Conversation

Notices

1. 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2019 21:29:56 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

   @pschwede How, we cant get 5g to kill anything in a lab even when we try.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2019 21:34:07 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Not really. As far as i can tell 5G is a non issue.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2019 21:39:11 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Fine theory, but for that we can easily show that it is real, unlike 5G which we cant.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2019 21:47:48 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Depends on what part you need educzting on. There are really 2 points you might not be informed about which i could help point you to some info on..

     1) if you deny that atmospheric CO2 levels have a direct and significant impact on global temperatures

     2) if you deny that CO2 levels are increasing at rates never seen historicaly

     or 3) If you deny that the rise that we are seeing is due to human injection of Co2 rather than other sources.

     Of those three points which are the ones you need info on?

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2019 21:52:26 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Sure in that case we just need to refer to the ice drilling experiments as the most obvious. We can clearly and reliably chart out CO2 content historically using such experiments and corelate this to climate change by comparing it to the global temperature at the same time.

     I'll get you the link.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2019 21:57:39 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede This has nothing to do with what temperature it is in itself. It is the rate in change of temperature that has never occured before

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2019 22:05:06 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Here is experiment confirming conclusively points #1 and #2 https://www.nature.com/articles/329408a0

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2019 22:46:04 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • ｍｎｇｒｉｆ :kentucky:
     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @mngrif lol not sure it will kill us as electricity isnt the big issue, we can make that green easier than other things. But yea :)

     @pschwede

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 01:40:41 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede No it hasnt. I've seen many detailed charts of time and temp relationships and have never seen as large and as fast a change. Now if you are going to say otherwise, I ust ask you back that up with a cited source. You'll have to prove to me that has some validity.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 01:41:54 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Sadly you will find that is true of most research. I do recommend everyone buys a subscription to access scientific papers (there are many services). It is next to impossible to be educated about the modern world without it when news media fails so horrifically to convey objective facts. You really should get access.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 01:55:53 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Actually ive seen this chart many times. So what about this chart do you feel debunks climate change? TIt shows pretty clearly to me the huge spike that only developed after the industrial revolution. You can see rather clearly around 1900 the spike sky rockets which is around the same time CO2 emissions sky rocketed... Where can you show me a natural spike that did NOT coincide with CO2 emissions though. That is the point your trying to debunk isnt it? Not seeing that here.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 01:58:22 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede So i know you cant get throught he paywall so here is a chart fromt he Ice Core paper I tried to share. Here it is important to see how CO2 correlates to temperature. If you dont line these two up all youll see is noise. Notice how it follows it almost perfectly?

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:09:02 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Yup, teh correlation is extremely tight. Not surprisingly just as we are seeing now as co2 rises the temperature responds very quickly. I mean after all, setup a greenhouse and it will be hot that same day. Really doesnt take long for the effects to happen.

     But back to the original 3 points. This and experiments like it clearly show points number 1 and 2 to be true. It is pretty trivial to prove point #3 that humans are producing most of the CO2 change.

     So I hope given this evidence, and the body of other evidence like it, we can agree that human caused climate change is pretty easy to confirm.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:10:19 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Temp is red, CO2 is blue, the red curve seems to change after a change int he blue curve, as expected.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:14:17 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Ahh yes, you are right, it does appear that way. Though in reality at those time scales they are really happening simultaniously. Even though it does appear one preceeds the other.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:16:11 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Thats a fine theory to put forth and all and im sure people made such theories int he early days when they didnt know about climate change and the topic hasnt been investigated.

     So why not go and investigate yoru theory. Go look at the fossil record around plants and see where their relative biomass high and low periods are and plant extinction events and see if they line up with the chart and validate your theory.

     Obviously you will find that your theory is easily debunked but int he name of science if you feel it is a valid explanation i do encourage you to research it rather than just assume it to be valid.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:27:07 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Well we dont have to, not exactly, because of #3... think about it like this...

     So if we accept there is strong correlation between temperature and CO2 that means either changes in temperature effect the world in a way that causes CO2 levels to change. Or CO2 levels cause the temperature to change, or perhaps even both, where changing one always changes the other.

     Whichever of these it is all we need to do is ask ourselves a few simple questions:

     How much has the CO2 changed in recent years?

     How much CO2 have humans put into the atmosphere in that time?

     Is the portion of CO2 increased in the atmosphere mostly accounted for by human processes such as pollution or is the volume much greater than the known human contribution?

     Well earlier you said you conceded point 3 which was that humans contributed the bulk of the change int he CO2. So if you recognize this fact, then the fact that we can observe the temperature changing exactly the same as the correlation shown historically, we can therefore conclude that a change in CO2 is the causative agent resulting in the change in temperature. After all if it was the other way around then we wouldnt see any change in temperature from all the CO2 we are dumping, yet the correlation continues to track just as perfectly as it did historically.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:38:23 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Sure, but i just proved in the last statement why we know that isnt the case. So your point has become moot. Unless you can explain the obvious contradiction.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:42:02 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Actually green house effects are rather trivial to confirm in the lab. Did the experiment myself when i was a kid. It is far from a theory.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:46:10 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Huh? How does a saw tooth pattern in any way contradict point 3? I lost ya on that claim.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:48:11 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede There are many. The ones we do at the lower level usually involves a chamber filled with gases where we test heat retention in various ways by measuring the rate of heat loss and IR radiative heat specifically (as the chamber itself is inside a vacuum to simulate space).

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:49:51 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Yea that was #2, but the saw tooth pattern doesnt debunk the statement we never saw a pattern like this before... The saw tooth int he chart is over the course of millions of years. The saw tooth spike we are currently int he middle of is over the course of a 100. so no that pattern was never seen historically (a spike that fast, just never happened)

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:52:40 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Im a bit confused why you are unclear how that could be related to the earths greenhouse effect. Are you unaware of how the effect works? I'd be happy to explain the effect if it helps, not trying to be condescending.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 02:54:08 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Im not sure i understand the question. We are able of reconstructing historically both temperature and CO2 yea.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:04:19 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Sure.

     Basically the way the greenhouse effect works is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are opaque to infrared light. they may or may not be opaque to visible light, for simplicity sake lets just talk about visible light and infrared light as they are really where most of the heat energy is from anyway.

     so for infrared light (what we call radiative heat) the atmosphere is partially opaque and looks like a partially blackened cloud. As such when IR reaches the earth part of that IR is absorbed by the GH gas and heats up the atmosphere directly. To be specific approximately half of the IR light that reaches earth is absorbed by the earths surface specifically, heating it up. In turn some of that IR is also reflected by the surface, and on its way back out to space goes throught he black atmosphere a second time and even more is absorbed.

     this means everything heats up. As we know normally things like planets in space, if they are hot, will slowly cool down. They do this by releasing heat energy as IR, radiative heat.

     The surface is constantly giving off IR in an attempt to cool itself. If there were no greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be transparent and the IR would just escape into space, cooling everything. But since the atmopshere is opaque to heat the heat just gets reabsorbed by the atmosphere and cant escape.

     Even the heat int eh atmosphere itself cant escape very well. When hot air near the surface of the earth gives off its IR in an attempt to cool itself off it cant because it just gets reabsorbed higher int he atmosphere again.

     So while a planet with no GH gas could easily allow its heat to escape through a transparent atmosphere when GH is present the heat can no longer escape.

     This effect is even worse on visible light. Since the atmosphere is transparent (mostly) to visible light nearly 100% makes it way through the atmosphere to the earth. It is then absorbed and converted to heat and thus when it escapes the same energy that had an easy time getting to earth as visible light is now IR and cant escape. So things heat up even more.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:05:33 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede I mean to the uneducated facts can certainly be ignored denied or forgotten, sure. But scientists actually prove their facts and demonstrate why it is. The truth is we can very easily and clearly test "invisible gases" for these effects. So no trust needed.

     Like i said i did the experiments myself when i was younger. They arent particularly hard to do and requires no trust, you can do it yourself.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:10:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede yes they have done the due dilligance to calibrate the co2 int he ice with modern day findings. It is covered in the paper in some detail actually. These processes have passed peer review by experts on such things.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:16:53 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede What is proven in the school is simple, that when you surround a hot object with green house gases, that hot object has a much harder time cooling down due to insulation against radiative loss.

     The experiment proves that rather clearly. No one has proposed any counter explanation to what is going on.

     It seems like your grasping at straws to hold onto a cognitive bias more than someone who is trying to find the most likely truth. Some light at certain spectrums are reflected sure.. so what? we can still measure how much makes it to earth as well as how quickly the earth gives off heat. All of these measurements are pretty damn good at confirming the effects of GH gas really.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:18:04 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede democracies are filling mostly with uneducated people these days. Yea people arent too bright and as such many people are not equipped to understand climate change, let alone how to understand how to feed themselves or anything else.

     But jsut because people cant understand the truth due to their own ignorance isnt really an excuse for us to put the truth in question.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:18:52 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Wait how are we talking about breath? You mean because we exhale CO2? Well we dont exhale anywhere near pure CO2 in fact CO2 is only a small percentage of what we exhale.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:22:11 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Oh the experiment is simple. You either put a hot objects ot an object you shine light on, inside a clear tank filled with a gas, then stick that ina . larger tank under vacuum.

     You then observe to see how long it takes the hot object to reach room temperature (or some fixed point). You repeat this with a GH gas int eh chamber then do it again with a non-GH gas. It can be trivially observed that with a GH gas present the object retains its heat significantly longer.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:30:45 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede I mean yea we certainly do exhale a gas that has a small portion of CO2 and the level of that CO2 is relative to how much energy we burn. Sure. But im not sure the point your making here. I mean teh science to confirm all this is really simple, its not particularly complex. Its just a few basical logical steps and a little bit of data and its easy to see. Its the reason we have such a huge amount of consensus on this issue, way more than most issues. PRetty much anyone educated ont he subject who takes a look can quickly see that climate change is legit.

     Not saying you cant question it. By all means ask questions and do research. But you have to keep in mind its all been done, we know the answer already. The research should be more for you to answer your own outstanding questions than any real attempt to debunk climate change which at this point islike trying to claim teh earth is flat. We have just too much evidence.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:32:25 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede let me see if i can find the name. I've seen it but i dont know the name.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:32:42 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede I mean yea, there are many natural sources of CO2, for sure.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:42:32 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede While this experiment is NOT the same as i was describing before it does do a good job at showing how we can prove that CO2 is opaque to green house gas but not to air: https://youtu.be/Rt6gLt6G5Kc

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 03:44:25 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Not nearly as closely no, also historically not at all.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 04:03:53 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede No you dont that makes no sense, thats not how Data science works in any field.

     It seems your really grasping at straws to justify a prejudice that has no basis here in reality. Again people rarely agree on this stuff, especially when its political like climate change. The fact that every single person who has invested serious time studying this agrees should tell you something if your not going to do the research yourself.

     I mean ive shown you a series of very simple and straight forward experiments that demonstrate quite clearly the reality of climate change. Saying We havent correlated everything in the universe therefore its bad science, is frankly, rather absurd.

     Afterall even if we did show something else correlated that wouldnt debunk anything. It would just prove there is more than one thing that is effected by CO2 and temperature.

     Afterall the human population will also correlate to CO2, even if it correlates less closely than temperature.The fact that this is true doesnt debunk the assertion that CO2 effects temperature, it jsut means that the human population also effects CO2.

     So really no matter how you look at that argument its a very weak one.I really think you should take some time to reflect on how your letting your biases drive your ability to objectively evaluate data, rather than trying to draw conclusions from data.

     I dont mean this as an attack, I dont think you are absurd, only that your argument seems to be, which is more a sign of cognitive bias than anything about your abilities. I'm sure if you take the time to study this from a more objective perspective you'd be capable of understanding it.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 04:09:16 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede well CO2 isnt really showing a delay there just looks that way because they have different zero values. Instead of trying to see if one line is to the left or right of the other pick out actually peaks and look how they line up. The peaks themselves mostly overlap on each other well.

     In practice we dont just eye ball it in science. Im suggesting you do it here since i dont want to actually take the time it would take (months/weeks) to teach you statistics. In practice what we do is actually test for the stuff your saying with very specific formula. Those are covered int he full paper I linked.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 04:15:35 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede BTW just to be transparent there ARE actually some points in that chart where you are right, temperature causes the change of CO2 rather than CO2 causes the change in temp. The analysis has shown that. Thing is we know why in that case.

     It happened something like this.. At first CO2 rose due to volcanic activity and this caused the temp to rise. But once the temperature reached a specific critical point it caused a release of CO2 from the oceans (after a very long delay as it took time for the oceans to warm up at deep depths). This rise in temperature caused a chemical reaction to occur which caused the oceans to release massive CO2 itself and thus perpetuate the temperature rise even more.

     We can prove this due to fossile record, and CO2 levels in the ocean along with measuring the chemicals that reacted to generated the CO2 in the substrate.

     So in this one example, which resulted in an extinction level event, you can say that there was temperature causing CO2 rise rather thant he other way around. But as i said this is the exception rather than the rule.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 04:26:55 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede I've spoken to a LOT of people who devoted their life to studying climate change. Every single one of them can completely understand it. Can you actually list some of these scientists? Are they even published in the field of climate change or are you talking about scientists in totally different fields?

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 04:28:13 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Volcanoes arent exceptions, they are just non human sources of CO2 that raised the temperature just like human sources would, thats all. volcanoes going off raised the temperature too. We just can compare the amount they give off to the volumn humans give off and easily determine that humans give off more. In fact there are whole papers on that.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 04:34:32 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Well yea outside of their field they will, and should trust other scientists. If you want to see if anyone fully understands it you just ask the people who studied it. The opinion of someone who knows quantum mechanics says very little about how well we understand climate.

     The fact is we do know, very well, how it all works, your just asking people who never bothered to learn it, so no wonder you hear they dont know.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 04:42:00 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Well people who study climate study the base fields they need to understand it. You dont need quantum mechanics just some basic chemisty to understand absorbing IR, plus a little geology too and other things.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 04:58:31 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Thats why we dont rely on any one thing.. yea the basics all show us rather clearly that CO2 acts the way. we think. But your right by itself it isnt enough. thats why we. have thousands of different experiments all testing the same theory from a different angle, all confirming it.

     Its a bit like the flat earther debate. There are simple experiments anyone can do "basic" list stick a rod int he ground measure some shadows and with some basic math conclude the earth is round. But then you get into weird edge cases with atmospheric refraction and everything else. Yea we **can** make the topic more complex, and we even do. When we do all the conclusions still add up though and we show the basic case is still valid. Even once we account for refraction and everything else, the earth is still round.

     Same here. we have basic experiments that are very simple and very clearly show the truth of climate change. Sure we can and will make more complex experiments too, just to test all the weird edge cases on the off chance maybe there is more to it. But all those edge cases also proved the basic case true. So, naturally, we accept that.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 05:05:20 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede That is a simplified version of the one we would do in a proper lab. but the results should be the same as the proper experiment.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 05:11:58 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede I might not agree with you but as long as you engage respectfully (as you have) then I would never ban or kick someone over a difference of opinion. QOTO is about learning, and teaching. That means not being afraid to have doubts or ask questions.

     You are good

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 05:21:56 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Did you mean sensor? depends on the setup. Depending on what you are trying to show you may not need an IR sensor itself. Usually we dont do an experiment one way. There are hundreds of ways the same experiment can be conducted just to verify it all works given different variables

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 05:54:47 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede in the simplest form you dont need an ir sensor. Just a hot mass in two nested chamers and a temp probe. The IR sensor replaces the temp probe.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 08:51:20 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede

     1) how would you test your theory

     2) if this were true why would it debunk the theory?

     I mean there is some truth to it. CO2 converts IR energy into molecular motion more easily than a gas that isnt a GH Gas. Thats really all it means to be opaque int he first place. Just not sure why that would debunk the GH theory.

   • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ (pschwede@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 09:24:34 UTC 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     in reply to

     @freemo Thought a little more and now I think one cannot debunk the GH theory if that two bottle experiment succeeds. We should pull CO2 out of the air as quickly as possible using cheap and decentralized technology. Any ideas?

     🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 repeated this.
   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 09:28:50 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • 👁️‍🗨️πㄕㄨㆤㄉㄜ

     @pschwede Glad to hear!

     Well plenty of technology ideas out there. But considering plants already do this perhaps our best bet is to plant more of those.

     I mean sure we could build a device that pulls CO2 out of the air,and hook up some solar panels to power it and distribute them around the planet. But I think trees might be cheaper :)

     If we really want a non-bio tech solution the best I can think of is using zeolite under pressure to selectively remove the CO2. But i still doubt it would be more efficient than a tree.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 09:34:58 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • ｍｎｇｒｉｆ :kentucky:

     @mngrif I think you might have confused it with the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, but it didnt involve algae. It was the ocean's oxygen that was depleted.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 09:35:21 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • ｍｎｇｒｉｆ :kentucky:

     @mngrif I think you might be thinking of the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, but it didnt involve algae. It was the ocean's oxygen that was depleted.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2019 09:36:44 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • ｍｎｇｒｉｆ :kentucky:

     @mngrif Happy to help :)