So you don't believe humans are causing global warming because everything is warmer because of humans ....... ?
Overvolt doesn't believe in mainstream climate science so he cherry picks questionable sources to support this belief.
Let's see how he does it:
Well partly. I think the effect of CO2 is overstated and so are the consequences.
For awhile its always been that "Global Warming is killing the the ocean reefs" and now its starting to seem like Roundup/glyphosate run off may actually be more to blame.
Ok. It's plausible that glyphosate may negatively impact coral reefs. Although I'll point out that glyphosate in no way prevents the negative effects of increased ocean acidity and increasing temperature.
So he links us a blog post about a scientific study. The study itself looks pretty good. Showing how aquatic life can be negatively effected by glyphosate. It does not however mention climate change.
The blog post on the other hand ranges from a reasonable description of the study to a hot mess.
From the blog post and the part I'm sure Overvolt keyed on:
What if we’ve gotten the whole global warming theory backwards? What if burning fossil fuels isn’t the primary cause of climate change, but toxic chemicals ARE through a natural chain reaction? Global warming activist Al Gore was recently interviewed by Fox Newscaster Chris Wallace in June of this year. Gore admitted that on a global scale “emissions have stabilized and are beginning to decline”. So if we’ve cut down on fuel emissions, while being taxed and regulated to use these resources (the Carbon Tax), why are we not seeing any real difference? In fact, it seems to be getting worse according to Gore.
The oceans are trying to tell us something, if we would only listen. Oceans play an important role in keeping the Earth’s carbon cycle in balance. If we are killing off the oceans due to glyphosate run-off, which causes widespread plankton and aquatic death and ocean acidification, which causes the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise along with climate temperature, then perhaps a better solution can be offered. Place a worldwide ban on glyphosate and stop it from poisoning our Earth.
Al Gore did not say emissions are beginning to decline. Increases in emissions are beginning to plateau. The blog author is trying confuse the issue. We are stilling adding megatons of carbon to the atmosphere but the
rate of increase is slowing.
This hypothesis of theirs also doesn't pass simple tests. We know how much carbon we put into the air from fossil fuel usage. We can confirm it by the change in ratio of radioactive C14 in the atmosphere. New CO2 from plants and aquatic organisms has C14. CO2 from fossil fuels does not.
There's also no method for "toxic" chemicals in the oceans to describe the temperature changes we've measured.
So I don't trust this blog post. But maybe the author is an expert in the field of climate science and I should give them the benefit of the doubt?
Nope
Dr. Kathy Forti is a clinical psychologist, inventor of the
Trinfinity8 technology, and author of the book,
Fractals of God: A Psychologist’s Near-Death Experience and Journeys Into the Mystical
She's a psychologist who writes about mystical near death experiences....
Basically there is a huge divergence between computer data and the real world. The data is garbage IMO.
Here's an unsupported opinion.
In reality climate models are complex but can accurately predict shorter term climate change:
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...got-el-nino-right-also-show-warming-slowdown/
Some of the data points in the land temperature record from 1880 was probably a guy standing outside and licking his finger. Somewhat kidding, but consistent data collection in 1880 isn't what it is today and they merge all that data into one data set. Sure, its in the same format, highs and lows, but the collection is different. Nowhere else in science is it okay to merge data like that. Hence climate science is the only science allowed to make such sweeping and unsubstantiated generalizations.
This is also incorrect. Data sets can be created from multiple different methods as long as the margin of error is understood. Data from the 1880s has a larger margin of error but climate scientists take it into account and the data is still useful.
And its proven wrong at a later time again and again and again. Like the role of pollution in coral reef die off. Or how the models have to be constantly adjusted when their predictions are wrong.
Here he uses the blog posts incorrect representation of the study to erroneously support his belief.
Plus study after study confirms the same basic climate sensitivity to CO2 that was theorized 40 years ago.
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-exaggerate-warming/?comments=1&post=33201083
I don't disagree we are trashing the planet I just don't think our understanding of the climate is any better than GIGO. We're arguing over statistical artifacts and no one really understands the system as a whole IMO. We're much better off fixing one problem at a time, the big picture approach (worrying about the knock on effects of changing climate chemistry) is the wrong approach.
Finally direct measurements of CO2s effects confirm that this is no "statistical artifiact".
https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-the-greenhouse-effect-really-exists/
So just because Overvolt will use the opinions of authors of mystical experiences to convince himself he's right doesn't mean we have to.