is clear that the rate of cooling increases with CO2 concentration. You can attempt to explain it away, as you have, by claiming that the increased temperature gradient of a warming plant produces the increased cooling.

That's fine. Let's say you are right. Let's say that increased temperature increases cooling at the extent the data shows. Great. We now have a powerful negative feedback mechanism that prevents the temperature of the planet increasing above. oh. sorry. if it is temperature causing the observed sunset, no wind, no clouds, cooling, then we can't even warm by more than another degree and a half. If I plug in the numbers from the last ice age, we can't actually leave the ice age.

But you'd have to do the math and run the data to have any kind of place to stand and debate on.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're the one complaining about the "math heavy" climate change papers, and now you're saying that I need to "do the math". Weird, because I wouldn't say plotting temp changes over time in matlab, nor anything else you've posted, is anything approaching actual math.

We now have a powerful negative feedback mechanism that prevents the temperature of the planet increasing above. oh. sorry. if it is temperature causing the observed sunset, no wind, no clouds, cooling, then we can't even warm by more than another degree and a half.

No, we don't have any such thing. I'm just a student that only understands the basics well enough to spot the obvious problems with the claims you derive from your graph, and you're just a crank that can't do any real math that is coming up with ad hoc "models" on the spot when challenged.

Nothing about global warming would be proven, or disproven, by your silly chart. No expert that actually understands AGW would claim that it would. You only believed that it would because you lacked a grasp of the fundamentals. By all means, continue to tell random people on saidit how you've disproven global warming with your silly chart. I'll just pop in whenever I see it to explain why you haven't.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're the one complaining about the "math heavy" climate change papers

no, i'm not. I'm complaining about the false assumptions in those papers. the math part is wonderful.

until you actually look at the data - something you refuse to do in any argument, all you are is a hollow drum, making a lot of noise

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, I've looked at plenty of data over the years, like the AR5 Technical Summary. That's a collection of the actual science on the matter. And that's why I know the claim that CO2 has a net cooling effect is a stupid claim. Even most AGW deniers know better than to make that argument. The evidence supporting AGW theory is heavily condensed to even get it into the hundred page range. The "evidence" you (haven't) provided is a fucking graph of temp changes after sunset, as if the greenhouse effect only occurs after sunset. And, to top it all off, you controlled for nothing, and then tried to make the ridiculous assertion that the temp changes wouldn't matter.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't find a shitty graph based on a false premise as persuasive as what the IPCC puts out.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

run the data.

You actually gave me a good idea. Since CO2 is slowly rising, but with a overlaid sinusoid, I could create a control, picking data points that are years apart, but have the same CO2 concentration. So I can look at cooling vs temperature at the same CO2.

No significant trend. Lovely.

Then I picked datapoints with the same temperature, but different CO2. Significant cooling trend! how lovely.

Thing about science is that it isn't about preaching, it isn't about knowing how things are, it is about asking good questions and listening carefully to the (data) answers

Try it sometime.

going to give publication another shot

also

The "evidence" you (haven't) provided is a fucking graph of temp changes after sunset, as if the greenhouse effect only occurs after sunset

If you understood anything, you'd see that this is one of the only ways to look at the actual effect of CO2, without making assumptions about the effect of the SUN, which is so complex we barely grasp it.

With the latest models, Total Solar Irradiance has now become part of the picture. That's great, and all, but its is still mind numbingly incomplete.

Our atmosphere is directly heated through MHD interactions between the global electric circuit and charged solar winds. The (weakening) magnetosphere really changes how cosmic rays interact to form clouds. Solar winds directly heat the upper atmosphere. None of which is in the models. None of which is controlled for.

So instead of pretending that we can model the sun's effects, how about we find ways to look at existing data in a way that excludes the giant confounding factor that is the only reason the earth is not a frozen ball of rock.