Earth heats up do to less emissions?

Not really
 
Don't worry, IF everyone lives by the Paris Accords then we will regain 0.05F of cooling ...
 
*due
 
fishinabarrel said:
fox8.com

Earth heats up due to pandemic’s cleaner air, study finds

Earth spiked a bit of a fever in 2020, partly because of cleaner air from the pandemic lockdown, a new study found.
fox8.com

So are we truly damned if we do and damned if we don't?
Click to expand...
Not really. I think the study could have done a little better at highlighting the difference between aerosol particle and carbon dioxide. The lame swipe at the end of “it might warm up a little, but less will die from air pollution” just creates fodder for climate deniers.

While it was probably not within the scope of the study they were doing I’m sure there has to be correlation between less aerosol particles and less carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is one that’s only going to be the invisible threat that’s not felt until it’s too late.
 
Orlando_Eagles said:
Not really. I think the study could have done a little better at highlighting the difference between aerosol particle and carbon dioxide. The lame swipe at the end of “it might warm up a little, but less will die from air pollution” just creates fodder for climate deniers.

While it was probably not within the scope of the study they were doing I’m sure there has to be correlation between less aerosol particles and less carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is one that’s only going to be the invisible threat that’s not felt until it’s too late.
Click to expand...
I think the study could have done a little better at highlighting the difference between aerosol particle and carbon dioxide.

There's a reason they didn't


just creates fodder for climate deniers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ill
gobucks0409 said:
I think the study could have done a little better at highlighting the difference between aerosol particle and carbon dioxide.

There's a reason they didn't


just creates fodder for climate deniers.
Click to expand...
You’re take is that the study was built in a way to supper climate change deniers?
 
ill said:
I think his take is the article is written that way
Click to expand...
Fair point. I noted it was a Fox article up front. What threw me a bit is that these were quotes from the study. But, I haven’t read the full study and surely it could have other climate change support language in there that’s just not being reported on.

Narratives....yay.
 
Orlando_Eagles said:
You’re take is that the study was built in a way to supper climate change deniers?
Click to expand...
My comment was probably a bit unfair. The study probably didn't, and very well may have been done in an unbiased, scientifically curious way.

My comment should have just been reserved for how it is going to be used/interpreted by certain people.
 
HammerDown said:
The Earth has undergone 4.5B of global climate change.

LOL @ the fools who believe Al Gore's hoax. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
I agree, there are so many dupes out there that just gobble up his nonsense.
 
The ice is not melting here in Dallas TX


Artic is prolly screwed tho :dhd:
 
gobucks0409 said:
My comment was probably a bit unfair. The study probably didn't, and very well may have been done in an unbiased, scientifically curious way.

My comment should have just been reserved for how it is going to be used/interpreted by certain people.
Click to expand...
Shame of it is that I just want scientists to be scientist and share hypothesis and outcomes.

If they have to scour their studies to make sure they aren’t supporting a narrative they don’t feel the results support.....that’s work I don’t think they should have to do.
 
Orlando_Eagles said:
Shame of it is that I just want scientists to be scientist and share hypothesis and outcomes.

If they have to scour their studies to make sure they aren’t supporting a narrative they don’t feel the results support.....that’s work I don’t think they should have to do.
Click to expand...
but what if it is the article that is misrepresenting the study?

obviously once the research is done and the report is out, the scientist isn't going to follow up on every article and explain it to the author.

it is up to the reporter to get it right and not skew the report for their own political leanings.
 
ill said:
but what if it is the article that is misrepresenting the study?

obviously once the research is done and the report is out, the scientist isn't going to follow up on every article and explain it to the author.

it is up to the reporter to get it right and not skew the report for their own political leanings.
Click to expand...
My point was that I can’t expect someone on the research team to make sure they get the language of the study right and also make sure there is nothing in there that competing narratives can latch onto.

If I don’t expect them to do that I don’t expect them to chase every reporter down on it.

The simple fact is that it’s up to the reader to read it with a clear logic and reasoning. Narratives on both sides are often proven wrong, or not fully right, by logic and reason.

Problem is that for many people these days logic and reasoning are the first things narratives negate. That’s the problem.
 
Orlando_Eagles said:
My point was that I can’t expect someone on the research team to make sure they get the language of the study right and also make sure there is nothing in there that competing narratives can latch onto.

If I don’t expect them to do that I don’t expect them to chase every reporter down on it.

The simple fact is that it’s up to the reader to read it with a clear logic and reasoning. Narratives on both sides are often proven wrong, or not fully right, by logic and reason.

Problem is that for many people these days logic and reasoning are the first things narratives negate. That’s the problem.
Click to expand...
LOL. Since when has the media cared about checking into the science? Virtually everything reported on scientific discoveries nowadays by major outlets is done with the same level of scrutiny as Buzzfeed clickbait.
 
Mofo said:
LOL. Since when has the media cared about checking into the science? Virtually everything reported on scientific discoveries nowadays by major outlets is done with the same level of scrutiny as Buzzfeed clickbait.
Click to expand...
I agree

take the CDC report on double masks

no where in the report does it "recommend" anyone wear two masks.

yet every report is saying "CDC recommends wearing two masks"

it's annoying.
 
ill said:
I agree

take the CDC report on double masks

no where in the report does it "recommend" anyone wear two masks.

yet every report is saying "CDC recommends wearing two masks"

it's annoying.
Click to expand...
It's not a recent trend, either.

Take nutrition. When I was a kid, butter was evil, so we were supposed to eat margarine. Then suddenly unsaturated fats were discovered to be bad for you again. Then, all fats were assailed as harmful to health - especially the insidious trans fats (ooo!). Then someone found out that babies and children needed a good amount of fat for brain development. Sugar and carbohydrates are under attack at present, and ketogenic diets, once the province of pre-1950s era diabetics. Soon after, it'll be revealed all the horrible damage we're doing to our bodies with keto-Atkins hysteria. To all of these, there's a grain of truth, or something interesting to be learned. But that is never how it is presented in the news. Instead, it's "New scientific breakthrough today, as researchers at College University released preliminary findings that snorting LSD can help people kick smoking and obsessive-compulsive behaviors blah blah blah".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top