Heat to soar to record levels in next 5 years.

[ding]

Ah, got it - conflict of interest. You get paid to be a contrarian pro-industry shill then. Makes sense.

Actually, dummy, I get paid to decommission Gulf of Mexico shelf wells, pipelines and platforms.

 

[multivita-man]

Actually, dummy, I get paid to decommission Gulf of Mexico shelf wells, pipelines and platforms.

Yeah when you said you had a background in science and that you were an "engineer," I figured you were in the energy business. I have no doubt you're knowledgeable at your job, but you have no idea what you're talking about otherwise. I used to work in the pesticides and agrosciences fields and we used to say similarly propagandized horseshit, to the point of even believing it.

 

[multivita-man]

No one disagrees with what I am saying, dummy. Everyone who is credible accepts that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Do you know why no one disagrees with it? Because there is hard empirical evidence that shows it. In fact, I just showed it to you.

I'll repeat: what you're saying about trends isn't debated. You're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[rightwinger]

Never fear

Republicans will still deny Climate Change and that Al Gore was right

 

[multivita-man]

The atmosphere and the ocean are where CO2 has always been stored. Mostly in the ocean. Something like 94% of all CO2 is stored in the ocean. Did you know that.

I know that the ocean is a carbon sink, yes. Now explain to me in your own words how you think that process actually works.

And did you know that 50 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was 10 times what it is today.

Mmm, signs point to bullshit. Higher than today? Yes. 10X higher? 50 million years ago? Nah. Maybe you're getting confused. Not even during End-Permian was it 10X higher than today.

Do you know where it went? Do you know why CO2 lags temperature by 800 to 1000 years throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution?

You think you're onto something, eh?

 

[odanny]

odanny and multivita-man do either of you have a background in science? Because I do.

You’re a paid professional whose job it is to pop up on threads like these and obfuscate any climate related discussion and introduce doubt and confusion, it’s why you’ll only be found on threads like these. How many forums are you active on? Who do you work for?

 

[ding]

Yeah when you said you had a background in science and that you were an "engineer," I figured you were in the energy business. I have no doubt you're knowledgeable at your job, but you have no idea what you're talking about otherwise. I used to work in the pesticides and agrosciences fields and we used to say similarly propagandized horseshit, to the point of even believing it.

I've been studying the earth's climate history for over 20 years. Under estimate me all you want. It only works in my favor.

 

[ding]

You’re a paid professional whose job it is to pop up on threads like these and obfuscate any climate related discussion and introduce doubt and confusion, it’s why you’ll only be found on threads like these. How many forums are you active on? Who do you work for?

No, I'm a paid consultant decommissioning GoM shelf wells. I school people like you for pleasure.

 

[ding]

I'll repeat: what you're saying about trends isn't debated. You're being deliberately obtuse.

Incorrect. The relevance is that they have mistaken a natural climate warming trend for AGW.

 

[odanny]

No, I'm a paid consultant decommissioning GoM shelf wells. I school people like you for pleasure.

Then the truth is you know little about actual climate change, which confirms my original analysis.

 

[multivita-man]

I've been studying the earth's climate history for over 20 years. Under estimate me all you want. It only works in my favor.

 

[ding]

I know that the ocean is a carbon sink, yes. Now explain to me in your own words how you think that process actually works.

It's based upon the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. As temperatures increase the ocean releases CO2 into the atmosphere. As temperatures decrease the ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. Think of an open coke can left on the counter versus an open coke can left in the fridge. The can left in the fridge will retain it's carbonation longer than the can at room temperature. Same principle.

 

[multivita-man]

Incorrect. The relevance is that they have mistaken a natural climate warming trend for AGW.

Uh huh.

 

[ding]

Then the truth is you know little about actual climate change, which confirms my original analysis.

Incorrect. I've forgotten more about the earth's climate than you know or will likely ever know.

 

[ding]

Mmm, signs point to bullshit. Higher than today? Yes. 10X higher? 50 million years ago? Nah. Maybe you're getting confused. Not even during End-Permian was it 10X higher than today.

 

[ding]

You think you're onto something, eh?

It means that prior to the industrial revolution that atmospheric CO2 was a function of temperature. Which means that CO2 did not drive temperature. Which means that CO2 did not drive climate change. In other words, the geologic record shows that CO2 has never been a driver of the earth's climate.

 

[ding]

Uh huh.

View attachment 809430

Here's a better GIF...

 

[multivita-man]

View attachment 809432

That would be at the very upper end of the estimate and that is not widely accepted. Most credible estimates I've seen have the CO2 ppm somewhere around 1000 ppm, which is still obviously quite a lot compared to today, obviously, but the 3500 ppm would put CO2 levels beyond what they were estimated to be even in the End-Permian period, which wiped out most life on the planet at the time.

But even if, for the sake of argument, accept that higher figure, then let's consider something obvious: life 48-53 million years ago was quite different from that today. We didn't evolve to live in those conditions, and alligators were living in the Arctic.

In any case, we're digressing, which I think is your purpose. You can come up with all the cites and historical footnotes about different geologic periods you want. Your opinion that humans aren't causing climate change is not accepted by mainstream science.

 

[multivita-man]

CO2 does not cause the planet to become cooler; the aerosols that come from volcanos and even modern industry can sometimes mask radiation, which may cause a reduction in temperature in the short-run, but carbon builds up in the atmosphere and as it does, it will lead to warming.

 

[multivita-man]

Incorrect. I've forgotten more about the earth's climate than you know or will likely ever know.