FOLLOW BOREME
 
TAGS
<< Back to listing
ESA keeping an eye on climate change

ESA keeping an eye on climate change

(4:30) Satellites play an important role in informing scientists on the health of the planet.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (17 days ago)

You’re doing it wrong!  You cannot show charts that go back 800,000 years.  According to AGW proponents, there is no valid data beyond 1880 AD.  Did you get your chart peer reviewed by AGW proponents to make sure they were okay with you showing history like that?  Also, why did you stop at 800,000 years as that seems a bit arbitrary.  You should have done an exact million years or at least go back to how life was thriving during the Cenozoic period just before the earth went into an ice age when hit by a huge asteroid. 

Take a good look at the concentration of CO2 and temperature fluctuations for the 4.6 billion years the planet has been here.  biocab dot org/Geological_Timescale dot jpg
LINK

Look closely at that CO2 and temp chart and try to find some correlation there.

Original comment

You’re doing it wrong!  You cannot show charts that go back 800,000 years.  According to AGW proponents, there is no valid data beyond 1880 AD.  Did you get your chart peer reviewed by AGW proponents to make sure they were okay with you showing history like that?  Also, why did you stop at 800,000 years as that seems a bit arbitrary.  You should have done an exact million years or at least go back to how life was thriving during the Cenozoic period just before the earth went into an ice age when hit by a huge asteroid. 

Take a good look at the concentration of CO2 and temperature fluctuations for the 4.6 billion years the planet has been here.  biocab dot org/Geological_Timescale dot jpg
LINK

Look closely at that CO2 and temp chart and try to find some correlation there.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (16 days ago)

"You cannot show charts that go back 800,000 years..."  Then you use a chart that goes back 4.5 billion years! That's funny. Did you even realise you did that?

"According to AGW proponents, there is no valid data beyond 1880 AD." It's not that there's no valid data before 1880, it's that there is no directly measured data before 1880 because the technology or infrastructure was not in place. We've been through this so many times before I wish you could just remember. Were you slow at school?

"Look closely at that CO2 and temp chart and try to find some correlation there." There is no correlation because the sun's output is missing.

Original comment

"You cannot show charts that go back 800,000 years..."  Then you use a chart that goes back 4.5 billion years! That's funny. Did you even realise you did that?

"According to AGW proponents, there is no valid data beyond 1880 AD." It's not that there's no valid data before 1880, it's that there is no directly measured data before 1880 because the technology or infrastructure was not in place. We've been through this so many times before I wish you could just remember. Were you slow at school?

"Look closely at that CO2 and temp chart and try to find some correlation there." There is no correlation because the sun's output is missing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (16 days ago)

“Then you use a chart that goes back 4.5 billion years! That's funny. Did you even realise you did that?” Yes, of course I did that.  I personally have no problems showing all available data.  As a real scientist and not an AGW proponent, I don’t keep information from the public.

“It's not that there's no valid data before 1880, it's that there is no directly measured data before 1880”  Who cares how the data was measured as long as it’s accurate.  The guy in the video says that CO2 has never been higher in 800,000 years.  How did he know that without direct measurements and why would he state that knowing there were no direct measurements?  Trying to confuse the public again.  And why 800,000 years and not 850,000 or 900,000?  Because as you can see from that graph, CO2 levels were up at that point.  So he picks one of the lowest points in the planet’s history but before that and all the way to 146 million years ago, the CO2 was higher.  That’s the way to manipulate statistics to tell your story — cropping out important data.

“There is no correlation because the sun's output is missing.” So you’re saying that CO2 is not directly correlated to the planet’s temperature then and it’s more directly related to natural events.  Congrats on waking up.  But now you’re saying that our temperature is more directly correlated to the sun’s output.  I’m more concerned that you think this without any evidence of that either.  You sure flip flop around a lot.  Let’s make sure I know what your stance is for future reference.  What affects the planet’s temperature more, sun’s output or CO2.

Original comment

“Then you use a chart that goes back 4.5 billion years! That's funny. Did you even realise you did that?” Yes, of course I did that.  I personally have no problems showing all available data.  As a real scientist and not an AGW proponent, I don’t keep information from the public.

“It's not that there's no valid data before 1880, it's that there is no directly measured data before 1880”  Who cares how the data was measured as long as it’s accurate.  The guy in the video says that CO2 has never been higher in 800,000 years.  How did he know that without direct measurements and why would he state that knowing there were no direct measurements?  Trying to confuse the public again.  And why 800,000 years and not 850,000 or 900,000?  Because as you can see from that graph, CO2 levels were up at that point.  So he picks one of the lowest points in the planet’s history but before that and all the way to 146 million years ago, the CO2 was higher.  That’s the way to manipulate statistics to tell your story — cropping out important data.

“There is no correlation because the sun's output is missing.” So you’re saying that CO2 is not directly correlated to the planet’s temperature then and it’s more directly related to natural events.  Congrats on waking up.  But now you’re saying that our temperature is more directly correlated to the sun’s output.  I’m more concerned that you think this without any evidence of that either.  You sure flip flop around a lot.  Let’s make sure I know what your stance is for future reference.  What affects the planet’s temperature more, sun’s output or CO2.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (16 days ago)

"As a real scientist and not an AGW proponent..." Have you thought about a different profession, one where being a bit slow on the uptake is not so critical?

"Who cares how the data was measured as long as it’s accurate." Exactly. That's why 1880 is a significant date. After 1880, temperature was measured. Before 1880, temperature is an educated guess.

"What affects the planet’s temperature more, sun’s output or CO2?" You really are confused. It's not difficult to understand. Try this simple analogy. Imagine you're in  a room with the central heating on. If you feel comfortable, it's because the level of heating, and the amount of heat loss your clothing prevents, happens to keep you within a comfortable temperature range. If you turn the heating up, then you can stay comfortable by removing some clothing. And vice-versa.

What is actually happening is the central heating (the sun) is slowly turning down, but we are putting on extra layers (greenhouse gas emissions). And we are starting to sweat pretty bad because the central heating (the sun) isn't turning down fast enough. If we don't stop adding more layers (greenhouse gas emissions), we are going to get heat stroke and may even die (catastrophic storms, global famine; mass migration, 6th mass extinction etc).

Original comment

"As a real scientist and not an AGW proponent..." Have you thought about a different profession, one where being a bit slow on the uptake is not so critical?

"Who cares how the data was measured as long as it’s accurate." Exactly. That's why 1880 is a significant date. After 1880, temperature was measured. Before 1880, temperature is an educated guess.

"What affects the planet’s temperature more, sun’s output or CO2?" You really are confused. It's not difficult to understand. Try this simple analogy. Imagine you're in  a room with the central heating on. If you feel comfortable, it's because the level of heating, and the amount of heat loss your clothing prevents, happens to keep you within a comfortable temperature range. If you turn the heating up, then you can stay comfortable by removing some clothing. And vice-versa.

What is actually happening is the central heating (the sun) is slowly turning down, but we are putting on extra layers (greenhouse gas emissions). And we are starting to sweat pretty bad because the central heating (the sun) isn't turning down fast enough. If we don't stop adding more layers (greenhouse gas emissions), we are going to get heat stroke and may even die (catastrophic storms, global famine; mass migration, 6th mass extinction etc).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AxiomOfChoice (15 days ago)

walter, i am truly impressed, you have the patience of a saint :o)

Original comment

walter, i am truly impressed, you have the patience of a saint :o)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest0 guest0 (16 days ago)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (16 days ago)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AxiomOfChoice (15 days ago)

3 random links, what's the point? read walter's nasa link, you may inform yourself. not holding my breath.

Original comment

3 random links, what's the point? read walter's nasa link, you may inform yourself. not holding my breath.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (15 days ago)
Latest comment:

Maybe you should look at the comment just before mine, a response to my comment with just a random link posted.  I don’t read pages from random links.  If someone wants me to read a page, they can state their claim and then post a link that backs up their claim as a reference.

Original comment
Latest comment:

Maybe you should look at the comment just before mine, a response to my comment with just a random link posted.  I don’t read pages from random links.  If someone wants me to read a page, they can state their claim and then post a link that backs up their claim as a reference.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
ESA keeping an eye on climate change
ESA keeping an eye on climate change
WP | Then and Now: How Republican views on climate change have shifted
WP | Then and Now: How Republican views on climate change have shifted
Massive glacier collapse sends tourists fleeing
Massive glacier collapse sends tourists fleeing
Why electric buses are far more important than Teslas
Why electric buses are far more important than Teslas
Rutger Bregman | Why we need a Green New Deal
Rutger Bregman | Why we need a Green New Deal