# How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2019)

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
*Search Results
Web results*

*How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural*
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

*How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...*
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

*How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...*
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

*Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles*
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
*How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...*
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

*Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections*
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

*How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...*
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to *Natural* and human factors that influence the *climate* (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2019)

*How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *

Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?


----------



## shockedcanadian (Feb 24, 2019)

I believe man is responsible for at least some damage and potential climate changes to the environment.  I also believe with pressure, science and Free Market principles, this damage can be reversed and minimized.

Look, America has cut emissions the most in the world, China and expanding economies like India are a greater threat to pollution than America is.  This isn't the 1950's America has cleaner processes of extraction and use of natural gas.  You can't see the sun in some cities in China.

I have no problem with using alternative sources of energy, I say, develop it, make it cost affordable and effectively functional for use.  That's the free market. * I support tax breaks for those putting their own money into a project, I do not support boondoggles, it has destroyed an already weak economic environment in Ontario*.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> 
> Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.



All of which still fails to contain:

Predictability

Quantifiability
Fasifiablility
A static control
Any baseline proposal of what the "ideal" temperature should be

And the warmer Bozos still claim that they're proponents of science.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 24, 2019)

HOW DO WE KNOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL???

how do we know what it supposed to be to say its happening???


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 24, 2019)




----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Oddball said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> ...



Speaking of quantifiability....did you know that to date, there is not one single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically, measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not one single published paper.

And every day one of the warmer wackos tells us that the science is settled.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


My favorite word for Climate Change is "IF".. that right there is the game changer..


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

So, is there a script that shows what or where temperatures should be?  Cause please show when it broke from that script


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> ...



Could
May
Might


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> ...


There’s also could


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2019)

Oddball said:


> *My favorite word for Climate Change is "IF".. that right there is the game changer..*
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Then you must have been Partisanly Blind to not see the most important and common word..
*"KNOW."*
`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > *My favorite word for Climate Change is "IF".. that right there is the game changer..*
> ...


So how many years left do we have before we reach the point of no return again?  12 as AOC says, or 100, or 1000?  Or you just dont *"KNOW".*


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > *My favorite word for Climate Change is "IF".. that right there is the game changer..*
> ...


I *KNOW* that you warmers are 100% full of shit.

I'm an expert in language and semantics, and I know parsing, qualifying, and obfuscating bullshit artists when I hear them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


When you say "man" is responsible,  you mean mistly Chinese man, right?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2019)

Oddball said:


> I *KNOW* that you warmers are 100% full of shit.
> 
> I'm an expert in language and semantics, and I know parsing, qualifying, and obfuscating bullshit artists when I hear them.


You're an "expert in semantics" and you missed KNOW?


*removed gratuitous insult*


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I *KNOW* that you warmers are 100% full of shit.
> ...


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 24, 2019)

The Globalism of Climate: How Faux Environmental Concern Hides Desire to Rule the World


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I *KNOW* that you warmers are 100% full of shit.
> ...




LMAO!!!! You need a nap and a sugar teat!


----------



## deannalw (Feb 24, 2019)

Oddball said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




You ain't seen my redneck truck.

I bet it's gonna be 147° in less than five years.

She's an environmental disaster.


----------



## darwing (Feb 25, 2019)

This winter's extreme climate makes us pay more attention to environmental protection.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > *My favorite word for Climate Change is "IF".. that right there is the game changer..*
> ...




Thing is, they don't know...they assume...but feel free to offer up some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability if you like...

Fat chance of that happening..


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I *KNOW* that you warmers are 100% full of shit.
> ...


Still waiting for your expert conclusion on when the tipping point is reached to where this is nothing but death to man due to global warming?  12 years as AOC says, 100 years, 1000 years, or you just dont *"KNOW"*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2019)

darwing said:


> This winter's extreme climate makes us pay more attention to environmental protection.


Winters extreme climate has been happening before the dawn of man.  Care to explain that?


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


A scam is a scam. The dumb azz people of New Jersey just elected another progressive socialist governor and there has been about a half dozen tax increases. They will elect a Republican the next election cycle. The globalists are pushing climate taxes. And who do you think will be charged? McDonalds decades ago ran a meal of a hamburger, small fries and a coke for less then a dollar. I bet without all of the massive tax increases in all types of government in our nation that they could put a meal like that together close to that price.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2019)

22lcidw said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> ...


Nope, they couldn't get close to the 95 cents that I saw, while I worked at McD's during that time.  Gold was only $400 an ounce(only because FDR and Nixon, both regressives wanted US off the gold standard) but toady with Gold being $1,300 an ounce the dollar's buying power is cut by over 1/3.  So we are lucky to see a hamburger, fry and small drink being $3.00 but if minimum wages go up to $15 an hour, that meal for $3 goes to $10.


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> 
> Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.




You didn't look at shit.

Are you claiming that historical temperature data are not "observed, measured evidence"?

How about CO2 levels?  Are you claiming they aren't "observed, measured, evidence"?

How about increased sea levels?  Are you claiming those aren't "observed, measured, evidence"?

You are nothing but a lying *TROLL*.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> You didn't look at shit.





Crick said:


> Of course I did..which is why I can say with supreme confidence that no such observed, measured evidence is there...no one is going to bring some piece of actual data from there to here to contradict me....care to try and prove me wrong skidmark?





Crick said:


> Are you claiming that historical temperature data are not "observed, measured evidence"?



Not at all...and they all fall within the realm of natural variability...no evidence whatsoever that we are seeing anything other than natural variability



Crick said:


> How about CO2 levels?  Are you claiming they aren't "observed, measured, evidence"?



Again...not at all...but then again, they are well within the realm of natural variability...in fact, they are dangerously low when compared to natural variability...



Crick said:


> How about increased sea levels?  Are you claiming those aren't "observed, measured, evidence"?['quote]
> 
> Not at all...but again, the rate at which sea level is increasing is well within the boundaries of natural variability...
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> ...


And when is the tipping point of no return again?


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

If you don't actually have any input into this debate, kindly fuck off.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> If you don't actually have any input into this debate, kindly fuck off.


And when is the tipping point of no return again? I just need to know how long I have before I should start building my Ark.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 25, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Still waiting for your expert conclusion on when the tipping point is reached to where this is nothing but death to man due to global warming?  12 years as AOC says, 100 years, 1000 years, or you just dont *"KNOW"*


Oh Look!
A 12 IQ strawman/false challenge/non sequitur for a claim never made.

Hey you weak-minded dope, tell me EXACTLY when Trump will tell his next lie.
*We CAN say he's a pathological LIAR without knowing when the next lie is.*

You're too stupid to debate.
`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for your expert conclusion on when the tipping point is reached to where this is nothing but death to man due to global warming?  12 years as AOC says, 100 years, 1000 years, or you just dont *"KNOW"*
> ...


So you DONT *"KNOW"* when the tipping point is , for the point of no return? Squirrel away you petulant spoiled little girl, I knew you are nothing more than a parrot of the left.


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

Inspired by Wuwei, I have to ask:


*ANDARONJIM*, what is "the tipping point"?

And "point of no return" is not an answer.  I want to know, specifically,  what you think happens after the tipping point that will not happen before.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> Inspired by Wuwei, I have to ask:
> 
> 
> *ANDARONJIM*, what is "the tipping point"?
> ...


You guys say "IF" we dont do something soon, we are going to reach a tipping point with global warming. Please tells US what that point is?

Earth warming to 'climate tipping point'


> This *could* trigger a "positive feedback" and push the planet's climate system past the point of no-return.


  So is it 2050 or sooner as AOC has forewarned?  If we get there and still not tipped yet, do you then set the goal line back another few hundred years?  Maybe when a Comet hits the earth and we all burn up then, you can then say you were right about global warming...


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate.  You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.

The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct.  Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree.  They are not stupid.  They are not socialists.  They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies".  They are doing science because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future.  They've got children too.  Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe.  Follow the real evidence.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate.  You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.
> 
> The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct.  Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree.  They are not stupid.  They are not socialists.  They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies".  They are doing science because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future.  They've got children too.  Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe.  Follow the real evidence.


Son, I have been on this planet much longer than any college puke who just came out of the liberal indoctrination stations.  I have seen climate change from really cold temps to really hot temps, depending on what part of the world I was on during those events.  You know what is remarkable?  Dumbasses like you who think that when it gets hot, oh my god, it must be global warming, but when it freezes outside, it is only weather...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate.  You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.
> 
> The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct.  Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree.  They are not stupid.  They are not socialists.  They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies".  They are doing science because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future.  They've got children too.  Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe.  Follow the real evidence.




I enjoy fiction....tell me all about man made global warming...and the emperor's clothes..you simply must tell me about he emperors new clothes...and about how the sky will fall due to a trace gas in the atmosphere...tell me that one...it is always good for a laugh...and tell me the one about the mountains of observed, measured evidence which support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and tell me the part about why you don't seem to be able to bring any of it here to shut me up...tell me about why you can't even bring ONE SINGLE SOLITARY PIECE OF IT HERE....


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 26, 2019)

Global Warming: Los Angeles Has Coldest February in 60 Years | Breitbart

Hey Abu...…..again Im laughing!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate.  You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.
> 
> The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct.  Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree.  They are not stupid.  They are not socialists.  They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies".  They are doing science because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future.  They've got children too.  Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe.  Follow the real evidence.




You fake.....you just told me last week, *"The IPCC doesn't draw conclusions! They gather the research!"*

You phony fraud!!


----------



## Flash (Feb 26, 2019)

These stupid Moon Bats are confused about this subject.

Over 90% of the time the earth has existed the temperature has been warmer than it is now.

At some times when the earth was warmer the  CO2 levels were lower.  During other times when the earth was cooler the CO2 levels were much higher.  At one time ten times higher.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere usually lags temperature changes.

AGW is pure bullshit.


----------



## oldsoul (Feb 26, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. Secondly, I am, admittedly, a skeptic. I am unsure as to whether or not changes in the environment are human caused or not. Now, we could debate the validity of the science, or we could just cut to the chase and discuss the real, underlying problem with EVERY single claim that the "science is settled". What is that you ask? Well, if the science truly is settled, then why is it that human caused climate change is still referred to as either a hypothesis, or a theory?

Hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." 

Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

Natural Law: "an observable law relating to natural phenomena."

So, if the "science is settled", then would human caused global climate change not be either truth, or natural law? Yet, very few scientists (if any), and no proponents (that I am aware of) actually use those terms. This is why I am a skeptic. Even the scientists agree, when obliged to be truly honest, we simply do not know for sure. Ask any scientist, when you are no longer a skeptic on a matter, you are no longer in a mental position to be impartial, and open to unexpected findings. In short, if you are no longer skeptical, you are no longer a good scientist.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 26, 2019)

oldsoul said:


> First let me say that* I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time.* ....


Then you're a ******* Idiot, and this is no real response.

Several are great sources by anyone's measure, but you don't want facts changing your politics
What a jerk you are.

`


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> darwing said:
> 
> 
> > This winter's extreme climate makes us pay more attention to environmental protection.
> ...


Well I've lived in chicago for 45 years and the climate is the same today as it was 45 years ago.  so please one of you leftist planet haters, tell me why it hasn't even though you all said it has?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> If you don't actually have any input into this debate, kindly fuck off.


are you sticking to that answer?  again no one fking knows who the fk you're talking to.  duhhhhhh derp


----------



## Oddball (Feb 26, 2019)

abu afak said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > First let me say that* I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time.* ....
> ...


Try the decaf sometime....Most people say you can't tell the difference.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2019)

*OLDSOUL*
No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis.  It is a WIDELY accepted theory.  Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality.  Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.  If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch


----------



## mamooth (Feb 26, 2019)

Flash said:


> These stupid Moon Bats are confused about this subject.



We're not confused. You're a cultist who parrots whatever idiot propaganda he's commanded to parrot.



> Over 90% of the time the earth has existed the temperature has been warmer than it is now.



Since forest fires used to always be natural, humans can't cause foreest firest.

Since climate always used to change naturallly, humans can't change climate.

Both statements are equally stupid.



> At some times when the earth was warmer the  CO2 levels were lower.  During other times when the earth was cooler the CO2 levels were much higher.  At one time ten times higher.



That's nice, but totally irrelevant, given that nobody ever said CO2 was the only thing affecting climate.



> CO2 levels in the atmosphere usually lags temperature changes.



And that's totally irrelevant. CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing.



> AGW is pure bullshit.



And you're an imbecile. But then, that's a given. If you could think rationally, you would have seen right through the idiot denier propaganda, so you wouldn't have gotten sucked into your liars' cult.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> *OLDSOUL*
> No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis.  It is a WIDELY accepted theory.  Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality.  Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.  If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch


No, it's still a hypothesis...There's no actual physically reproducible, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence available in order to give it the status of a theory.

And the IPCC is a political cabal, not a scientific one....The biggest clue of this is in the "I".


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> *OLDSOUL*
> No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis.  It is a WIDELY accepted theory.  Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality.  Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.  If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch



Theory has a specific definition...and how a hypothesis gets elevated to the status of theory happens in a particular way...A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.See Note at hypothesis .

The AGW hypothesis has produced predictive failure after predictive failure...you can show no repeated, or repeatable experiments regarding the climate and how energy moves through the system or what factors drive it...AGW not only is not a theory...it is a piss poor hypothesis.

The fact that climate science calls it a theory speaks volumes to the incompetence of climate science....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

mamooth said:


> We're not confused. You're a cultist who parrots whatever idiot propaganda he's commanded to parrot.



Says the cultist moonbat who parrots whatever idiot propaganda she is commanded to parrot..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *OLDSOUL*
> ...


We have a huge crop of dupes who have no clue what these definitions are or what they mean!  Its sad to see how dumbed down and ignorant these people are.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...

1) You're a troll
2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
3) Did I mention you're a troll.
4)  The scientists of the world, who actually DO know what they're talking about, tell us it is not only a theory, it is a very widely accepted theory.
5) Then there's the fact that you're a troll.
6) Oh!  I almost forgot: YOU LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...
> 
> 1) You're a troll
> 2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
> ...


Gone for a week and your still trolling!

When will you produce any empirical evidence to support your bull shit?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...
> 
> 1) You're a troll
> 2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
> ...


*2a. Freudian Projection*
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto another is called _Freudian Projection_.


“A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.”
“The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual.”
“Attributing one’s own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile.”
“The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity.”
“People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way.”
“Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have.”


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> *OLDSOUL*
> No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis.  It is a WIDELY accepted theory.  Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality.  Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.  If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch


still no observed evidence to back your post.  shameful the tactics you use.  you don't bring material forward that proves your post.  such a loser.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...
> 
> 1) You're a troll
> 2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
> ...



step on up to the plate skidmark and provide some observed, measured evidence to prove me wrong on even a single point....we both know you can't, and I never tire of pointing out that you can't...all you can do is spew your anger and frustration over having your ass handed to you at every turn....shouting names at people on the internet in all caps...what a loser you have turned out to be...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...
> ...



That would be never,,,never ever ever...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Oddball said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...
> ...



The whole group of them should change their screen names to reflect names like Strong Simplex, Super Simplex, Motiongraph, and Peerless...they are all top shelf projectors...the hairball is one of the best....constantly accusing others of precisely the behavior she is engaging in...and crick is quick to call others a liar when he is one of the most dishonest people on the board...

Good call...you nailed it..


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

Do you realize how fucking cliche it is to try to defend yourself by accusing your opponents of projection?  

We know that humans are causing AGW because humans have produced all the increased CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
We know that humans are causing AGW because humans have produced all the increased methane since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
We know that humans are causing AGW because humans are responsible for almost every single acre of deforestation to take place on this planet since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Here is where SSDD will claim there is no greenhouse effect.

The primary reason he makes such an idiotic claim is that he is a troll.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you realize how fucking cliche it is to try to defend yourself by accusing your opponents of projection?



Yep...but then you guys aren't very creative...you are dullards...bots who simply spew the pseudoscientific propaganda you are told to spew..



Crick said:


> We know that humans are causing AGW because humans have produced all the increased CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.



We don't "know" that CO2 causes warming...there are plenty of claims..but alas, not a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has ever been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...not a single paper...  

Further, there are serious questions among the actual scientific community as to whether our CO2 emissions are even statistically significant...of course, not among alarmist pseudoscientists...but then, they don't actually do the work...they just get paid  to spew alarmist bullshit.

How can you make the claim that we "know" humans are causing warming when there has never been a paper published that empirically measured, and quantified the claimed warming?  



Crick said:


> We know that humans are causing AGW because humans have produced all the increased methane since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We don't "know" that CO2 causes warming...there are plenty of claims..but alas, not a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has ever been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...not a single paper...
> ...



Any observed, measured data that demonstrate that I am wrong?  Didn't think so.




SSDD said:


> Further, there are serious questions among the actual scientific community as to whether our CO2 emissions are even statistically significant...of course, not among alarmist pseudoscientists...but then, they don't actually do the work...they just get paid  to spew alarmist bullshit.





Crick said:


> Lying troll



Ask nicely and I will provide the published papers for you and even some enlightening graphics..



SSDD said:


> How can you make the claim that we "know" humans are causing warming when there has never been a paper published that empirically measured, and quantified the claimed warming?





Crick said:


> Lying troll



So lets see the paper...just a link will be sufficient...  We both know that you won't be providing any such link because no such paper exists...



SSDD said:


> Sorry skidmark...our methane production pales in comparison to termintes...And since IR can not warm the air...the whole point is moot.





Crick said:


> Lying troll



Got any observed measured evidence showing otherwise?  Didn't think so.



SSDD said:


> You are batting a thousand skidmark...assumption after assumption after assumption without the first piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...





Crick said:


> Lying troll[/quyote]
> 
> You have become a pathetic laughing stock...look at what I have reduced you to.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So lets see the paper...just a link will be sufficient...  We both know that you won't be providing any such link because no such paper exists...



www.ipcc.ch

TROLL


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you realize how fucking cliche it is to try to defend yourself by accusing your opponents of projection?
> 
> We know that humans are causing AGW because humans have produced all the increased CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
> We know that humans are causing AGW because humans have produced all the increased methane since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
> ...



The whole CO2 causation hasn't been proven and btw, wont be any time soon! More importantly, the public isnt buying it which places your opinion amongst that of the distinct minority.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see the paper...just a link will be sufficient...  We both know that you won't be providing any such link because no such paper exists...
> ...



More bullshit from the skidmark....if there is something there, then by all means bring it here...Which paper in particular?  We both know you won't be naming any particular paper because your claim is bullshit...you are a laughing stock now skidmark...maybe it is time to disappear again and come back as someone who has a bit of credibility...at least for a few days anyway...


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

He asks for a link.  I give him the link and he claims its just bullshit.

This is the behavior of a TROLL


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Oddball said:


> All of which still fails to contain:
> 
> Predictability
> 
> ...


So apart from that you agree human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change? Or do you not accept any of the conclusions in the links given at all, just pretend to agree with them as you assign them to irrelevance?


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Oddball said:


> I'm an expert in language and semantics, and I know parsing, qualifying, and obfuscating bullshit artists when I hear them.


Yes, you've said. But this is about science of which you obviously know sweet fa. Amusingly enough I've had the same arguments from accountants, 'they know a scam when they see one'. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Flash said:


> Over 90% of the time the earth has existed the temperature has been warmer than it is now.


How long have homo sapiens been around, 0.0015% odd of that time?


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> When you say "man" is responsible, you mean mistly Chinese man, right?


No, mainly US man. Hint - it's the area under the graph line that counts.






https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...




Some of us can admit that it is possible or even likely that Mankind can affect (and has been affecting) the "weather."

We simply refuse to buy into alarmist's chicken little syndrome.


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

I get 0.005% of the time since the appearance of life.  And, of course, the time since the appearance of human civilization vs appearance of life would be 0.0000143%.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> I have seen climate change from really cold temps to really hot temps, depending on what part of the world I was on during those events.


The blessing of senility.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> Some of us can admit that it is possible or even likely that Mankind can affect (and has been affecting) the "weather."


Do you agree that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change?


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Some of us can admit that it is possible or even likely that Mankind can affect (and has been affecting) the "weather."
> ...



Nope.

Again, for as long as any so called "climate changes" are within the range of natural occurrences in the past, I see no reason to draw any conclusions along those lines. 

The earth will regulate itself with or without us.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Over 90% of the time the earth has existed the temperature has been warmer than it is now.
> ...




so you want all us to die.....right?


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> The earth will regulate itself with or without us.


Gods. Then I take it you don't chuz life.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

bear513 said:


> so you want all us to die.....right?


Have another drink.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> Again, for as long as any so called "climate changes" are within the range of natural occurrences in the past, I see no reason to draw any conclusions along those lines.


How long in the past? Does it include when mankind was not around? After all, being formed of molten rock is a natural occurrence, during which the Earth was regulating itself.


----------



## Flash (Feb 28, 2019)

bear513 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




Just think how many of these stupid Yankee Moon Bats upnorth that elect idiot Democrats  that want to take away their heating fuel would die in the first winter without fossil fuels.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an expert in language and semantics, and I know parsing, qualifying, and obfuscating bullshit artists when I hear them.
> ...


I know enough about science to recognize that none of the Goebbels warming hokum is:

Physically repeatable
Quantifiable
Falsifiable
Has a static control
Has a baseline "optimal" temperature
After that, all the double-talking, parsing, and qualifying language surrounding it reveals it for the pure pseudo-scientific hoax that it is.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Again, for as long as any so called "climate changes" are within the range of natural occurrences in the past, I see no reason to draw any conclusions along those lines.
> ...



A reasonable timeframe would vary. . . But it wouldn't vary in a way that is intentionally dimissive of any time periods or occurances that can arguably be perceived as an inconvenience or spoiler.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > The earth will regulate itself with or without us.
> ...



I'll make a deal with you.

You make more of an effort to fight for the rights and lives of the millions of children being *intentionally* denied and slaughtered here and now in the present time. . . And I'll make more of an effort to try and get myself more worked over your reasons to have more worries and concerns about the children of 5 to 10 generations from now; who haven't even been conceived. 

Deal?


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

What prevents you from being concerned about both?


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> What prevents you from being concerned about both?



What prevents YOU?


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> A reasonable timeframe would vary. . . But it wouldn't vary in a way that is intentionally dimissive of any time periods or occurances that can arguably be perceived as an inconvenience or spoiler.


What a load. Chuz bullshit.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Oddball said:


> I know enough about science to recognize that none of the Goebbels warming hokum is:
> 
> Physically repeatable
> Quantifiable
> ...


So you didn't read the links and you've dismissed their contents out of hand while patting yourself on the back for not actually engaging with the evidence. Dunning-Kruger don't know what they're missing.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> Deal?


Nah, one cannot make deals with invincible ignorance.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see the paper...just a link will be sufficient...  We both know that you won't be providing any such link because no such paper exists...
> ...



That isn't a link to a paper...that is a link to a steaming pile of excrement...now if you care to name a particular paper within that pile which contains the data that you claim exists...by all means..name it...

We both know that isn't going to happen though...don't we...once more, you will get your panties in a twist and call me some name because once again, I have shown you to be a bloviating buffoon...


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Deal?
> ...



You personify that point very well.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I know enough about science to recognize that none of the Goebbels warming hokum is:
> ...


I've told you the evidence I've gone by....People using the semantics of double-dealers and liars, are going to end up being double-dealers and liars....It's how language works.

You can take your left-handed Dunning-Kruger insult and shove it up your hoaxing ass.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > A reasonable timeframe would vary. . . But it wouldn't vary in a way that is intentionally dimissive of any time periods or occurances that can arguably be perceived as an inconvenience or spoiler.
> ...



So (to you) it is "*bullshit*" to factor in ALL of the data, including data that might prove against your theory?

That should tell everyone all they need to know about your conclusions, right there.


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What prevents you from being concerned about both?
> ...



I'm very concerned about AGW.  I'm not concerned about abortions because I do not consider a first trimester fetus to be a human being.  I believe all women have the right to abortion on demand in the first trimester.  Believe it or not, so does the US Supreme Court.  That is the law in this nation.

But you haven't answered my question.  Why do you act as if it is impossible to concerned both about abortion and global warming?  I'm quite certain lots of other people are.  What limits you in that regard?


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



1. You are wrong when you claim that human being is not a human being when thst human being is in the fetal stage of their own life, growth and development.

2. I have full faith and confidence in mankind's ability to adapt and to overcome any chalkenges that future generations will face AS they face them.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Oddball said:


> I've told you the evidence I've gone by


Yes. Everything but the science. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well. And that's not an insult, merely a verifiable observation.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> So (to you) it is "*bullshit*" to factor in ALL of the data


No. The post of yours I referenced is complete bullshit. It gives no information and is in no way useful. It's bullshit.


----------



## cnm (Feb 28, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> 2. I have full faith and confidence in mankind's ability to adapt and to overcome any chalkenges that future generations will face AS they face them.


Just like the dinosaurs.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I've told you the evidence I've gone by
> ...


Verifiable by whom, a cargo cultist?


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > 2. I have full faith and confidence in mankind's ability to adapt and to overcome any chalkenges that future generations will face AS they face them.
> ...



Yeah.

Because dinosaurs were much more intelligent and able to perceive and control their own destiny than we humans are.

Right?

Funny how tardz don't even know when to shut the fuck up, sometimes.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'm very concerned about AGW.  I'm not concerned about abortions because I do not consider a first trimester fetus to be a human being.



Interesting how you will gobble up pseudoscience and proclaim it as truth, but ignore long held, indisputable facts of developmental biology in favor of your personal opinion...the irony literally drips.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I've told you the evidence I've gone by
> ...




Got any observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  Even one single piece of such data to support your believe?  Just one?

Of course you don't, and yet, you believe the science is settled, that the case is closed, and the consensus is correct this time....talk about dunning kruger on parade...no actual evidence of an eminently observable, and measurable entity like the atmosphere and energy movement through it?....and yet, you believe....and based on what?  consensus?  Guess you never spent much time researching the history of science and how often the "consensus" is wrong especially where relatively new fields of science are concerned...

Climate science is still in its infancy and yet, you believe it has sprung forth complete and incorruptible...knowing all the factors that drive the climate and how each factor interacts with and effects all the others on both individual and as a whole basis...and you believe this not based on any actual observed, measured evidence, but based upon your political leanings....Dunning-Kruger on parade...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > 2. I have full faith and confidence in mankind's ability to adapt and to overcome any chalkenges that future generations will face AS they face them.
> ...



We are the most adaptable creatures that have ever walked the planet...there is little that we can't adapt to as evidenced by the fact that we are able to inhabit most of the places on earth except the very deep oceans...

The degree or so of climate change we have witnessed is not even a blip on our adapt-0- meter...considering the fact that on any given day, the maximum and minimum temperatures on this planet spread nearly 200 degrees and we inhabit them all...you are tripping over your faith....try rational, critical thinking once in a while.


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

Then why do humans die from starvation, thirst and disease?  Why haven't we adapted the ability to resist these insults?


----------



## Chuz Life (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> Then why do humans die from starvation, thirst and disease?  Why haven't we adapted the ability to resist these insults?



Easy.

The "individual survival of the fittest" aspect of our human nature is a key part in our ability to adapt and to survive as an entire species.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> Then why do humans die from starvation, thirst and disease?  Why haven't we adapted the ability to resist these insults?




Lately vast numbers of them are starving due to the left's war on GM foods.....thirst and disease? ....chalk that up to the lefts war on energy sources for the third world...waging war on hydro electric programs that would provide cheap and plentiful energy to regions that are presently living in the equivalent of the 1700's...


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .try rational, critical thinking once in a while.



Says the man who claims all matter knows what the temperature will be at any point in the universe at the moment its IR photons reach it, even if whatever it would strike doesn't exist at the time the photons are emitted.

*S*ame *S*hit *D*ifferent *D*ay puts out these bizarre misinterpretations of science just to wind people up.  That makes him 

*A TROLL*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .try rational, critical thinking once in a while.
> ...



What precisely does the rules that science made up regarding photons have to do with people starving because of the left's war on GM food or energy sources for the third world...

Alas skidmark, it is you who is the troll...I noted the other day a senior mod pointed out your trollish behavior....none of the mods has ever said I was trolling...this is what I have made of you and I laugh about it with every post you make...You have been laid low and I take the credit for it....laughing in your face...


----------



## cnm (Mar 1, 2019)

Oddball said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


You don't even read the data yet believe you know better. Pure Dunning-Kruger.


----------



## cnm (Mar 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> Because dinosaurs were much more intelligent and able to perceive and control their own destiny than we humans are.


Like we are able to perceive and stop global warming in the face of severe resistance from deniers, that ability?


----------



## cnm (Mar 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do humans die from starvation, thirst and disease?  Why haven't we adapted the ability to resist these insults?
> ...


So, by 'perceiving and controlling our own destiny'
you meant natural selection? Just like the dinosaurs, eh?


----------



## Chuz Life (Mar 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Because dinosaurs were much more intelligent and able to perceive and control their own destiny than we humans are.
> ...



That, along with the more reasonable people who have the ability to keep the chicken little syndrome alarmist pussies in check.


----------



## Chuz Life (Mar 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



If any of the now extinct dinosaurs had even half the mental capacity that we conservatives have, they would not be extinct today. 

That said, I can see how and why you choose to identify with them.


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

Humans have been around for 200,000 years.  Dinosaurs existed for 179 million years.


----------



## cnm (Mar 2, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> That, along with the more reasonable people who have the ability to keep the chicken little syndrome alarmist pussies in check.


By pushing coal? That'll work.


----------



## Chuz Life (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Humans have been around for 200,000 years.  Dinosaurs existed for 179 million years.




Wow..... those fucking Dinos sure had a big head start on US!

Right?

Funny, they left not one trace of themselves on the surface of the moon or MARS like we did.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

And they didn't fuck their own planet either. That's how they managed to last almost a thousand TIMES as long as we're likely to make it.


----------



## Dale Smith (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> And they didn't fuck their own planet either. That's how they managed to last almost a thousand TIMES as long as we're likely to make it.



Climate change right here. You are welcome.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

Okay, I'll bite.  Are you suggesting that contrails are the sole cause of global warming?


----------



## Dale Smith (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Okay, I'll bite.  Are you suggesting that contrails are the sole cause of global warming?



Those are man made cloud cover by the spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates like aluminum, strontium and barium.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

Cause...






I believe you should be looking at the row labeled "Cloud Adjustments due to Aerosols"


----------



## Dale Smith (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Cause...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Water and soil samples are the tale of the tape. This SRM program has been going on in earnest since 1997.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> And they didn't fuck their own planet either. That's how they managed to last almost a thousand TIMES as long as we're likely to make it.



So you prefer to be cattle?  You certainly bleat enough to be confused for an insensate bleating calf...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Cause...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All the output of failed models....in other words wild assed guesses that barely correlate to reality..


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

Sri Ramakrishna Memorial?  Switched Reluctance Machine?  Scalable Reliable Multicast? Span Restorable Mesh?

Wait... having carefully reviewed the list below I'm going to go for the ring and guess

*SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT*.  Did I get it?

*SRM*

*Acronym* *Definition*
SRM Solid-propellant Rocket Motor
SRM Supplier Relationship Management
SRM Standard Reference Material
SRM Service Repair Manual
SRM Site Recovery Manager
SRM Switched Reluctance Motor
SRM Standard Reference Method
SRM Single Resolution Mechanism _(banking; EU)_
SRM Switched Reluctance Machine
SRM Storage Resource Management
SRM Structural Repair Manual
SRM Solid Rocket Motor
SRM Structural Risk Minimization
SRM Single Round Match _(scheduler)_
SRM Short Range Missile
SRM Specified Risk Material
SRM Safety Risk Management _(various organizations)_
SRM Social Relationship Management _(software)_
SRM Society for Range Management _(professional scientific society & conservation organization for rangelandestablished in 1948)_
SRM Security Risk Management
SRM Standardized Response Mean
SRM Service Request Management
SRM Small Renal Mass _(urology)_
SRM Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization _(US DoD; replaces term real property maintenance, RPM)_
SRM System Renewability Message
SRM Safety and Risk Management
SRM System Resource Manager
SRM Support and Retention Module
SRM Service Resource Module
SRM System Reference Model
SRM Surroundings Repair Method
SRM Storage Resource Manager
SRM Steam Reforming of Methanol
SRM Strategic Risk Management _(various organizations)_
SRM Software Risk Management
SRM Strategic Relationship Manager
SRM Selected Reaction Monitoring _(mass spectrometry)_
SRM Seattle Reproductive Medicine _(Seattle, WA)_
SRM Southeastern Railway Museum _(Duluth, Georgia, USA)_
SRM Secondary Raw Material
SRM Speech Recognition Module _(voice recognition software)_
SRM Scalable Reliable Multicast
SRM Spatial Reference Model
SRM Slip Ring Motor
SRM Service Component Reference Model _(US Federal Enterprise Architecture)_
SRM Service Resource Module _(Cisco)_
SRM Software Reliability Modeling
SRM System Renewability Message _(digital content protection)_
SRM Software Release Management
SRM Software Rights Management _(publishing protection)_
SRM State Run Media
SRM Solar Radiation Management _(geoengineering)_
SRM Solaris Resource Manager
SRM Short-Range Modem
SRM Security Reference Monitor
SRM Socialist Republic of Macedonia _(now Republic of Macedonia)_
SRM Service Resource Management
SRM Schoberer Rad Messtechnik _(sports training and technology company, Germany)_
SRM Survey Research Method
SRM Service Reference Model
SRM Spiritual Regeneration Movement
SRM Secure Remote Management _(software)_
SRM Sterling Regional MedCenter _(Sterling, CO)_
SRM Spontaneous Rupture of Membranes _(pregnancy)_
SRM Student Recruitment Manager _(TargetX)_
SRM Seated Row Machine _(strength training)_
SRM Site Resource Management
SRM Selective Receptor Modulator _(pharmacology)_
SRM Service Relationship Management
SRM Square Root Measurement
SRM System Reference Manual
SRM Script Running Machine
SRM Sid Richardson Museum _(Fort Worth, TX)_
SRM System Resources Manager
SRM Sound Resource Management
SRM Surface Response Method
SRM Subscriber Relationship Management
SRM Server Resource Map
SRM Stephenson Railway Museum _(est. 1986; UK)_
SRM Safety Reliability Methods _(consulting firm)_
SRM Synchronous Reluctance Motor
SRM Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause _(American Society for Reproductive Medicine)_
SRM Sustainment Restoration Modernization
SRM Single Router Mode _(Cisco)_
SRM Union of Romanies of Macedonia _(The Former Yugolsav Republic of Macedonia)_
SRM Science and Religion in Media
SRM Silver River Museum _(Florida)_
SRM Société de Récupération Mouzillonnaise _(French recovery company)_
SRM Synergy Revenue Management _(Atlanta, GA)_
SRM Stimuli-Responsive Material _(solar energy)_
SRM Stretch Reducing Mill
SRM Storage & Retrieval Machine
SRM Service Redundancy Module
SRM System Resource Module _(Nortel)_
SRM Student Role Model
SRM Solid Rock Ministries
SRM Service Request Message _(FIPS)_
SRM Software Reliability Model
SRM Solvent Resource Management Limited _(UK)_
SRM Short Range Marksmanship
SRM Special Resource Management
SRM Signaling Route Management _(CCS #7 & ITU-T)_
SRM Secure Rack Modem _(Western Telematic, Inc.)_
SRM Safety, Reliability and Maintainability
SRM Service Responsibility Matrix _(project management)_
SRM Subretinal Membrane
SRM Square Root Method
SRM SINCGARS Radio Model
SRM Stack Reference Model
SRM Schedule Result Message _(NASA)_
SRM Systems Resources Management, Inc
SRM Standards Related Matters
SRM Scan Rate Modulation
SRM Spime Retrofit Module
SRM Systems Review Manager
SRM Still Runnin Magazine _(Mechanicsville, VA)_
SRM Special Recognition Memory
SRM Single Routing Module _(Cisco)_
SRM Set-up Request Message _(ITI)_
SRM Span-Restorable Mesh
SRM Sri Ramakrishna Memorial
SRM Subtracted Reed-Muller _(code)_
SRM Sub-Rate Multiplex _(Sprint)_
SRM Self-Reinforcing Mechanism
SRM Saginaw Rescue Mission _(Saginaw, Michigan)_


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Cause...
> ...



Where do you get the idea that anyone would use a model to calculate values from recorded data?  Or have you decided that anyone performing a mathematical calculation on observations is actually modeling physical parameters as ordinal symbols and such a method is inherently unreliable; such as when you count your fingers and come up with 11?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Sri Ramakrishna Memorial?  Switched Reluctance Machine?  Scalable Reliable Multicast? Span Restorable Mesh?
> 
> Wait... having carefully reviewed the list below I'm going to go for the ring and guess
> 
> ...



You forgot the 3 stooges...skidmark, rocks and mammoth.


----------



## Dale Smith (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Sri Ramakrishna Memorial?  Switched Reluctance Machine?  Scalable Reliable Multicast? Span Restorable Mesh?
> 
> Wait... having carefully reviewed the list below I'm going to go for the ring and guess
> 
> ...



Yep


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

And whose program is it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> And whose program is it?



He's never said whether the metal is sprayed from a separate tank.....or added to the fuel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I'll bite.  Are you suggesting that contrails are the sole cause of global warming?
> ...



Aluminum is not a heavy metal.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

Who is doing the spraying Dale?  What aircraft operated by whom?

Why are they spraying these materials?

What do you mean by the term "nano particulates"  How does it differ from "powder"?

Are these materials harmful to humans or other animals or plants?


----------



## Dale Smith (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> And whose program is it?


 The military industrial complex that works at the leisure of the shadow government created with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Owning the weather as a force multiplier for full spectrum dominance has been a major goal since at least the early 1940s.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

So you believe those contrails are being created by military aircraft?  Why, then, if one simply sits out and observes the sky near major air hubs, does one see that the vast majority of those contrails are created by commercial passenger and cargo aircraft?


----------



## Dale Smith (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> So you believe those contrails are being created by military aircraft?  Why, then, if one simply sits out and observes the sky near major air hubs, one sees that those contrails are created by commercial passenger and cargo aircraft?





Airplanes start their descent anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour before landing and well below 30,000 feet where the naysayers claim that condensation lasts longer and linger. We will go as long as a week with no spraying and then get bombarded. This isn't natural.....not by a long shot.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

Where did you get the idea that this was a military program spraying metal powders into the air?


----------



## Chuz Life (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> And they didn't fuck their own planet either. That's how they managed to last almost a thousand TIMES as long as we're likely to make it.



LOL!

How do* you *know they didn't fuck the planet?

Maybe they forgot to put a tape in their camcorder.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

Because they lived for 179 million years and nothing in the geological or historical record looks like what's happening now unless major asteroid impacts or continental-scale volcanic events were involved.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Because they lived for 179 million years and nothing in the geological or historical record looks like what's happening now unless major asteroid impacts or continental-scale volcanic events were involved.




More stupid and unsupportable claims that you can not possibly support... Dinosaurs lived during the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods...during that time, according to our best research, the average global mean temperature was very close to 21C....except for a short dip towards the end of the Jurassic where the temperature dipped to about 16C..then started climbing again through the early Cretaceous back up to about 22C...atmospheric CO2 during that period ranged from a minimum of 1000ppm at the end of the Cretaceous to a maximum of about 2500ppm just a bit more than mid way through the Jurassic.

So during the time dinosaurs lived, the temperate varied by about 4 degrees...very similar to the variation we have seen since the beginning of the present interglacial...do you ever bother to read anything before you start talking?  Ever?


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

And those changes took place over a span of millions of years.  When things changed rapidly, as with the Chicxulub Impact and the eruption of the Deccan Trapps, extinctions took place.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> And those changes took place over a span of millions of years.  When things changed rapidly, as with the Chicxulub Impact and the eruption of the Deccan Trapps, extinctions took place.



Got any actual evidence to support that?  What proxy reconstruction are you using that provides that sort of resolution during that time period on earth?  The answer is none...just more unsupportable claims pulled out of your ass.

And are you now trying to compare the climate change we have seen to a major volcanic eruption or a impact event?  really?  You want to compare a degree over 100 years to an event that altered the climate in a matter of days?  Are you that desperate?  Are you that stupid?  Are you that far behind the curve?

This goes straight to the fact that there is no observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...We have no evidence at all that suggests that the rate and magnitude of change that we have seen is in any way different from natural variability over the ages....none at all.  You guys go straight to that claim that in the past changes took thousands of years, but you have no evidence of that....the best temperature reconstructions that we have, ice cores, indicate magnitudes and rates of change that are far greater than anything we have seen just during the present interglacial...and there is no real reason to suspect that even greater magnitudes and rates of change happened, completely naturally further back than the small window we have to look through.  

You are just making assumptions and claiming them to be true...that isn't evidence..that is just what you wish..


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2019)

Gosh, if only you were actually familiar with the literature you might know this stuff.  And if only you were trying to sort out the truth about this topic instead of stroking your own inflated ego by infuriating people... the way a

*FUCKING TROLL*

would do.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Gosh, if only you were actually familiar with the literature you might know this stuff.  And if only you were trying to sort out the truth about this topic instead of stroking your own inflated ego by infuriating people... the way a
> 
> *FUCKING TROLL*
> 
> would do.



So that would be a no...you have nothing to support the claims that you just pull out of your ass...


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2019)

I have what I have always had: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and the thousands of studies supporting AGW on which the five assessment reports are based.  It is YOU that have nothing.  It is you that lie.  It is you that ignore it when you are routinely refuted.  That is solely and entirely because, without the slightest demurral, you are a

*TROLL
*
You've repeatedly claimed that everything in "The Physical Science Basis" is crap.  Why don't YOU pull some up and show us why you believe that?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> I have what I have always had: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and the thousands of studies supporting AGW on which the five assessment reports are based.  It is YOU that have nothing.  It is you that lie.  It is you that ignore it when you are routinely refuted.  That is solely and entirely because, without the slightest demurral, you are a
> 
> _TROLL_
> 
> You've repeatedly claimed that everything in "The Physical Science Basis" is crap.  Why don't YOU pull some up and show us why you believe that?



And yet, when asked to bring a SINGLE piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, all you can do is splutter a bit, hurl some shit and call some names...there is no observed, measured data there, or anywhere which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

If there is some such data there skidmark...then bring it...It isn't for me to prove that it isn't there...I made the claim so prove me wrong...shove a single piece of observed measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability in my face...do it here in front of everyone...I dare you....

Didn't think you would...hard to produce what doesn't exist...


----------



## oldsoul (Mar 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > First let me say that* I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time.* ....
> ...


So, I'm an idiot because I choose to question based on an argument that you do not wish to discuss. "nuff said.


----------



## oldsoul (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> *OLDSOUL*
> No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis.  It is a WIDELY accepted theory.  Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality.  Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.  If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch


You seem to be missing the point of my post. I reiterate:


oldsoul said:


> Now, we could debate the validity of the science, or we could just cut to the chase and discuss the real, underlying problem with EVERY single claim that the "science is settled". What is that you ask? Well, if the science truly is settled, then why is it that human caused climate change is still referred to as either a hypothesis, or a theory?





oldsoul said:


> So, if the "science is settled", then would human caused global climate change not be either truth, or natural law? Yet, very few scientists (if any), and no proponents (that I am aware of) actually use those terms


Care to discuss?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Mar 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


*
Tell us what percentage of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade?*


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> I have what I have always had: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and the thousands of studies supporting AGW on which the five assessment reports are based.  It is YOU that have nothing.  It is you that lie.  It is you that ignore it when you are routinely refuted.  That is solely and entirely because, without the slightest demurral, you are a
> 
> *TROLL
> *
> You've repeatedly claimed that everything in "The Physical Science Basis" is crap.  Why don't YOU pull some up and show us why you believe that?


still nothing.  what a loser.  dude following instructions is not your forte.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> ...


it is the most evilist CO2 up there.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Mar 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


*About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.*


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


and evil.  it causes it to snow more, rain more experience violent tornadoes that we never had before.  fewer hurricanes.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
> In effect it's nothing.*



You're off by more than a factor of ten.  Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm.  Pre-industrial were 280 ppm.  Human emissions total 131 ppm.  That
 equals 0.0131%.

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin?  How about plutonium oxide?  Mercury?  Would any of those be acceptable to you?  So, if those materials can present risks at that level, what makes you think CO2 cannot?

The denier practice of arguing that small amounts of a thing cannot be harmful is ignorance preying on ignorance.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > *About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
> ...


*How many times did you exhale CO2 while you read this?
I don't think that I am off by a factor of ten.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 5, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


Mans contribution to atmospheric CO2 is but 0.00034%.  Its actually far less than you posted.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > *About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
> ...


Wow

WOW

WOW!!

With those increases the temperature increases must be off the charts in the lab work!!


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Mar 5, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


the point was made


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> *OLDSOUL*
> No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis.  It is a WIDELY accepted theory.  Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality.  Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.  If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch



What exactly is a "widely accepted theory"???? There are multiple theories on the table here...

For instance, this juvenile notion that "world ENDS in 12 years" is loosely based on the 2 deg Trigger theory.. The theory that states when (AND IF)  the temperature anomaly exceeds 2 deg, that we can do NOTHING but kiss our asses goodbye...

You claiming that theory is "widely accepted"??

Are you also claiming that the science as its known today is SO GOOD, that there's NO DOUBT our little 1degC temperature blip that we've observed HAS NEVER HAPPENED in the past 10,000 years???

You claiming that theory is "settled science" and widely accepted??

How about all those failed models from the FIRST TWO IPCC conferences?? The ones that started the panic... Are you claiming that the models have improved so much that they are accurate to 80 years out now??

You have a very juvenile understanding of what all that IPCC information means. HALF OR MORE of it was already proven inaccurate just by waiting 10 or 20 years.. *But more importantly, you cannot even TELL US what the temperature anomaly is GONNA BE in 2100 to any degree of accuracy.. Can you??* And what modeling qualifiers were used to predict that value and the other 3 questions that must be answered about ANY PROJECTIONS that are made.. Like the RANGE of estimation error...

You're just useless.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2019)

By any measure, AGW is a widely accepted theory. The original disagreement here was the contention that it lacks the status of theory and is only a conjectured hypothesis.  This contention is demonstrably false.

  The 12 year comment of Representative Ocasio-Cortez is dramatic hyperbole.  She's not a scientist so the litany of attacks on her comments by deniers is just another fallacious straw dog argument to which there is zero need to respond.  

If you want a real discussion about real issues, I suggest you stick to the conclusions of the IPCC.


----------



## Flash (Mar 5, 2019)

If AGW was real the scammers wouldn't have to falsify data like they do.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2019)

What data do you believe has been falsified?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin?


Comparing apples to ballet slippers again...it isn't dioxin...it is CO2 a trace gas in the atmosphere not capable of altering the global climate in the least...

Clearly you believe it can...where does that belief come from?

Can you produce a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

I contend that there is no such published paper and that your claims are unsupportable rubbish...feel free to prove me wrong...if such a paper exists, who wrote it, where was it published and can you provide a link to it?

Step on up skidmark...can you support your claims or not?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> By any measure, AGW is a widely accepted theory. The original disagreement here was the contention that it lacks the status of theory and is only a conjectured hypothesis.  This contention is demonstrably false.
> 
> The 12 year comment of Representative Ocasio-Cortez is dramatic hyperbole.  She's not a scientist so the litany of attacks on her comments by deniers is just another fallacious straw dog argument to which there is zero need to respond.
> 
> If you want a real discussion about real issues, I suggest you stick to the conclusions of the IPCC.



It is not a theory...the word theory means something...can you show any of the repeatable experiments, that would have to exist in order to move AGW from the status of a piss poor hypothesis up to the status of theory...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> What data do you believe has been falsified?




that whole chart for starters...graphs from years past can be provided showing different versions of the data manipulation through the decades.....


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

That question was for poster Flash, not you.  Since you never provide supporting evidence for your claims, discussing anything pertinent with you is a complete waste of time.  You are, after all, nothing but a 

_*TROLL*_


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> It is not a theory...the word theory means something...can you show any of the repeatable experiments, that would have to exist in order to move AGW from the status of a piss poor hypothesis up to the status of theory...



Those who have the qualifications to make such a determination (and that most assuredly does not include you) have said it is a theory.  Very close to every single one of them has accepted it as valid.  Your complaints are scientific and logical bullshit.  You simply make shit up to get a 'rise' from the rest of us because every day and in every way, you are a 

*TROLL*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> That question was for poster Flash, not you.  Since you never provide supporting evidence for your claims, discussing anything pertinent with you is a complete waste of time.  You are, after all, nothing but a
> 
> _*TROLL*_



Projecting again skidmark?  You are the one who claims that there is observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...evidence which you don't seem to be able to find in spite of your claims...and you claim that papers have been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities have been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...and again, you don't seem to be able to produce them...

You are the one making claims you can't support...and the fact remains that the whole chart is fraudulent and past charts can be shown marking the variations from year to year as the data is altered...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a theory...the word theory means something...can you show any of the repeatable experiments, that would have to exist in order to move AGW from the status of a piss poor hypothesis up to the status of theory...
> ...



Theory -a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

So lets see the experimental data by which these propositions were tested...and the predictive failure of the AGW hypothesis is becoming legendary...so no..it is not a theory and is a piss poor hypothesis...and the fact that some in science claim it is theory, only speaks to their incompetence at calling such a piss poor hypothesis a tested theory...

You are easily fooled...


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

You zipped right by "commonly regarded as correct".  Obviously, AGW is well beyond "commonly regarded as correct". 

The Scientific Method is not as hard and fast as you would believe.  How, for instance, would one conduct experiments in astronomy or cosmology?  In cases in which laboratory experiments are not practical or even possible, observations can be used to test falsification.  

From Scientific method - Wikipedia
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments *or empirical observations* based on those predictions.[1][2] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments *or studies*. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment *or observation* that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[3]

...
..
.
Scientific methodology often directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions wherever possible. This is frequently possible in certain areas, such as in the biological sciences,* and more difficult in other areas*, such as in astronomy.

References

 Peirce, Charles Sanders (1908). "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" . _Hibbert Journal_. *7*: 90–112 – via Wikisource. with added notes. Reprinted with previously unpublished part, _Collected Papers_ v. 6, paragraphs 452–85, _The Essential Peirce_ v. 2, pp. 434–50, and elsewhere.
*^* See, for example, Galileo 1638. His thought experiments disprove Aristotle's physics of falling bodies, in _Two New Sciences_.
*^* Popper 1959, p. 273


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> You zipped right by "commonly regarded as correct".  Obviously, AGW is well beyond "commonly regarded as correct".



Based on what?  You can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...That speaks directly to the corruption of the science by politics....the scam is failing....literally hundreds of papers were published last year alone questioning the scam.....more will be published this year...and the next year....your scam is dying and your bullshit reeks of desperation...


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

Nobody give a SHIT what evidence you're willing to admit exists.  Almost every single one of the real scientists doing the real research on this topic say the evidence is more than convincing. 

And let's see the titles of some of these "hundreds of papers" that were published.  And, putting your own work on your own website is NOT getting published.

*TROLL*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> Nobody give a SHIT what evidence you're willing to admit exists.  Almost every single one of the real scientists doing the real research on this topic say the evidence is more than convincing.
> 
> And let's see the titles of some of these "hundreds of papers" that were published.  And, putting your own work on your own website is NOT getting published.
> 
> *TROLL*



But they do care about the evidence you can't produce.....and neither you, nor all of climate science can produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

And we all know that in science...real science, you rule out natural causes before you jump to conclusions that can't be supported with the actual evidence...in pseudoscience, you can claim whatever you like, and fail as often as you fail so long as the funding keeps coming in...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > *About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
> ...


*You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.*

prove it.  let's see the experiment that separates the CO2.

How long have humans been on this planet?  when was your reading of 280PPM?  you say pre industrial, then that implies that throughout history, not one fking human breathed.  Cause you're saying the 280 is all natural.  so what happened to all the cow farts and people farts and coal burning and all of that prior to that 280?  your entire line is so much bullshit, I prove your fallacy with this post.  so fk off now.


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> Nobody give a SHIT what evidence you're willing to admit exists.  Almost every single one of the real scientists doing the real research on this topic say the evidence is more than convincing.
> 
> And let's see the titles of some of these "hundreds of papers" that were published.  And, putting your own work on your own website is NOT getting published.
> 
> *TROLL*





SSDD said:


> But they do care about the evidence you can't produce.....



But I have produced evidence: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and then there are the thousands of published studies on which the IPCC's assessment reports are based.

You, on the other hand, have produced none.



SSDD said:


> and neither you, nor all of climate science can produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..



That would be a lie.



SSDD said:


> And we all know that in science...real science, you rule out natural causes before you jump to conclusions that can't be supported with the actual evidence...in pseudoscience, you can claim whatever you like, and fail as often as you fail so long as the funding keeps coming in...



Natural causes for global warming HAVE been ruled out.

And, again, let's see some of these "hundreds of papers" that refute AGW you claim have been published .  And putting your own crap up on a website is still not the same as getting published.


----------



## Cosmos (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability



Actually, there is.  You just didn't see it.

_How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

We know human activities are driving the increase in CO2 concentrations because atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source. Scientists can tease apart how much CO2 comes from natural sources, and how much comes from combusted fossil fuel sources.


Compared to other carbon sources, carbon from fossil fuels has a distinctly different “signature,” essentially the relative amount of heavier or lighter atoms of carbon (technically δ13C). The more negative the δ13C, the higher the proportion of carbon from fossil fuels.


Over the years, δ13C has decreased while the overall amount of CO2 has increased. This information tells scientists that fossil fuel emissions are the largest contributor of CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial era.

_
So not only can they measure the increase in atmospheric CO2, they can fingerprint it's composition and determine its source.
_
_


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> But I have produced evidence: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and then there are the thousands of published studies on which the IPCC's assessment reports are based.




You have produced evidence that the climate changes...but you haven't even come close to producing anything like observed, measured evidence that mankind is responsible....nor have you provided anything like evidence that the change we have seen is unusual or unprecedented.

You have produced evidence that sea level is rising..but haven't produced anything like observed, measured evidence that mankind is in any way responsible...nor have you provided anything like real evidence that the sea level change we have seen is in any way outside of natural variability...

And so it goes with everything you have produced...it is evidence, but not evidence of what you claim...you show evidence of change and then hang a big assed assumption on it that mankind is responsible with no evidence to support the assumption. That is because you are a dupe and don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between evidence of a thing...and evidence of what caused the thing..




Crick said:


> That would be a lie.



Says the dupe who can't produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability



Crick said:


> Natural causes for global warming HAVE been ruled out.



Really?  What are all the natural factors that cause climate change?  How do they effect climate change?  How do they effect each other and how do those effects alter the global climate?  The answer to those questions is a resounding we don't know...We are just barely scratching the surface regarding what drives the climate, what causes it to change and what doesn't...there are plenty of published papers examining the natural causes of climate change and challenging the claim that we drive the climate here..



Crick said:


> And, again, let's see some of these "hundreds of papers" that refute AGW you claim have been published . And putting your own crap up on a website is still not the same as getting published.



Sure skidmark...unlike you, I don' make claims that I can't back up....When I say that there are papers that support my position, I am prepared to give you title, author, publication, and a link....If you could only reciprocate....of course you can't, because none of the data you claim exists actual exists...so you give vague links that simply go to steaming piles rather than actually list the papers you claim support your claims....Lets begin with papers published in 2018...then if you like, we can move on back..and since there are more than 500 published in 2018 alone, I won't be covering them all..

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research



> In locations best sheltered and protected against ocean air influence, *the vast majority of thermometers worldwide trends show temperatures in recent decades rather similar to the 1920–1950 period*. This indicates that the present-day atmosphere and heat balance over the Earth cannot warm areas – typically valleys – worldwide in good shelter from ocean trends notably more than the atmosphere could in the 1920–1950 period. … [T]*he lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions*.




https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/39/2018/tc-12-39-2018-supplement.pdf






https://www.clim-past.net/14/101/2018/cp-14-101-2018.pdf



> *Persistent multidecadal variability with a period of 50– 90 years is consistent between the subarctic North Atlantic mean record and the AMO over the last 2 centuries* (AD 1856–2000). … The climate of the Arctic–subarctic is influenced by the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, which experience internal variability on different timescales with specific regional climate impacts. In the North Atlantic sector, instrumental sea surface temperature (SST) variations since AD 1860 highlight low-frequency oscillations known as the AMO (Kerr, 2000).  … *The evidence of industrial era warming starting earlier at the beginning of the 19th century was proposed by Abram et al. (2016) for the entire Arctic area*. However, the intense volcanic activity of the 19th century (1809, 1815 and around 1840; Sigl et al., 2015) may also explain the apparent early warming trend, suggesting that it may have been recovery from an exceptionally cool phase. On the scale of the Holocene, *internal fluctuations occurring on a millennial scale have been identified in the subarctic North Atlantic area and were tentatively related to ocean dynamics* (Debret et al., 2007; Mjell et al., 2015). … The LIA is, however, characterized by an important spatial and temporal variability, particularly visible on a more regional scale (e.g., PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013). It has been *attributed to a combination of natural external forcings (solar activity and large volcanic eruptions)* and internal sea ice and ocean feedback, which fostered long-standing effects of short-lived volcanic events (Miller et al., 2012).



https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0092.1



> * Observed Southern Ocean changes over recent decades include a surface freshening* (Durack and Wijffels 2010; Durack et al. 2012; de Lavergne et al. 2014), *surface cooling* (Fan et al. 2014; Marshall et al. 2014; Armour et al. 2016; Purich et al. 2016a) *and circumpolar increase in Antarctic sea ice* (Cavalieri and Parkinson 2008; Comiso and Nishio 2008; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012).  … [A]s high-latitude surface freshening is associated with surface cooling and a sea ice increase, this may be another factor contributing to the CMIP5 models excessive Southern Ocean surface warming contrasting the observed surface cooling (Marshall et al. 2014; Purich et al. 2016a), and sea ice decline contrasting the observed increases (Mahlstein et al. 2013; Polvani and Smith 2013; Swart and Fyfe 2013; Turner et al. 2013; Zunz et al. 2013; Gagne et al. 2015) over recent decades. … Our results suggest that recent multi-decadal trends in large-scale surface salinity over the Southern Ocean have played a role in the observed surface cooling seen in this region. … *The majority of CMIP5 models do not simulate a surface cooling and increase in sea ice (Fig. 8b), as seen in observations*.



How many more would you like...there are hundreds and hundreds...and what category of skepticism of the "consensus" would you care to see? 

The papers above lean towards there being no net warming since the mid to late 20th century...but we can look at dozens of non hockey stick reconstructions...whe can look at a couple of dozen which find a lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea level rise...we can look at a couple of dozen that find nothing unusual happening with either glaciers or polar ice, we can look at a couple of recent papers examining Antarctic ice melting due to high geothermal heat flux, and there are a few that describe abrupt degrees per decade periods of natural warming.

Or we can look at better than 100 which look at the solar influence on climate vs the anthropogenic claims, a couple of dozen which examine ENSO, NAO, AMO, and PDO climate influences vs anthropogenic claims, about a dozen examining modern climate being in phase with natural variability...Volcanic influence, Cloud/aerosol influence, and about a dozen which question the CO2/radiative greenhouse effect as being a climate driver at all.

Or we can look at a couple of dozen on climate model unreliability, biases, and errors, a few on urban heat island effects artificially raising temperatures, a dozen or so on failing renewable energy climate policies, a dozen or so on the damage wind power is doing to the environment and biosphere, a couple of dozen on elevated CO2 increasing crop yields, about a dozen on polar bear populations not cooperating with alarmists claims, about a dozen on warming, and acidification not harming the ocean, a couple on coral bleaching being a natural, recurring phenomenon, about a dozen on no increasing trends in intense hurricanes, about a dozen on there being no increasing trend in drought or flood frequency and severity, a few on natural CO2 emissions being a net source, not a net sink, a couple on the decrease in global fire frequency as CO2 increases, a few on CO2 changes lagging temperature changes by more than a thousand years, a couple on global losses and deaths from weather disasters decreasing, about a half a dozen on there being no AGW changes to hydrological cycles being detectable, and some miscellaneous skeptical papers...

So where to next skidmark?  Unlike you, I can back up my claims and won't send you off on some wild goose chase hoping that you might find something that sort of sounds like what I claimed...I am prepared to give you author, title, publication, and a link to the paper in question...


----------



## Confounding (Mar 7, 2019)

I am amazed that these assholes have the arrogance to question the work and integrity of scientists _all over the fucking world_ that have dedicated their lives to this stuff. These are the people that know more about it than anybody, and your response to their findings is "Bullshit, you're lying." You morons looked at a couple of graphs on some bullshit conspiracy blog websites and you think you're qualified to dispute the findings of the most qualified people on Earth. This is completely motivated by partisan bullshit for you people. You think there's some leftist conspiracy involving all of the climate scientists but there really isn't. You're just fucking stupid, seriously.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability
> ...


_

Really?  Lets take a look.  It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of warmers.




			We know human activities are driving the increase in CO2 concentrations because atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source. Scientists can tease apart how much CO2 comes from natural sources, and how much comes from combusted fossil fuel sources.
		
Click to expand...


Which part of that statement do you believe represents observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  It is certainly a claim, but where is the actual observed, measured evidence to back it up?  I don't see anything there...maybe you could cut and paste what it is that passes for observed, measured evidence in your mind..





			Compared to other carbon sources, carbon from fossil fuels has a distinctly different “signature,” essentially the relative amount of heavier or lighter atoms of carbon (technically δ13C). The more negative the δ13C, the higher the proportion of carbon from fossil fuels.
		
Click to expand...


Actually, that isn't altogether true, but even if it were, exactly what is that proof of beyond the fact that we produce CO2?  Which part of that do you think is observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  The assumption that our CO2 is causing warming is hardly evidence of anything...





			Over the years, δ13C has decreased while the overall amount of CO2 has increased. This information tells scientists that fossil fuel emissions are the largest contributor of CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial era.
		
Click to expand...


Again...debatable...I can provide you with actual published papers which call into question whether the amount of CO2 we produce has any effect on the total atmospheric CO2 as opposed to the opinion piece which you believe contains anything like actual evidence..it is chock full of claims, but I don't see anything at all there that amounts to evidence of anything other than that perhaps we produce CO2 as if that were in question._




> So not only can they measure the increase in atmospheric CO2, they can fingerprint it's composition and determine its source.



And?  So you have evidence that we produce CO2?  Who ever questioned that?  Got any actual observed, measured evidence that our CO2 causes warming?  I see plenty of assumption in your link that it does, but nothing like actual evidence...Assuming that our CO2 or any CO2 causes warming doesn't make it so...Lets see the observed, measured evidence that it does...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Confounding said:


> I am amazed that these assholes have the arrogance to question the work and integrity of scientists _all over the fucking world_ that have dedicated their lives to this stuff. These are the people that know more about it than anything, and your response to their findings is "Bullshit, you're lying." You morons looked at a couple of graphs on some bullshit conspiracy blog websites and you think you're qualified to dispute the findings of the most qualified people on Earth. This is completely motivated by partisan bullshit for you people. You think there's some leftist conspiracy involving all of the climate scientists but there really isn't. You're just fucking stupid, seriously.



So lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.  You act as if you have seen such evidence and it was enough to convince you...I have been looking and asking for 30 years for a single piece of such evidence and have neither found it, nor been shown it...

And you know what?  You aren't going to show it to me either because no such evidence exists...not one single shred of evidence that suggests that what bit of climate change we have seen is anything other than natural variability...

You can produce claims, and assumptions galore...but no actual evidence to support the claim.  So exactly what good are all your scientists, and their consensus, if between them, they can't produce any real evidence to support their claims?


----------



## Confounding (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > I am amazed that these assholes have the arrogance to question the work and integrity of scientists _all over the fucking world_ that have dedicated their lives to this stuff. These are the people that know more about it than anything, and your response to their findings is "Bullshit, you're lying." You morons looked at a couple of graphs on some bullshit conspiracy blog websites and you think you're qualified to dispute the findings of the most qualified people on Earth. This is completely motivated by partisan bullshit for you people. You think there's some leftist conspiracy involving all of the climate scientists but there really isn't. You're just fucking stupid, seriously.
> ...



I am not enough of a dumb fuck to sit here and even pretend I am qualified to explain to you the science behind AGW. You have no idea how much you don't understand. A climate scientist would laugh at you.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Confounding said:


> I am not enough of a dumb fuck to sit here and even pretend I am qualified to explain to you the science behind AGW. You have no idea how much you don't understand. A climate scientist would laugh at you.



I'm not asking you to explain anything...I am asking for A SINGLE PIECE OF OBSERVED, MEASURED EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THE MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE HYPOTHESIS OVER NATURAL VARIABILITY.  

Just one single piece of observed, measured evidence.  And like I said...it won't be coming from you either...or anyone else because no such evidence exists.  So I know pretty much what I understand and what I don't...and I know that without any actual evidence to support the claim..the claim is bullshit...and I know that anyone who believes in a claim without evidence to support it is not standing on scientific ground...they are expressing their faith...


----------



## Confounding (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > I am not enough of a dumb fuck to sit here and even pretend I am qualified to explain to you the science behind AGW. You have no idea how much you don't understand. A climate scientist would laugh at you.
> ...



You are disputing the claims of scientists all over the world that have studied and practiced this stuff their entire adult lives. You are an arrogant jackass. I will not entertain this conversation beyond that.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Confounding said:


> You are disputing the claims of scientists all over the world that have studied and practiced this stuff their entire adult lives. You are an arrogant jackass. I will not entertain this conversation beyond that.



I am saying that there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.  I will also state categorically, that there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

You aren't producing any observed, measured evidence to contradict me...all you are doing is engaging in a logical fallacy...if any such evidence existed, you wouldn't be able to escape it..it would be everywhere..people would be using it for their signature lines on these forums...it would be on billboards...comercials...on cans of coke...but it isn't because it doesn't exist.

So if no observed, measured evidence exists that supports AGW over natural variability..and if it has never been measured and quantified in a paper, exactly what is the consensus based on if not politics and money?


----------



## Confounding (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > You are disputing the claims of scientists all over the world that have studied and practiced this stuff their entire adult lives. You are an arrogant jackass. I will not entertain this conversation beyond that.
> ...



You disagree with the vast majority of scientists all over the world as well as every scientific institution. I don't.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



So what?  My views on whether or not cholesterol caused heart disease directly contradicted nearly every doctor and medical institution and doctor in the world...now they agree with me...my views on whether stress caused stomach ulcers contradicted nearly every medical institution and doctor in the world...now they agree with me...my views on whether or not salt caused high blood pressure contradicted nearly every medical institution and doctor in the world...now they agree with me.

If you have ever looked at the history of science, you know that on practically every scientific topic you can name, the consensus has been wrong...especially where new fields of study such as climate are involved...science is an evolving, learning process.  The very idea that climate science sprung forth complete, all knowing, and never wrong is laughable...Climate science is in its infancy...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know regarding what drives the climate...


----------



## Confounding (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So what?



You are ignorant compared to them. Despite any cute anecdotes you might have those scientists are leaps and bounds more qualified to have an opinion than you because they understand more about it than you ever will. You think you understand this better than the scientists do after clicking through some climate change blogs? That's completely preposterous. Also I don't know about you personally, but it goes beyond just disagreement with most "skeptics." Often it's claimed that the scientists are deliberately deceiving us. Anybody that _actually_ understands how science and peer review work knows that that's _completely ridiculous_. Every climate scientist on Earth wants to be the one that proves AGW isn't actually happening. That person will go down in history.


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2019)

Not "will" go down... "would"


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So what?
> ...



You don't know the first thing about me...so you have shown that you tend to operate based on what you feel rather than what you know...



Confounding said:


> Despite any cute anecdotes you might have those scientists are leaps and bounds more qualified to have an opinion than you because they understand more about it than you ever will.



So you say, and think...and yet, I can pinpoint what sort of evidence you can provide and can't provide with perfect certainty...



Confounding said:


> You think you understand this better than the scientists do after clicking through some climate change blogs?



Again...I can predict with perfect certainty exactly what sort of evidence you can provide and what you can't provide...it is the evidence that you can't provide that tells the story...



Confounding said:


> Every climate scientist on Earth wants to be the one that proves AGW isn't actually happening. That person will go down in history.



Right...every climate scientist wants to be the one to prove AGW isn't actually happen and cut off a multi trillion dollar stream of money over the foreseeable future and go back to the days where the best gig they could possibly hope for was as a weather man on a local news network...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Confounding said:


> I am amazed that these assholes have the arrogance to question the work and integrity of scientists _all over the fucking world_ that have dedicated their lives to this stuff.



So we should just go along with being wrong?  Do you know how often science has been wrong over the years?  They have been wrong on practically every scientific topic you c

These are the people that know more about it than anybody, and your response to their findings is "Bullshit, you're lying." You morons looked at a couple of graphs on some bullshit conspiracy blog websites and you think you're qualified to dispute the findings of the most qualified people on Earth. This is completely motivated by partisan bullshit for you people. You think there's some leftist conspiracy involving all of the climate scientists but there really isn't. You're just fucking stupid, seriously.[/QUOTE]


Crick said:


> Not "will" go down... "would"



Whats the matter skidmark...don't want to explore any more of those hundreds of skeptical papers published last year alone?  Guess you don't get much exposure to the fact that the hypothesis is failing in your little world insulated from reality...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

Have you put up links to any of them?  Because I don't find them.  People like Naomi Orestes and James Powell, searching through tens of thousands of published papers don't find them.  So... where are they?


----------



## Confounding (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You don't know the first thing about me...so you have shown that you tend to operate based on what you feel rather than what you know...



You've demonstrated enough so far for me to fairly make a few assumptions.



SSDD said:


> So you say, and think...and yet, I can pinpoint what sort of evidence you can provide and can't provide with perfect certainty...



I don't care about your interpretation of the evidence because you're not a climate scientist. I won't ask for your opinion if I need open heart surgery either. What is your job? What have you spent your life doing for a living? When it comes to whatever that is I'd be interested in your input on the matter. 



SSDD said:


> Again...I can predict with perfect certainty exactly what sort of evidence you can provide and what you can't provide...it is the evidence that you can't provide that tells the story...



You can parrot bullshit you read on skeptic blogs designed to fool people like you into not trusting scientists.



SSDD said:


> Right...every climate scientist wants to be the one to prove AGW isn't actually happen and cut off a multi trillion dollar stream of money over the foreseeable future and go back to the days where the best gig they could possibly hope for was as a weather man on a local news network...



You just don't understand how science works. Scientists make a living on destroying each other's ideas. If there was some kind of conspiracy/corruption it wouldn't last long at all because legitimate scientists would blow it out of the water.


----------



## Confounding (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So we should just go along with being wrong?  Do you know how often science has been wrong over the years?



You only know about the times it was wrong because it's a self-correcting system. Who do you think uncovered those mistakes? People that aren't scientists? Science embraces mistakes because it increases our understanding. You really have no idea how deep of an insult it is to men of science for you to suggest some of the shit that you do.




SSDD said:


> Whats the matter skidmark...don't want to explore any more of those hundreds of skeptical papers published last year alone?  Guess you don't get much exposure to the fact that the hypothesis is failing in your little world insulated from reality...



And there are thousands of studies that support it each year. There is some truth in your words though. Crick has demonstrated that he doesn't look at this issue like a scientist.


----------



## Confounding (Mar 8, 2019)

Furthermore the skepticism should be left to the minority of climate scientists that disagree with the consensus. The rest of us should sit around waiting to see the results of their disagreements. 

SSDD 

I accuse you of having a position motivated by politics rather than science.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Confounding said:


> You've demonstrated enough so far for me to fairly make a few assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Confounding (Mar 8, 2019)

The scientists think there's enough evidence to support their claims. I'll take their word over your uninformed interpretation of the situation.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Have you put up links to any of them?  Because I don't find them.  People like Naomi Orestes and James Powell, searching through tens of thousands of published papers don't find them.  So... where are they?



Guess you can't read.....post 176.  Then let me know which sort of skeptical papers you would like to see from there...I gave you a host of choices.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Confounding said:


> You only know about the times it was wrong because it's a self-correcting system.



Correct....scientists propose a hypothesis then begin testing that hypothesis against reality...if the hypothesis proves itself useful in predicting outcomes, then more testing is done looking for weakness in the hypothesis...and if the hypothesis makes a predictive failure, the hypothesis is falsified....then work begins on a new hypothesis that is stronger than the one that experienced predictive failure.

This is where climate science establishes that it is engaged in pseudoscience and not actual science...the past 3 decades or so are littered with predictive failures of both the greenhouse hypothesis and AGW since each relies on the other...Neither has been altered from the original hypothesis....that isn't science...in pseudoscience, a hypothesis can have as many predictive failures as it wants...it really doesn't matter so long as the funding continues...



Confounding said:


> Who do you think uncovered those mistakes?



So when climate science makes predictions based on the AGW hypothesis, and those predictions fail, why do they not scrap the hypothesis and work on a better one?...why do they not change the hypothesis so that the failures it has experienced do not continue to happen?




Confounding said:


> And there are thousands of studies that support it each year. There is some truth in your words though. Crick has demonstrated that he doesn't look at this issue like a scientist.


[/quote]

But not a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...that is the claim that AGW makes, but no paper exists in which the claimed warming has ever been physically measured and quantified...so what is the consensus based on?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Have you put up links to any of them?  Because I don't find them.  People like Naomi Orestes and James Powell, searching through tens of thousands of published papers don't find them.  So... where are they?



Why, yes I have...over on the "how do we know humans are causing climate change" thread...post #176 I think....  You want me to start posting them here as well?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

This IS "How do we know humans are causing climate change".


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Confounding said:


> Furthermore the skepticism should be left to the minority of climate scientists that disagree with the consensus. The rest of us should sit around waiting to see the results of their disagreements.



So you think we should just blindly trust them and accept whatever they say because they are scientists?  Is that what you are suggesting.....That they be self policing?  That whatever they say government should do, that that should just be done without regard to the consequences?  Is that what you are saying?  Sort of like blind faith in religious leaders?




Confounding said:


> I accuse you of having a position motivated by politics rather than science.



Baseless accusation since I am the one asking for scientific evidence...and you are the one telling me that I should just trust them whether they can produce any evidence at all...you are the one suggesting that we just accept on blind faith that they are correct and have our best interests at heart...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Confounding said:


> The scientists think there's enough evidence to support their claims. I'll take their word over your uninformed interpretation of the situation.


\

So lets see just one single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.....you keep talking about all this evidence..I am just asking for one piece and you don't seem to be able to manage even that...don't feel bad though..no one else has either...You are demanding blind faith....not trust in experts who can make their case based on presentable evidence...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> This IS "How do we know humans are causing climate change".




Nothing there...but if it were, my bet is that there won't be a single scrap of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....


----------



## Confounding (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you think we should just blindly trust them and accept whatever they say because they are scientists?



If you hired a lawyer would you trust their legal advice?

I think you should recognize that you lack context and depth of knowledge compared to a climate scientist. The fact that most of them believe something similar is significant. It doesn't mean they're 100% right. It means our best and brightest believe something similar based on what we understand so far. They're the best we've got.


----------



## Confounding (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > The scientists think there's enough evidence to support their claims. I'll take their word over your uninformed interpretation of the situation.
> ...



Why do you keep asking me to prove AGW? How many times do I have to tell you I'm not a climate scientist?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Does not reject or refute AGW

https://www.clim-past.net/14/101/2018/cp-14-101-2018.pdf
Does not reject or refute AGW

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0092.1
Does not reject or refute AGW

If you disagree, please show us some details from these studies that you think do so.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you think we should just blindly trust them and accept whatever they say because they are scientists?
> ...



Before I "HIRED" a lawyer, I would thoroughly vet him...I would check his track record...I would ask a lot of questions to determine whether he warranted my trust.  I haven't hired a climate scientist, and have not seen any vetting process that happens before what they say is taken as gospel...I have no idea whether they graduated first in their class or last...I have no idea whether they are deeply in debt, under investigation, or anything else about them...exactly why should I place trust in what someone says simply because they possess a scrap of paper which says climate scientist on it?



Confounding said:


> I think you should recognize that you lack context and depth of knowledge compared to a climate scientist. The fact that most of them believe something similar is significant. It doesn't mean they're 100% right. It means our best and brightest believe something similar based on what we understand so far. They're the best we've got.



Why should I recognize that?  I seem to know precisely what sort of evidence they can and can not produce.    And I have some news for you bucky...climate scientists are neither the best nor the brightest...climate science is for people who want to study science, but don't have the intellectual wattage necessary to get through an actual hard science curriculum like physics, chemistry, astrophysics, biology, geology, etc...climate science is a soft science....


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



I am not asking you to prove anything.....I am just asking for a single piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...even such a piece of evidence would not prove man made global warming...but it would at least be a piece of evidence that demonstrates that the climate we are experiencing now is at least some amount outside of the boundaries of natural variability...


----------



## Confounding (Mar 8, 2019)

Scientists collect mountains of data and say "This is what we think it means."

Then unqualified people on message boards say "No, THIS is what your data means, and you're wrong about it being enough to come to the conclusion you've come to."


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
> Does not reject or refute AGW
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

Their study shows that different regions have different temperature trends.  It makes not the slightest suggestion that the accepted global temperature data is in error.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Their study shows that different regions have different temperature trends.  It makes not the slightest suggestion that the accepted global temperature data is in error.



If what bit of warming there is is regional then it makes a bald faced lie out of the claim of "global" warming.  There is some regional warming.. and some regional cooling...when you look at regional records, there is no discernible trend...it is only when you look at the heavily manipulated, homogenized, infilled global "record" that one sees warming...it is an artifact of tampering, not of "global" warming.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

As I said the papers I provided lean towards there being no net warming since the mid to late 20th century...but we can look at dozens of non hockey stick reconstructions...we can look at a couple of dozen which find a lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea level rise...we can look at a couple of dozen that find nothing unusual happening with either glaciers or polar ice, we can look at a couple of recent papers examining Antarctic ice melting due to high geothermal heat flux, and there are a few that describe abrupt degrees per decade periods of natural warming.

Or we can look at better than 100 which look at the solar influence on climate vs the anthropogenic claims, a couple of dozen which examine ENSO, NAO, AMO, and PDO climate influences vs anthropogenic claims, about a dozen examining modern climate being in phase with natural variability...Volcanic influence, Cloud/aerosol influence, and about a dozen which question the CO2/radiative greenhouse effect as being a climate driver at all.

Or we can look at a couple of dozen on climate model unreliability, biases, and errors, a few on urban heat island effects artificially raising temperatures, a dozen or so on failing renewable energy climate policies, a dozen or so on the damage wind power is doing to the environment and biosphere, a couple of dozen on elevated CO2 increasing crop yields, about a dozen on polar bear populations not cooperating with alarmists claims, about a dozen on warming, and acidification not harming the ocean, a couple on coral bleaching being a natural, recurring phenomenon, about a dozen on no increasing trends in intense hurricanes, about a dozen on there being no increasing trend in drought or flood frequency and severity, a few on natural CO2 emissions being a net source, not a net sink, a couple on the decrease in global fire frequency as CO2 increases, a few on CO2 changes lagging temperature changes by more than a thousand years, a couple on global losses and deaths from weather disasters decreasing, about a half a dozen on there being no AGW changes to hydrological cycles being detectable, and some miscellaneous skeptical papers...

The fact is that the evidence that the consensus view of climate change is failing...at long last, actual evidence is coming out that demonstrates that the mainstream view is terribly flawed and in many cases and outright lie...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

None of the three papers to which you linked suggest ANY changes to the currently accepted status of AGW.  Period.  If you're going to just make things up (like "lean towards no net warming") I will print the whole abstracts and show that you are lying.

If you have more or better examples of what you claim is now dominating published climate science, feel free to provide a few links.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> None of the three papers to which you linked suggest ANY changes to the currently accepted status of AGW.  Period.  If you're going to just make things up (like "lean towards no net warming") I will print the whole abstracts and show that you are lying.
> 
> If you have more or better examples of what you claim is now dominating published climate science, feel free to provide a few links.




Deny all you like...it is what you guys do..


----------



## deanrd (Mar 8, 2019)

I don’t get Republicans at all. I know many have children. Why would they wanna leave their kids a dead and dying world? What do they think is going to happen to the kids?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

I can only guess they believe money buys happiness.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

deanrd said:


> I don’t get Republicans at all. I know many have children. Why would they wanna leave their kids a dead and dying world? What do they think is going to happen to the kids?



I am very concerned about a plethora of genuine environmental issues...pollution, run off, poor land use, illegal dumping etc etc etc...but nothing is going to be done about them so long as the global warming scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....think about what could actually be done with just a fraction of the 93 trillion dollars that climate science wants to flush down the toilet...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

The problem, of course, is that you choose to deny AGW no matter what the experts make of the evidence.  AGW is real and the cost of doing nothing will be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of addressing the problem, in terms of money and LIVES.

And the sooner we get started, the less it will cost and the more will be left to address other issues.  Put it off till it becomes a matter of life and death and there won't be a penny to spend to fix your shoes.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> The problem, of course, is that you choose to deny AGW no matter what the experts make of the evidence.  AGW is real and the cost of doing nothing will be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of addressing the problem, in terms of money and LIVES.



Show me a single piece of observed, measured evidence which indicates that the climate we are presently experiencing is different from natural variability...If you can't do that, why should I believe that mankind is driving the climate?...and if man made climate change looks indistinguishable from natural variability, again, why should I worry?



Crick said:


> And the sooner we get started, the less it will cost and the more will be left to address other issues. Put it off till it becomes a matter of life and death and there won't be a penny to spend to fix your shoes.



Billions upon billions upon billions have already been flushed down the toilet over the past 3 decades...exactly what environmental issue has climate science made better, and how have these billions and billions improved the climate?


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2019)

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch has single paragraphs with more empirical evidence than your "science" has accumulated in the last 30 years.

The money that has been spent on reducing our CO2 emissions, every penny of it, has been wisely invested.  Doing nothing, as is ALWAYS the case with unpleasant problems, is the WORST and most COSTLY possible choice.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> You zipped right by "commonly regarded as correct".  Obviously, AGW is well beyond "commonly regarded as correct".
> 
> The Scientific Method is not as hard and fast as you would believe.  How, for instance, would one conduct experiments in astronomy or cosmology?  In cases in which laboratory experiments are not practical or even possible, observations can be used to test falsification.
> 
> ...


Commonly regarded is not observed data. When is that information coming?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch has single paragraphs with more empirical evidence than your "science" has accumulated in the last 30 years.
> 
> The money that has been spent on reducing our CO2 emissions, every penny of it, has been wisely invested.  Doing nothing, as is ALWAYS the case with unpleasant problems, is the WORST and most COSTLY possible choice.


Still nothing forward from the link. Therefore, the only conclusion is it isn’t in the link! So you lied


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch has single paragraphs with more empirical evidence than your "science" has accumulated in the last 30 years.
> 
> The money that has been spent on reducing our CO2 emissions, every penny of it, has been wisely invested.  Doing nothing, as is ALWAYS the case with unpleasant problems, is the WORST and most COSTLY possible choice.



Yeah...you keep posting that...but don't seem to be able to bring a single piece of data that demonstrates that the present climate is any different from natural variability...When I make a claim, I provide the actual paper...author, publication, title, and a link...you are full of BS and because of that, the best you can do is send people off to a steaming pile of excrement hoping that they might find something there that you couldn't...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch has single paragraphs with more empirical evidence than your "science" has accumulated in the last 30 years.
> ...



Of course he lies...he may as well give you a link to www. and tell you to go find it...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > When I make a claim, I provide the actual paper...author, publication, title, and a link
> ...



So lets see the published paper from your IPCC steaming pile where the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribe to so called greenhouse gasses.....or lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural vairiability...

What's that laughing boy?  Can't provide any because there is none there?  That's what I thought.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> The trick here, folks, is that SSDD specifies what he wants to see.  He wants you to think that that precise evidence is the only way to actually support AGW.  He assumes you are doing no critical thinking whatsoever.  The reference listing from individual chapters of TPSB are pages long and I have been criticized by management here for posting them.  However, I will give it another go.
> 
> I ask management to take into account that I will only be posting one fourth of the reference section from one chapter of TPSB and I only do so due to SSDD's unending and unsubstantiated claim that the TPSB link provides no evidence.  I know it is a bit much, but parce mihi pro peccatis meis
> 
> ...


you still don't get it.  it is truly amazing how fking stupid you really are.  A piece of advice you fking idiot,  take one of those papers/ books and post the material from it that backs your idiotic claim.  that's how we do it in the forum here.  I wish the mods would bust your fking sorry ass for this kind of trollish crap.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2019)

so to keep on topic,  I've asked for you to forward out of one document of your post the language, or start of the report that backs your claim.  It's what each of us has asked you and you have failed.  no other reason for me to lie about it since the evidence is a plenty in here.  You don't post any quoted reference from a link you provide because the references aren't there.  There is no need to open up a link for a wild goose chase like you are inferring.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Let's see a paper supporting ANYTHING you've ever claimed.  Can anyone out there recall a single paper to which SSDD has ever linked?  Anyone?  

As for me, let's see if this strikes a familiar chord "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



He used to link to lots of things.
He stopped, because his links always refuted his claims.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Mar 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *
> 
> Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?


_Never_? How do you prove that? What documentation can you present that clearly tells us that climate _never _changed before fossil fuels were used by man?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> Let's see a paper supporting ANYTHING you've ever claimed.  Can anyone out there recall a single paper to which SSDD has ever linked?  Anyone?



You really aren't very bright are you?  My claim is that there has never been a paper published in which the so called warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...You want me to post a link to a paper that has never been published?  Ok..here it is...



Crick said:


> As for me, let's see if this strikes a familiar chord "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.



Sorry skidmark.....when I do post papers to support my position, I provide the title of the paper..the author...and a link to the specific paper...not some vague link to somewhere in hopes that you might find something....If I did that, I would be as dishonest as you.

And you are a bald faced, abject liar...the claim that I have never linked to a single paper is one of the largest lies you have ever told...Here...within the past few days, you lying piece of excrement......

CDZ - Questions regarding "Climate Change"
CDZ - Questions regarding "Climate Change"
CDZ - Questions regarding "Climate Change"
CDZ - Questions regarding "Climate Change"

And those are just from one thread....what some more liar?

The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement.
The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement.
The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement.

Tell me skidmark....what's it like to be the biggest liar on the board?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


what does this have to do with humans supposedly causing global warming?  I didn't see anything in the link.  go another?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He likes to call other people trolls, but he has become one of the biggest trolls on the board...


----------



## Crick (Mar 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And you are a bald faced, abject liar...the claim that I have never linked to a single paper is one of the largest lies you have ever told...Here...within the past few days, you lying piece of excrement......
> 
> CDZ - Questions regarding "Climate Change"
> CDZ - Questions regarding "Climate Change"
> ...



None of which are in this forum.  They are in a forum I had NEVER entered before you put up these links.  So, bullshit.



SSDD said:


> And those are just from one thread....what some more liar?
> 
> The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement.
> The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement.
> ...



How many times did I say that everything you were claiming to know about natural factors that depleted ozone came from research you later claimed did not exist?

And how many times did I say that the data on natural ozone depleting mechanisms - that you yourself had posted - showed NO CORRELATION with the growth of the holes in the ozone layer?  These links prove exactly that.

You come here for *no* other reason than to entertain yourself by finding people stupid enough to believe your crapola and pissing off people who know it for what it is.

You are *NOTHING* but a

*TROLL*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And you are a bald faced, abject liar...the claim that I have never linked to a single paper is one of the largest lies you have ever told...Here...within the past few days, you lying piece of excrement......
> ...



Got your panties in a twist over being proven to be a big fat liar skidmark?  Like I said, when I reference information, I give you everything you need to go directly to the specific paper...unlike you who gives a vague address simply hoping that people might find something...we both know that there is nothing there that would satisfy my request for evidence but you just keep telling the lie over and over...


----------



## Crick (Mar 12, 2019)

PS: Researchgate does not require peer review

We know humans are causing global warming because GHGs are the primary cause of the warming observed for the past 150 years and, in particular, the last 50.  Isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping tells us that humans are the source of virtually every molecule of GHGs above pre-industrial levels.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> PS: Researchgate does not require peer review
> 
> We know humans are causing global warming because GHGs are the primary cause of the warming observed for the past 150 years and, in particular, the last 50.  Isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping tells us that humans are the source of virtually every molecule of GHGs above pre-industrial levels.




And yet there hasn't been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...so exactly how do we "know" any such thing...and there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the present climate is in any way different from natural variability...

Just more unsupportable bullshit claims from the biggest liar on the board...


----------



## Crick (Mar 12, 2019)

I demand you provide a study that *proves* through verified, certified, guaranteed, double-blind, secret-handshake, empircal observations with eyes and noses and tongues and ears that  CO2 does not grow warmer when it absorbs IR radiation and that it cannot transfer thermal energy to other molecules via conduction and that photons refuse to travel from warm to cold and that our atmosphere is held in place by the Earth's magnetic field.

If you can't do that, then you must be a fucking

*TROLL*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> I demand you provide a study that *proves* through verified, certified, guaranteed, double-blind, secret-handshake, empircal observations with eyes and noses and tongues and ears that  CO2 does not grow warmer when it absorbs IR radiation and that it cannot transfer thermal energy to other molecules via conduction and that photons refuse to travel from warm to cold and that our atmosphere is held in place by the Earth's magnetic field.
> 
> If you can't do that, then you must be a fucking
> 
> *TROLL*



You are the one claiming that it does...the burden of evidence is on you...and children's experiments that are good enough to fool you aren't evidence..You asked for a study that *proves* through verified, certified, guaranteed, double-blind, secret-handshake, empircal observations with eyes and noses and tongues and ears that  CO2 does not grow warmer when it absorbs IR radiation...adhere to your own standards and provide such a study that says that it does, and provides the actual empirical evidence to support the claim..

And when did I ever say that a CO2 molecule doesn't lose energy to other molecules...it is, in fact, my argument that it does...which is why there can be no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science....do you ever stop lying?  Do you even know that you are lying when you do it?

You continue to make my point by not providing any actual evidence to support your claims...


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2019)

You've dug your well here when you decided to claim you were smarter than all the world's scientists put together.  To do that clearly, you had to put out something different than their conclusions.  That required you put out crap that, as has been shown, violates all manner of fundamental physical laws.  You stick to it because you're a troll and that's what trolls do.

A good first step would be for you to admit all that.  A good second step would be one in a direction away from this forum.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> PS: Researchgate does not require peer review
> 
> We know humans are causing global warming because GHGs are the primary cause of the warming observed for the past 150 years and, in particular, the last 50.  Isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping tells us that humans are the source of virtually every molecule of GHGs above pre-industrial levels.


nope!! failure.  you need a new gig.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> I demand you provide a study that *proves* through verified, certified, guaranteed, double-blind, secret-handshake, empircal observations with eyes and noses and tongues and ears that  CO2 does not grow warmer when it absorbs IR radiation and that it cannot transfer thermal energy to other molecules via conduction and that photons refuse to travel from warm to cold and that our atmosphere is held in place by the Earth's magnetic field.
> 
> If you can't do that, then you must be a fucking
> 
> *TROLL*


the proof is that you can't post any that back your claim.  denouncing yours is simple.  you can't back it up.  *PROOF*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> You've dug your well here when you decided to claim you were smarter than all the world's scientists put together.



Poor skidmark...to stupid to even know who is digging....you are the one who keeps digging...claiming that observed, measured evidence exists which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability when no such evidence ever did, or ever will exist...

You keep making the claim, and you keep failing to provide even one single shred of such evidence...you have dug so far that you aren't even visible down in that hole any more...you are just an angry disembodied voice calling up.."it's at the IPCC"...and we all know by now that it isn't there...if it were, you would have brought it long ago to shove in my face...all you are doing now is mewling from the bottom of a hole of your own making and I am still here standing at ground level shouting down in the hole that it doesn't exist and that you will never be able to produce it...

Thanks for making my case so eloquently for me...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > PS: Researchgate does not require peer review
> ...



As sad as it is, it's the only gig he has...pitiful isn't it?


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2019)

What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.

Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half.  Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature.  If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on  "Scientific Opinion at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.

A number of people here on this forum will feed you bad information on this topic.  Some are trolls.  Some are liars.  Some are sock puppets.  Some see this as a political issue.  Some are just extraordinarily ignorant.  Look for folks that provide links to peer reviewed science journals and well known reference works to back up their claims.  Look out for people providing NO substantiation for their contentions or backing up their claims with the work of political pundits, journalists and others claiming expertise they do not actually possess.  Be skeptical of everyone here till they convince you with reliable data and good analyses.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.
> 
> Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half.  Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature.  If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on  "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.



You are the proven liar here skidmark...and we all know it..



Crick said:


> Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half.  Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature.  If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on  "Scientific Opinion at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.



Same old lie...what's the matter skidmark...not smart enough to come up with another one?  We all know that there isn't a shred of observed, measured evidence there that supports the failed AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you are a big fat liar claiming that any such evidence exists anywhere....

Now run along and prove my point by not producing any such evidence.,,

You are at the top of the list who will feed people bad information...that steaming pile of shit you always reference isn't science...it is politics...and there is the first piece of observed measured evidence there that supports the claim that the present climate change we are experiencing is anything other than natural variability...


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2019)

I invite everyone here to open "The Physical Science Basis" at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and make up your own mind whether it is science or politics.  

Then, let us ask poster SSDD to provide some science references supporting HIS arguments.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.
> 
> Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half.  Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature.  If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on  "Scientific Opinion at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.
> 
> A number of people here on this forum will feed you bad information on this topic.  Some are trolls.  Some are liars.  Some are sock puppets.  Some see this as a political issue.  Some are just extraordinarily ignorant.  Look for folks that provide links to peer reviewed science journals and well known reference works to back up their claims.  Look out for people providing NO substantiation for their contentions or backing up their claims with the work of political pundits, journalists and others claiming expertise they do not actually possess.  Be skeptical of everyone here till they convince you with reliable data and good analyses.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> I invite everyone here to open "The Physical Science Basis" at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and make up your own mind whether it is science or politics.
> 
> Then, let us ask poster SSDD to provide some science references supporting HIS arguments.



You know what skidmark....everyone invites you to bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability from that steaming pile the IPCC set up.....failing that, we all invite you to provide the title, author, and a link to a single paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

We invite you too provide some actual evidence to support your bullshit claims although we all know that you will decline the invitation because you know as well as we do that there is no actual evidence to support your bullshit claims.  Failing that, we invite you to keep on telling the same old lie and we will continue to call you out on it....

You are a laughing stock skidmark...continually posting that bullshit link knowing that no one is going to visit because you can't even bring one piece of worthwhile data from it to demonstrate to people that it is worth visiting...

And my argument is that there is no observed, measured evidence to support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and I invite everyone on the whole damned internet to visit AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC just to see for themselves that there isn't the first shred of observed, measured evidence to support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...I invite everyone to go and see just how insubstantial the AGW hypothesis is...and how there is no observed, measured evidence to support it...and since you clearly can't find anything to support your claims, I invite everyone on the whole damned internet to go over there and find any such evidence and bring it back to shove in my face...  Thanks for proving my argument daily skidmark...


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political.  Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect.  Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm.  Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that the Earth is warmed by the gravitational compression of its atmosphere.  Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that CFCs are not responsible for the polar ozone holes.  Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that all climate scientists are joined in a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy.  Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that all the climatic data holders have been fraudulently modifying historical data.  Show us some evidence. 

Because so far, *you have not*


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.
> 
> Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half.  Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature.  If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on  "Scientific Opinion at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.
> 
> A number of people here on this forum will feed you bad information on this topic.  Some are trolls.  Some are liars.  Some are sock puppets.  Some see this as a political issue.  Some are just extraordinarily ignorant.  Look for folks that provide links to peer reviewed science journals and well known reference works to back up their claims.  Look out for people providing NO substantiation for their contentions or backing up their claims with the work of political pundits, journalists and others claiming expertise they do not actually possess.  Be skeptical of everyone here till they convince you with reliable data and good analyses.


who are you talking to?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> I invite everyone here to open "The Physical Science Basis" at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and make up your own mind whether it is science or politics.
> 
> Then, let us ask poster SSDD to provide some science references supporting HIS arguments.


what page what paragraph?


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

I am talking to the poster whose post immediately precedes mine and the only poster to have made the claims I address and is well known for having done so.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 14, 2019)

JC.....ya know.....you lose because you don't stand in front of a glass pyramid like a hero!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political.  Show us some evidence.



Making up arguments to rail against again?  Don't guess I can blame you...You clearly can't defend yourself against my actual argument.

I have said that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to bring forward a quote from me claiming that everything there is political.  We both know that won't be happening...



Crick said:


> You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect.  Show us some evidence.



I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science...

You sure are stupid...why can't you simply argue against what I say?  Never mind...no defense that way...right?  Got to make up something to argue against.

You yourself acknowledge that conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere...and you decline to even attempt to show the description of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science acknowledging that those are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...and you know better than to even try to describe a radiative greenhouse effect in the context of such energy movement...



Crick said:


> You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm.  Show us some evidence.



There is no observation or measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm precisely as the second law states...that supports my position..  If you believe otherwise, by all means, provide a valid statement of the second law stating that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and some observed, measured evidence to support the claim...



Crick said:


> You've claimed that the Earth is warmed by the gravitational compression of its atmosphere.  Show us some evidence.



I have provided evidence of heat due to compression on planets that have no greenhouse gasses to speak of in their atmosphere, and are so far away from the sun that a greenhouse effect as described climate science is not possible.



Crick said:


> You've claimed that CFCs are not responsible for the polar ozone holes.  Show us some evidence.



I said that there is no study which seriously considered the natural factors that have profound effects on O3 production and depletion and dismissed them as irrelevant...you have proven my point by not being able to produce such a paper that seriously considers natural factors...and in science, when considering phenomenon in nature, the first order of actual science would be to completely eliminate natural factors before jumping to anthropogenic causes...that did't happen..all the papers on the topic jump straight to anthropogenic causes...claiming that a molecule that is present at 3 parts per BILLION is more destructive than natural catalysts for O3 present at 3 to 5 parts per million and natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million...and wild fluctuations in solar output in the very bands responsible for O3 production...



Crick said:


> You've claimed that all climate scientists are joined in a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy.  Show us some evidence.



Show me a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...failing such evidence, exactly what is this so called consensus based on?



Crick said:


> You've claimed that all the climatic data holders have been fraudulently modifying historical data.  Show us some evidence.



The fact is that when regional temperature records are examined, only a few places on earth show any sort of warming trend....most show cooling, or no discernible trend at all...the "warming" signature only shows up in the highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled global record.  If there were actually "global" warming, the warming would show up in regional records...all, or most regional records...and it doesn't...the global record is flawed beyond usefulness.



Crick said:


> Because so far, *you have not*



Most of your arguments are made up and bear little to no resemblance to what I have said...that is because you are a bald faced liar...you proved my point in several by not being able to produce any sort of evidence that contradicted what I said, and the rest, I provided evidence to support my claims...

You are a liar and if you think there is any one on this board who isn't fully aware of it by now, you are even more stupid than I thought...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> I am talking to the poster whose post immediately precedes mine and the only poster to have made the claims I address and is well known for having done so.



You think you are the forum police now and can decide who speaks to you?  You are a laughing stock...


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

No, dimwit.  I was answering his fucking question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political.  Show us some evidence.
> ...



*There is no observation or measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm precisely as the second law states...that supports my position.. If you believe otherwise, by all means, provide a valid statement of the second law stating that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and some observed, measured evidence to support the claim...*

The probability of a photon being emitted is the same as the probability of a photon being absorbed.  That ensures that the second law cannot be violated.  Yes, a hotter body can absorb a photon coming from a colder body, but you cannot prevent the hotter body to emit  that photon again.


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political.  Show us some evidence.





SSDD said:


> Making up arguments to rail against again?  Don't guess I can blame you...You clearly can't defend yourself against my actual argument.



I have said that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to bring forward a quote from me claiming that everything there is political.  We both know that won't be happening...
[/quote]

A quote from your post #247 in this thread
_"You are at the top of the list who will feed people bad information...that steaming pile of shit you always reference isn't science..*.it is politics*."_



Crick said:


> You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect.  Show us some evidence.





SSDD said:


> I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science...



The only portion of the greenhouse process that mandates radiative heat transfer is from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere.  Conductive transfer from the surface or within the atmosphere would have no wavelength-dependent component and thus the presence or absence of GHGs would be irrelevant.



SSDD said:


> You sure are stupid...why can't you simply argue against what I say?  Never mind...no defense that way...right?  Got to make up something to argue against.



So far, I (and several others) have successfully refute your contentions.  That makes you the stupid one.



SSDD said:


> You yourself acknowledge that conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere.



ONE: air, even at one atm pressure, is a very poor conductor. TWO: conductive efficiency is pressure (ie, density) dependent and thus the higher we get, the less heat transfer occurs by conduction and the more by radiation.  Convection, to a lesser degree, is also density dependent.



SSDD said:


> ..and you decline to even attempt to show the description of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science



I have no problem showing you technical definitions of the greenhouse effect.



SSDD said:


> acknowledging that those are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...and you know better than to even try to describe a radiative greenhouse effect in the context of such energy movement...



You really seem to have a need to think you're feared.  How incredibly pathetic.  

As I explained above, it is the radiative transfer from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere that invokes the critical parameters of GHGs: an absorption/emission spectrum with strong IR components.  That, and only that, is why the term "radiative" appears in the title.



Crick said:


> You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm.  Show us some evidence.





SSDD said:


> There is no observation or measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm precisely as the second law states...that supports my position..



The second law states no such thing.  Your contention here violates Planck, Stefan-Boltzman, the conservation of energy and special relativity.  But that doesn't bother you because you're a troll.



SSDD said:


> If you believe otherwise, by all means, provide a valid statement of the second law stating that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and some observed, measured evidence to support the claim...



The second law and the laws from which it was developed all deal with NET heat transfer.



Crick said:


> You've claimed that the Earth is warmed by the gravitational compression of its atmosphere.  Show us some evidence.





SSDD said:


> I have provided evidence of heat due to compression on planets that have no greenhouse gasses to speak of in their atmosphere, and are so far away from the sun that a greenhouse effect as described climate science is not possible.



No, you have not.  You have tried, but those attempts have been plagued by errors and bad science.  Planets are not heated by the gravitational compression of their atmospheres.  Atmospheric gases moving down and being compressed by hydrostatic pressure and thus warming are exactly balanced by atmospheric gases moving upwards and cooling.



Crick said:


> You've claimed that CFCs are not responsible for the polar ozone holes.  Show us some evidence.





SSDD said:


> I said that there is no study which seriously considered the natural factors that have profound effects on O3 production and depletion and dismissed them as irrelevant...you have proven my point by not being able to produce such a paper that seriously considers natural factors...and in science, when considering phenomenon in nature, the first order of actual science would be to completely eliminate natural factors before jumping to anthropogenic causes...that did't happen..all the papers on the topic jump straight to anthropogenic causes...claiming that a molecule that is present at 3 parts per BILLION is more destructive than natural catalysts for O3 present at 3 to 5 parts per million and natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million...and wild fluctuations in solar output in the very bands responsible for O3 production...



As I have said to you several times now, the natural factors show no correlation with ozone depletion changes.  Your contention is akin to saying we cannot know that drinking alcohol increases traffic accidents because we have not eliminated the possibility that it is caused by exposure to carbonated mixers or stale peanuts.



Crick said:


> You've claimed that all climate scientists are joined in a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy.  Show us some evidence.





SSDD said:


> Show me a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...failing such evidence, exactly what is this so called consensus based on?



It is not the consensus which is generally credited to the massive and perfect conspiracy but the fact that all the data support AGW.  The charge is that they are either falsifying the data or keeping quiet about the falsified data.  Your claim that there is no evidence is complete nonsense anyway, but doesn't address that insanity of suggesting that tens of thousands of scientists from all over the planet could be joined in a conspiracy of this magnitude with not a single one ever confessing or being caught.



Crick said:


> You've claimed that all the climatic data holders have been fraudulently modifying historical data.  Show us some evidence.





SSDD said:


> The fact is that when regional temperature records are examined, only a few places on earth show any sort of warming trend....most show cooling, or no discernible trend at all...the "warming" signature only shows up in the highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled global record.  If there were actually "global" warming, the warming would show up in regional records...all, or most regional records...and it doesn't...the global record is flawed beyond usefulness.



That is absolute nonsense. 

Global temperature changes from 1880 to 2015








Crick said:


> Because so far, *you have not*





SSDD said:


> Most of your arguments are made up and bear little to no resemblance to what I have said.



I have demonstrated more than once that is false.



SSDD said:


> ..that is because you are a bald faced liar...



Which makes you the liar



SSDD said:


> you proved my point in several by not being able to produce any sort of evidence that contradicted what I said, and the rest, I provided evidence to support my claims...



I have provided evidence to support every one of my claims.  You have provided no evidence in most cases and in those few in which you did provide evidence, it failed to support your contention.



SSDD said:


> You are a liar and if you think there is any one on this board who isn't fully aware of it by now, you are even more stupid than I thought...



You are a liar and a troll.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political.  Show us some evidence.
> ...



So far you, and your waco buds have only managed to argue against the arguments that you made up...the wait continues for you to actually address what I have said...when might you learn to read well enough to comprehend what is actually being said and answer that?



SSDD said:


> ONE: air, even at one atm pressure, is a very poor conductor. TWO: conductive efficiency is pressure (ie, density) dependent and thus the higher we get, the less heat transfer occurs by conduction and the more by radiation.  Convection, to a lesser degree, is also density dependent.



Hence the warming...if air were a fine conductor then the energy would move on very quickly....the more quickly energy is moved, the more efficient the cooling effect.  Be glad that energy doesn't move through the troposphere via radiation.. earth would be a ball of ice.



SSDD said:


> I have no problem showing you technical definitions of the greenhouse effect.



All models all the time...Care to provide an empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect?



SSDD said:


> You really seem to have a need to think you're feared.  How incredibly pathetic.



What's to fear....other than the laughter that erupts over you having your ass handed to you.....lets hear the description of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere whose energy movement is dominated by conduction...



Crick said:


> You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm.  Show us some evidence.



The fact that spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed or measured pretty much makes my case for me...You want a measurement of energy not spontaneously moving from cool to warm...fine...pick any measurement ever made



Crick said:


> The second law states no such thing.  Your contention here violates Planck, Stefan-Boltzman, the conservation of energy and special relativity.  But that doesn't bother you because you're a troll.



Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.



Crick said:


> The second law and the laws from which it was developed all deal with NET heat transfer.



Interesting that the statement of the law doesn't mention net....do you think they forgot to mention it?  Do you think science isn't capable of making a statement that says what they mean?  You want it to mean net...and will lie in an effort to convince people that it means net as if science weren't capable of speaking for itself...



Crick said:


> No, you have not.  You have tried, but those attempts have been plagued by errors and bad science.  Planets are not heated by the gravitational compression of their atmospheres.  Atmospheric gases moving down and being compressed by hydrostatic pressure and thus warming are exactly balanced by atmospheric gases moving upwards and cooling.



The only plague is your stupidity and misunderstanding... 



Crick said:


> I have said to you several times now, the natural factors show no correlation with ozone depletion changes.  Your contention is akin to saying we cannot know that drinking alcohol increases traffic accidents because we have not eliminated the possibility that it is caused by exposure to carbonated mixers or stale peanuts.



Sure skidmark...you say lots of things...but when it comes to supporting the things you say, you are an abject failure...  Lets see the papers which seriously examined the natural factors and dismissed them as irrelevant?  You keep talking, but when it comes time to provide the evidence, that the natural factors were not important, you fail every time...in real science, the first order of business is to examine all natural factors and weed them out one by one till nothing but anthropogenic causes are left...no such effort was ever made regarding the ozone hole...the jump was straight to anthropogenic causes to support an alarmist narrative...no actual science was ever done with the intent of getting to the truth...pseudoscience was done to support a narrative.



Crick said:


> It is not the consensus which is generally credited to the massive and perfect conspiracy but the fact that all the data support AGW. .



What data?  Neither you, nor all of climate science can provide a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...Which data are you talking about?  Are you calling the output of failed climate models data?  



Crick said:


> That is absolute nonsense.



And yet here are regional records from all across the globe that don't show anything like the warming shown in the highly manipulated, massaged, homogenized, infilled global record.






























































Look at this graph and point out the similarity between it and these regional records from across the globe...  the warming only shows up in the fraudulent global record..it doesn't appear in regional records..









Crick said:


> I have demonstrated more than once that is false.



Actually, you are the one who has been proven to be a liar...just this week you claimed that I had NEVER provided published work to support my claims..it took about 30 seconds to prove that you lied...




Crick said:


> I have provided evidence to support every one of my claims.  You have provided no evidence in most cases and in those few in which you did provide evidence, it failed to support your contention.



Not even close...you provide a web address in which you can find nothing to bring forward that won't get you laughed at..


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

You have an astounding capacity for blowing past the many, many exchanges in which YOU get your ass handed to you.  Your disconnect from reality, whether real (in your mind) or manufactured (for trolling) is only being fed by interaction.  Both of us will best be served if no one engages you.

Many people have advised me that I have been wasting my time arguing with you.  They were right.

Though I know you will gloat for days, I hope that you still have enough contact with the real world to understand what it means to have earned the loss of our consideration.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have an astounding capacity for blowing past the many, many exchanges in which YOU get your ass handed to you.  Your disconnect from reality, whether real (in your mind) or manufactured (for trolling) is only being fed by interaction.  Both of us will best be served if no one engages you.
> 
> Many people have advised me that I have been wasting my time arguing with you.  They were right.
> 
> Though I know you will gloat for days, I hope that you still have enough contact with the real world to understand what it means to have earned the loss of our consideration.



Rarely if ever happens...in your ignorance, I don't doubt that you often have no idea how badly you have been embarrassed...if you did, I doubt that you would even show up here...


----------



## Confounding (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> I hope that you still have enough contact with the real world to understand what it means to have earned the loss of our consideration.



He was never open to the possibility that he might be wrong. He's set in his ways and has done all of the growing he'll ever do.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2019)

Confounding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I hope that you still have enough contact with the real world to understand what it means to have earned the loss of our consideration.
> ...



Of course I am...which is why I have been devouring the literature for 3 decades...  You seem to think that I just woke up one day and decided that the AGW hypothesis was incorrect.  Not the case at all.  I put a fair amount of creedence in the hypothesis some time ago...but being a thinking person, I am not the sort to simply place blind trust in what someone says just because they call themselves a scientist.  The more of the literature I read, the less creedence I put in it...

Here is the thing....in real science...that is science being done for the sake of learning the truth, a hypothesis is put forward, to explain a thing...tests and observations are done to test the hypothesis, and predictions are made...if the predictions come to pass, then more testing and observation are done and more predictions are made...and so long as the hypothesis is able to make accurate predictions, the testing continues.  In actual science though, when a hypothesis experiences a predictive failure, then it becomes suspect...in some instances a single predictive failure is enough to falsify a hypothesis...send it to the scrap heap and prompt work on a new hypothesis.  If a single  predictive failure isn't enough to falsify it, then that failure is enough to warrant modification of the hypothesis since some part of it was clearly wrong...otherwise it would not have experienced the predictive failure...

The past several decades are literally littered with predictive failures of the AGW hypothesis..and not minor failures, serious failures...and yet, the hypothesis has not been modified at all.  The climate sensitivity numbers keep going down...form as high as 6 to 8 degrees per doubling of CO2 down to less than a degree now for a doubling of CO2...the hypothesized mechanism has not changed at all though...they just keep adjusting the amount of change due to a doubling of CO2 down.  That is not science, and it doesn't represent the scientific method.  In real science, a hypothesis that experiences predictive failures is falsified and work begins on a new hypothesis that can more accurately predict what will happen...in pseudoscience, however, predictive failures don't mean much so long as the funding continues.

The repeated failure of the hypothesis to accurately predict what will happen next, coupled with it's complete inability to even predict what has happened in the recent past simply invalidates it as a viable claim...it is being propped up by politics and not by any actual evidence it produces to support the claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
*
But you previosly claimed cooler matter simply does not radiate toward warmer matter.
Now you're saying it can, if work is involved. 20C matter simply will not radiate toward 38C matter, 
but if work raises the 20C matter to 21C, it can now, "non-spontaneously" radiate.

Sounds like another version of your smart emitter claims.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient.  I'm not certain how you would use work to make _net_ radiative flow go from cold to hot.  What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient.  I'm not certain how you would use work to make _net_ radiative flow go from cold to hot.  What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?



* I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.  *

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

A refrigerator actually does just that.  Cold stuff in my freezer radiates its energy away which is absorbed by the walls of the fridge, concentrated by the condensor and radiated away to the outside world.  I was just not seeing the system boundaries.  Getting old.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> A refrigerator actually does just that.  Cold stuff in my freezer radiates its energy away which is absorbed by the walls of the fridge, concentrated by the condensor and radiated away to the outside world.  I was just not seeing the system boundaries.  Getting old.



Figures that you wouldn't know how a refrigerator works either...you have to be one of the stupidest people on the board...here...let me see if I can make it simple enough for you to understand...

The refrigerant gas is compressed to a high pressure and that results in a temperature increase....even though you don't think it is possible, it happens and has to happen if you want your milk to stay cold...  That gas then passes through some heat exchangers, usually on the back of your refrigerator where it loses most of the heat caused by compressing it...then the gas passes through the condenser which converts the past to a liquid by reducing the temperature but maintaining pressure.  The condenser then releases the liquid via an expansion valve.  This results in a rapid decrease in pressure which lets the refrigerant expand and evaporate.  This process further reduces the temperature...This very cold gas then passes through the evaporator...and because this gas is far colder than the inside of the refrigerator or freezer, energy moves from the warmer interior of your refrigerator to the much colder evaporator  The warmed gas then goes to the compressor and the whole process begins again..and again and again.....

The walls of your refrigerator are only absorbing energy if they are cooler than their surroundings...

I have said it before and I will say it again....engineer my shiny metal ass...


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient.  I'm not certain how you would use work to make _net_ radiative flow go from cold to hot.  What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?
> ...




I have to ask.  What does that mean: "his epicycles"?  I know what an epicycle is.  I just don't know what his are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



His original claim was, 
"There is no back radiation, because cool air simply won't radiate toward the warmer surface....2nd Law".
Every idiotic claim he's made since then just piles more idiocy onto the original idiotic claim.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

Ok


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> *
> But you previosly claimed cooler matter simply does not radiate toward warmer matter.



No toddler...that isn't what I said...I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...there is a difference and you have my sympathy that you are unable to understand it even though  it has been explained to you ad nauseam.

Sad that you must resort to claiming that I said something that I didn't in an effort to try and make a point.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



A quick search reveals that the search engine can find no instance where I ever used the word epicycles...you are a top shelf liar skidmark...top shelf.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> His original claim was,
> "There is no back radiation, because cool air simply won't radiate toward the warmer surface....2nd Law".



Don't guess you can provide a quote of me ever saying such a thing...Energy doesn't radiate from cool to warm...you can blow all the cold air against a warm surface that you like...all that happens is that energy conducts away from the warm surface to the air and warms it..

The only idiotic claims are the ones you make up and claim that I have said...I have to wonder if you really have such poor compression skills and don't even realize that you are changing what I said completely....  Wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Didn't he also claim that the two body version of Stefan-Boltzmann could not be applied to a gas because it had no hard boundary surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...



*I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...*

Baloney. You've previously said cooler matter simply doesn't emit toward warmer matter.
One of your earliest epicycles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No one said you used it.

I used it to mock your ever more complex idiocy.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You made the claim...lets see the quote...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



The only people being mocked here are you guys....making claims that no observed, measured evidence supports...belief in models over reality is reason to be mocked..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Really?

You never said "radiation doesn't move from cool to warm"?


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2019)

You'd think that after more than a year of folks telling him his intelligent photon interpretation was buttfuck crazy, that he might have denied it before now.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> You'd think that after more than a year of folks telling him his intelligent photon interpretation was buttfuck crazy, that he might have denied it before now.



Sorry skidmark...assigning intelligence to inanimate entities in order that they may obey the laws of physics belongs entirely to you wack jobs...along with your smart rocks that know which way to fall when dropped..your smart air that knows that it can't rush into a punctured tire and fill it up...and your smart rivers that know that they can't flow up hill...

Me,  I think things obey the laws of physics because they must...no intelligence required...a lot like being a liberal..


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2019)

Well, buttfuck crazy is as buttfuck crazy does, or however the saying goes.  I would have loved to have seen him in a thermo class.  Derp derp!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You'd think that after more than a year of folks telling him his intelligent photon interpretation was buttfuck crazy, that he might have denied it before now.
> ...




*assigning intelligence to inanimate entities in order that they may obey the laws of physics belongs entirely to you wack jobs.*

Intelligence? LOL!

Omniscience.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> Well, buttfuck crazy is as buttfuck crazy does, or however the saying goes.  I would have loved to have seen him in a thermo class.  Derp derp!




Funny...running away and calling names over your shoulder as you run....how pathetic is that?  You and toddster having a nice little circle jerk there?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Well, buttfuck crazy is as buttfuck crazy does, or however the saying goes.  I would have loved to have seen him in a thermo class.  Derp derp!
> ...




Speaking of running away, you ever say, photons "don't move spontaneously from cool to warm"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Well, buttfuck crazy is as buttfuck crazy does, or however the saying goes.  I would have loved to have seen him in a thermo class.  Derp derp!
> ...



And there you go.....running away.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...*
> 
> Baloney. You've previously said cooler matter simply doesn't emit toward warmer matter.
> One of your earliest epicycles.





SSDD said:


> You made the claim...lets see the quote...



Here is a conversation where you say radiation from cold matter is restricted from hitting warmer matter



SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.
> ...


----------



## MaryL (Mar 16, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


The earth isn't flat, and the moon landing wasn't  faked because observable mathematics and science. Same stuff that gave you electronics, printed circuits, micro circuitry and ultimately the internet you are posting on right now. But maybe that's all  imaginary, too? Because the same science that  made computers real,  made planes  fly, says all  this warming is man made? I believe them. The same people that put a man on the moon guys actually back up what I see with my own eyes...wow, it's amazing.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...*
> ...



More interpretation on your part...can you perhaps highlight the part of my statement where I say what you claimed that I said?  The tedium never stops...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2019)

MaryL said:


> `


The earth isn't flat, and the moon landing wasn't  faked because observable mathematics and science. Same stuff that gave you electronics, printed circuits, micro circuitry and ultimately the internet you are posting on right now. But maybe that's all  imaginary, too? Because the same science that  made computers real,  made planes  fly, says all  this warming is man made? I believe them. The same people that put a man on the moon guys actually back up what I see with my own eyes...wow, it's amazing.[/QUOTE]

And yet, neither you, nor all of climate science can produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is in any way different from natural variability...

Abject lack of evidence....and yet you still believe...now that is amazing....amazing that a person can be so thoroughly duped...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> More interpretation on your part...can you perhaps highlight the part of my statement where I say what you claimed that I said? The tedium never stops...


Reread it. If that is too hard to understand, try this link:

No Evidence
Post #888: You said,
"the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict."​
You are wrong. That is not what science predicts.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > More interpretation on your part...can you perhaps highlight the part of my statement where I say what you claimed that I said? The tedium never stops...
> ...



Of course it is...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that statement predicts spontaneous two way energy flow?  How much interpreting, twisting, and mental masturbation do you have to do to get a prediction of  spontaneous two way energy flow out of that statement?

The tedium never ends with you....does it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



_Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._

You'll notice it doesn't say radiation. Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course it is...
> 
> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> ...



Your turning and twisting to thermodynamics doesn't make your point. The 2nd law makes no predictions about radiation exchange. It only puts constraints on radiation exchange. 

It is quantum mechanics that makes predictions about radiation exchange. And the prediction is that radiation is exchanged between objects at any temperatures. If that were not the case, many of observed, measured, and tested physical laws would be violated. 


.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


except you can't prove back radiation exists.  now that's funny.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*except you can't prove back radiation exists.  *

You can't even define back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you are exactly right.  cause it doesn't exist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



DURR...….2nd Law.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


flow goes from warm to cold.  every one of your cartoons says so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*flow goes from warm to cold.*

Radiation goes from everywhere to everywhere.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


only when it is warm to cold.  but don't let that fact slap you in the face.


----------



## Crick (Mar 19, 2019)

Are you threatening violence against another poster?

The second law does NOT say that radiation cannot flow from cold to warm.  SSDD says that and he is the only one who does so.  You say it because he says it.  But, as you have been told more than once, you are following the WRONG fellow.

Multiple physical laws more fundamental than the Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us that all matter radiates thermal energy all the time in all directions. The only reason you're not seemingly aware of Planck's Law is that SSDD doesn't spout some abortion of its intent so he can try to refute greenhouse warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*only when it is warm to cold*

Prove it, with measurements.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you threatening violence against another poster?



You really are turning into a little girl aren't you?  And is your ability to comprehend what you read really that poor that you construe that statement as a threat to another poster?  



Crick said:


> The second law does NOT say that radiation cannot flow from cold to warm.  SSDD says that and he is the only one who does so.  You say it because he says it.  But, as you have been told more than once, you are following the WRONG fellow.



Of course it does...sorry that you aren't bright enough to read...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*

Are you making the claim that radiation is not energy?  Is that what you are saying skidmark...go ahead and admit it...you think radiation is something different from energy...

engineer my shiny metal ass..



Crick said:


> Multiple physical laws more fundamental than the Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us that all matter radiates thermal energy all the time in all directions.



Which laws would those be skidmark...you have made that claim before but when pressed, you couldn't seem to name a single one of them...care to try again?  



Crick said:


> The only reason you're not seemingly aware of Planck's Law is that SSDD doesn't spout some abortion of its intent so he can try to refute greenhouse warming.




How about you skip on over to the AGW library and bring us back a two way energy exchange version of Planck's law...never mind...there isn't one...even over in that steaming pile...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Your turning and twisting to thermodynamics doesn't make your point. The 2nd law makes no predictions about radiation exchange. It only puts constraints on radiation exchange.



Of course it does...when it says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a cooler body to a warmer body without doing work to make it happen, that is a prediction about which way heat moves....

And when it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object, that is a prediction on which way energy moves...



Crick said:


> It is quantum mechanics that makes predictions about radiation exchange



predictions..but not a single observed, measured instance of spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...

Been through all this before and you lost the point every single time...the tedium never ends....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you threatening violence against another poster?
> ...



*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*

And yet you have no sources that say "*no photons will flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object" or "no photons will flow spontaneously between objects at equilibrium"*

It's like you're making it up again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Your turning and twisting to thermodynamics doesn't make your point. The 2nd law makes no predictions about radiation exchange. It only puts constraints on radiation exchange.
> ...



Predictions..but not a single observed, measured instance of zero energy movement between objects at equilibrium...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Your turning and twisting to thermodynamics doesn't make your point. The 2nd law makes no predictions about radiation exchange. It only puts constraints on radiation exchange.
> ...



Yes we have been through this before. Your problem is not tedium your problem is not believing physics. You have not stated why you think black body radiation fails near a warmer object. *Let's hear it*. You have been stalling too long with an excuse of tedium which is now tedious itself. 


.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you threatening violence against another poster?
> 
> The second law does NOT say that radiation cannot flow from cold to warm.  SSDD says that and he is the only one who does so.  You say it because he says it.  But, as you have been told more than once, you are following the WRONG fellow.
> 
> Multiple physical laws more fundamental than the Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us that all matter radiates thermal energy all the time in all directions. The only reason you're not seemingly aware of Planck's Law is that SSDD doesn't spout some abortion of its intent so he can try to refute greenhouse warming.


well dude,  just post the observed behavior of cold flowing to warm on it's own.  you still can't pass that test.  too fking funny.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


prove what?  start a fire and watch the heat rise to the atmosphere.  it's quite simple.  you must not understand fire.
ever watch steam on hot asphalt?  only goes up, never side to side except when there is wind.

take a hot cup of coffee and watch the steam off of it.  always straight up.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


wash rinse repeat.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


just post the observed material requested and call it a day?  you seem to always fall back on physics.  well fine, but now produce the observed evidence of that to which you speak.  yet you don't. destroys the physics line.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 20, 2019)

How do we know that humans are causing climate change?

Because we are warm blooded mammals.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I don't disagree with that.  it does however maintain the 2nd law restrictions as it happens.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*start a fire and watch the heat rise to the atmosphere. it's quite simple. you must not understand fire.*

Now you're confusing conduction with radiation again.
Is that because you're stupid?

Remember when you claimed that the Sun was hot because of fire?
That was funny.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you remain confused derp.  we were discussing warm to cold flow.  it's obvious you can't answer the problems I stated cause I'm right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I don't disagree with that*

Don't tell SSDD you know he's wrong.

* it does however maintain the 2nd law restrictions as it happens.*

Sounds interesting! Can you post the part of the 2nd Law that mentions restrictions on photons?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* we were discussing warm to cold flow*

We were discussing photons.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


when was I commenting on photons?  radiation happens according to the 2nd law.  and it can actually happen anywhere given many variables.  but hey,  you keep chugging on them there photons.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope.  you won't see photon mentioned in any of my posts in this particular string.  but you keep hanging onto that photon. me thinks you stand on a lazy susan and just spin all day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*when was I commenting on photons? radiation happens according to the 2nd law.  *

You don't know that photons = radiation?

You still haven't recovered from that brain trauma......sad.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so warm to cold flow was the discussion and you won't find any reference from me concerning photons.  Now of course to answer your absurd claim.  but it was warm to cold flow and cold to warm not flow.  it was quite simple.

wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*so warm to cold flow was the discussion *

SSDD's moronic claim about photons was the discussion.





How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well mine was hot to cold flow.  you are confused with whom you are having a discussion with.  you'll be ok once you simmer down.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So you tried to defend SSDD's idiocy with off-topic idiocy of your own?

Thanks for your non-help.


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 20, 2019)

Ever been in an elevator when a pregnant sweat hawg cut loose a Golden corral fart ?
 Multiply by 7 billion. Dont forget to add in the billions of cattle so that Puerto Rikkann bitch doesn't feel left out.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Deflection noted


----------



## Crick (Mar 20, 2019)

Humans made and emitted the CO2 that is warming the planet


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Humans made and emitted the CO2 that is warming the planet


Bull Shit Again..





Come on now Crick...  where is your correlation?  Why haven't we runaway before with levels far higher than today?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Humans made and emitted the CO2 that is warming the planet
> ...



Is it because the magnetic photons were repelled?


----------



## Crick (Mar 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Humans made and emitted the CO2 that is warming the planet
> ...



You've seen my correlation.  You claimed it was a lie.  However, you nor anyone else has provided one single fuckiing shred of evidence to back up that claim.  While I can show that data from four different international organizations and tens of thousands of scientists who use it every day without a hint of a complaint.  What the fuck have you got you stupid, lying asshole?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Bullshit skidmark...I have provided evidence over and over that we aren't even having any real effect on CO2 concentrations...we don't make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the Earth's natural CO2 production...For example, termites alone produce two times as much CO2 as we make...the soil produces 9 times more CO2 than we do and as the earth greens, the soil area is expanding producing even more CO2...  Just considering those two sources which produce eleven times more CO2 than we do, it is clear that the claim that our relative wisp of CO2 is causing the globe to warm is pseudoscience of the foulest sort.

But since you don't have the capacity to read, and actually absorb, information I will post it again lest someone actually believe your lies...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2  emissions*.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year.  … R*esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*.”







https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

*“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”*
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific.  Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that *during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a.  Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”

*






https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Conclusion:
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with *changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”*

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

“The warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2.* It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2*. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that *temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans*.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

“With the short (5−15 year) RT residence time results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then *supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors.* This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta

“However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking.  *The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 *[1960-2000]* to 3.1% yr-1 *[2000-2011]*, other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction*”








https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL040613

“*[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity]* since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.* The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. *Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found*.”


There is plenty more actual evidence but this should be enough to clearly demonstrate that you are little more than a lying parrot....Reality and observations always show your beliefs to be nothing more than alarmist pap....


----------



## Crick (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Still waiting for a response from Billy Bob with some evidence for his claim that NASA. NOAA, BEST, JWA, Hadley and NWS are all, in coordination, putting out falsified temperature data.  And, if I were as stupid as Billy Bob and several other deniers here, I'd be demanding "proof".


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Humans made and emitted the CO2 that is warming the planet


all you need to do is prove that.  ready set go.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


so dude,  I gave you the city of Atlanta and the fact that the local recorded temps were in conflict with your post of the area well over average for February.  why did you throw that out?

And, are you expecting that the agencies will come out and admit they faked the data?  what is it exactly you will accept as proof?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Don't blame you for hiding away from actual evidence of the degree to which your cult lies...must be more comfortable to pretend that you never saw the evidence...


----------



## Crick (Mar 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



And, JC, do you believe this is evidence - or even proof - that the global temperature datasets maintained by NASA, NOAA, BEST, Hadley and the rest are falsified?  If so, you are going to have to explain how that works to me.  The USHCN stations cover 1.6% of the planet's surface and every bit of it is in one hemisphere.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


sure,  because it voids the 1.6% that is inclusive in all of the reports you have ever posted in this forum. One piece fraud, the whole thing is fraud.  You have heard of the rotten potato in a bag, right?


----------



## Crick (Mar 21, 2019)

I think the bigger problem is that you seem to be "voiding" the 98.4% that make up the rest of the planet.  That CRN data IS included in the global land and ocean calculations fool.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think the bigger problem is that you seem to be "voiding" the 98.4% that make up the rest of the planet.  That CRN data IS included in the global land and ocean calculations fool.


not at all.  I'm pointing you to the fraud.  you choose not to look isn't my problem.  I don't care how much of bad graph is fraud, if any of it is fraud, the rest is contaminated.


----------



## Crick (Mar 21, 2019)

You haven't shown ANYTHING to be fraudulent.  You have shown yourself to be an ignorant fool.

I understand that you accept SSDD's contention that photons cannot move from cold to warm and that therefore there is not greenhouse effect.  Is that a correct description of your position?


----------



## Kat (Mar 21, 2019)

*Stop the personal attacks.*


----------



## Crick (Mar 21, 2019)

JC, the CRN data from the contiguous US does NOT indicate that the global data should have different values than it does.  A quick example: 16 numbers: 8, 9, 6, 10, 7, 11, 9, 13, 8, 2, 8, 7, 9, 12, 12, 9.   The average of those numbers is 8.75.  There was a 2 in there.  It was the lowest number.  Does it somehow prove that the average of those numbers ISN'T 8.75?  No.  Neither does the highest number, the 13.  And the contiguous US was not the only place on the planet that showed little warming.  But other places, like the Arctic, showed large warming.  The average of all that is what is seen in the global data from all the various sources.

If you want to show that those data have been falsified, you will have to do a great deal more than you have.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> JC, the CRN data from the contiguous US does NOT indicate that the global data should have different values than it does.  A quick example: 16 numbers: 8, 9, 6, 10, 7, 11, 9, 13, 8, 2, 8, 7, 9, 12, 12, 9.   The average of those numbers is 8.75.  There was a 2 in there.  It was the lowest number.  Does it somehow prove that the average of those numbers ISN'T 8.75?  No.  Neither does the highest number, the 13.  And the contiguous US was not the only place on the planet that showed little warming.  But other places, like the Arctic, showed large warming.  The average of all that is what is seen in the global data from all the various sources.
> 
> If you want to show that those data have been falsified, you will have to do a great deal more than you have.


No I don’t


----------



## SSDD (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I have provided regional temperature histories from all over the globe...when you look at regional temperatures, you see some cooling, a couple warming, and most show no statistically significant trend at all...the only place you see a global trend is in the highly manipulated, homogenized, and infilled global record.  If "global" warming were happening, a warming trend would be visible in all, or nearly all regional records..  

It isn't.  Sorry skidmark, but once again, reality and the scientific method show how wrong you and your unsubstantiated beliefs are.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think the bigger problem is that you seem to be "voiding" the 98.4% that make up the rest of the planet.  That CRN data IS included in the global land and ocean calculations fool.



The larger problem is that you are ignoring the fact that when you look at regional temperature records, "global" warming simply doesn't show up..  If "global" warming were happening, then a warming signature would be showing up in at least most regional records...it doesn't.  A global trend only shows up in the highly manipulated, homogenized, and infilled global record.


http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/343/2017/tc-11-343-2017.pdf







http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-26/cp-2017-26.pdf













Two centuries temperature variations over subtropical southeast China inferred from Pinus taiwanensis Hayata tree-ring width







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research











High sensitivity of North Iceland (Tröllaskagi) debris-free glaciers to climatic change from the ‘Little Ice Age’ to the present (PDF Download Available)







http://www.clim-past.net/13/93/2017/cp-13-93-2017.pdf







http://cms.unige.ch/sciences/terre/news/articles/Guillet_etal_NGEO_2017.pdf







http://www.clim-past.net/13/1/2017/cp-13-1-2017.pdf










https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Siderastrea_siderea_from_the_Florida_Straits







http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116305479







https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3478-8







http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018216303054







http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116304802















http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737911630381X










Continued...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 22, 2019)

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research








Changes in temperature and water depth of a small mountain lake during the past 3000 years in Central Kamchatka reflected by a chironomid record







http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n3/full/ngeo2891.html








SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research








Temperature variations since 1750 CE inferred from an alpine lake in the southeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau








https://www.researchgate.net/public...enland_from_the_first_regional_diatom_dataset












Quantitative reconstruction of temperature at a Jōmon site in the Incipient Jōmon Period in northern Japan and its implications for the production of early pottery and stone arrowheads







Climate variability in the past ∼19,000 yr in NE Tibetan Plateau inferred from biomarker and stable isotope records of Lake Donggi Cona







https://www.researchgate.net/public...nce_from_the_mid-_to_outer_Great_Barrier_Reef







Holocene hydrological and sea surface temperature changes in the northern coast of the South China Sea







Oscillations in the Indian summer monsoon during the Holocene inferred from a stable isotope record from pyrogenic carbon from Lake Chenghai, southwest China







https://www.researchgate.net/public...mental_change_for_southern_Pacific_Costa_Rica







Solar and tropical ocean forcing of late-Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia







Just for fun, here are a few more...



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116306217


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018217300500


https://www.researchgate.net/public...olocene_and_its_sensitivity_to_climate_change


----------



## SSDD (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> JC, the CRN data from the contiguous US does NOT indicate that the global data should have different values than it does.  A quick example: 16 numbers: 8, 9, 6, 10, 7, 11, 9, 13, 8, 2, 8, 7, 9, 12, 12, 9.   The average of those numbers is 8.75.  There was a 2 in there.  It was the lowest number.  Does it somehow prove that the average of those numbers ISN'T 8.75?  No.  Neither does the highest number, the 13.  And the contiguous US was not the only place on the planet that showed little warming.  But other places, like the Arctic, showed large warming.  The average of all that is what is seen in the global data from all the various sources.
> 
> If you want to show that those data have been falsified, you will have to do a great deal more than you have.



Of course it does....if you break the global record down into regions, it shows the US to be warming...the fact is that the US is cooling...is there a rational reason to believe that if the heavily manipulated global record shows warming in the US that isn't happening, that it is also showing warming in the rest of the world that isn't happening.

Then there is the fact that when you look at actual regional temperature records, you don't see a general warming trend across the globe...See the graphs provided above...there is no general warming trend showing up in all, or even most regional records.  A general warming trend only shows up in the heavily manipulated, homogenized and infilled global record...

There is evidence of massive data manipulation and fraud on a colossal scale...


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > JC, the CRN data from the contiguous US does NOT indicate that the global data should have different values than it does.  A quick example: 16 numbers: 8, 9, 6, 10, 7, 11, 9, 13, 8, 2, 8, 7, 9, 12, 12, 9.   The average of those numbers is 8.75.  There was a 2 in there.  It was the lowest number.  Does it somehow prove that the average of those numbers ISN'T 8.75?  No.  Neither does the highest number, the 13.  And the contiguous US was not the only place on the planet that showed little warming.  But other places, like the Arctic, showed large warming.  The average of all that is what is seen in the global data from all the various sources.
> ...



Please explain then why you think the contiguous US temperatures falsify the global data.  Do the greater warming data from the Arctic prove that the global data is falsely colder?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > JC, the CRN data from the contiguous US does NOT indicate that the global data should have different values than it does.  A quick example: 16 numbers: 8, 9, 6, 10, 7, 11, 9, 13, 8, 2, 8, 7, 9, 12, 12, 9.   The average of those numbers is 8.75.  There was a 2 in there.  It was the lowest number.  Does it somehow prove that the average of those numbers ISN'T 8.75?  No.  Neither does the highest number, the 13.  And the contiguous US was not the only place on the planet that showed little warming.  But other places, like the Arctic, showed large warming.  The average of all that is what is seen in the global data from all the various sources.
> ...


I gave him the local temps for the month of February for Atlanta and they did not match his graph.  I don't need to do anything else as it shows a pattern that the rest of that map most likely is wrong.  I'd be happy to go pull the month of February for any other local city in the US and see if it matches, but he needs to tell me the city.  I'm done ricocheting around the board for the punk..


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


because, I gave you the temps from the local Atlanta area for the month of February and they didn't match your map.  It is simple.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *
> 
> Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?


There is no such thing as a 'global climate'... Earth has MANY climates. Climate is typically defined along the lines of 'weather in an area over a long period of time'. Madison, WI has a climate... Seattle, WA has a climate... Earth does NOT have a climate...

We never used fossils for fuel. Fossils do not burn very well.


Define 'climate change' in a non-circular manner...


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

Oddball said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> ...


ABSOLUTELY correct... Nice to see someone who actually understands science instead of spouting the Church of Global Warming religious dogma...

These twits outright deny not only science, but logic and mathematics as well.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Yup, those twits do not understand what science is. All science is is a set of falsifiable theories. It is never 'settled', as it does not make use of proofs. It is not a consensus, peer review, a university course, a professor, an elite voting bloc, nor a casino (among other things these twits want to make science into).

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. The 'greenhouse gas model' denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law.  We have no idea what the 'global temperature' is, since we do not have NEARLY enough thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis, and the thermometers we DO have are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer.

These twits haven't even defined the terminology in an acceptable manner. 'Climate Change' is a circularly-defined buzzword; it is meaningless; it is a void argument.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Notice how all the Dems are starting to pick up on this "12 years left" religious dogma?? It gets fed to them by the 'powers that be' behind the curtains...

They have no data, they deny currently standing laws of science, they deny logic, they deny mathematics, and they haven't even adequately defined their term. What IS "climate change"? Remember, definitions CAN NOT be circular...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



*There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. The 'greenhouse gas model' denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law.  *

Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Sure, it’s the same thing I’ve been saying!


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2019)

Can't wait to hear this one


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> You didn't look at shit.


I have no idea what he looked at. I have looked at science, logic, and mathematics however, so I'll answer these questions for him and you.



Crick said:


> Are you claiming that historical temperature data are not "observed, measured evidence"?


We don't have any accurate 'global temperature' data... Want to know WHY that is? Let's look to Statistical Mathematics for the answer...  Before we even begin, it must be noted that our current thermometers (weather stations) are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer. This introduces location and time biases. However, for sake of discussion, I will assume that they DO meet those statistical requirements (they don't, though).

First, we need to note that the surface area of Earth is approx 197 million sq miles.

Second, we need to note just how many thermometers are being used. Remember, our thermometers do NOT meet the requirements of Statistical Mathematics, but for arguments sake, I am saying that they do. I believe NASA claims that they make use of around 7,500 thermometers, so let's use that number. Given 7,500 thermometers, that means that uniformly spaced thermometers would amount to one thermometer per approx. 26,266 sq miles. This covers an area approx. the size of West Virginia. 

Third, we need to now declare our variance/range values that we are making use of. With regard to temperatures, they have been recorded to vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and by as much as 49deg F per TWO MINUTES (showing the extreme importance of precise location and time). Temperatures have been recorded from as low as -128deg F to as high as 134deg F, a possible range of 262deg F.

Now, to summarize, since temperatures can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE, do you honestly think that one thermometer can accurately measure an area the size of WEST VIRGINIA?  This makes for a margin of error of approx. +-100deg F, which is most of the possible temperature range.

In order to get that margin of error down to even +-10deg F, one would need approx. 200 MILLION thermometers.

Satellite 'data' doesn't work, either... Satellites do not measure absolute temperature. They measure light. The problem with trying to convert the light measurement into a temperature via the stefan boltzmann law is that the emissivity constant of Earth is unknown. We don't know how much light is a result of the emission of Earth nor how much is the result of a reflection of something else (sunlight, starlight, etc...)  In other words, in order to measure temperature this way, we would need to ALREADY KNOW the temperature of the Earth... a chicken and egg issue...

Simply put, we don't have accurate 'data' (free from location/time biases)...



Crick said:


> How about CO2 levels?  Are you claiming they aren't "observed, measured, evidence"?


This runs into similar issues that I already described above. CO2 is NOT uniformly distributed across the atmosphere, so it can't be accurately measured as 'global CO2 content' from a few select locations. Also, Mauna Loa data has been known to be cooked. A fairly recent volcano eruption should have produced a huge spike in their data. There was no spike in their data... WTF????  Simply put, just like with temperature readings, we would need many CO2 measurement stations uniformly spread across the globe and simultaneously read by the same observer to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis of what the 'global CO2 content' is. We don't have accurate 'data' (free from location/time biases)...



Crick said:


> How about increased sea levels?  Are you claiming those aren't "observed, measured, evidence"?


Again, similar issues. An added issue in this case though is the fact that there is no valid "reference point" for this type of measurement. Land isn't in one steady location... it also moves...



Crick said:


> You are nothing but a lying *TROLL*.


Redefinition Fallacy. [lying >> holding differing beliefs]
Insult Fallacy.  [calling someone names is not a valid argument]


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate.


Inversion Fallacy. YOU have no interest in learning about science, since you need to deny it in order to accept your Global Warming religious dogma.



Crick said:


> You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.


Not an issue if AOC is correct... We're all toast in 12 years according to her religious dogma... 



Crick said:


> The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct.


There is no such thing as 'the science'. Science does not make use of proofs. Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics make use of proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. The IPCC is not science; they are a political organization.



Crick said:


> Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree.


Argument From RandU Fallacy. [using made up numbers as if they were data]
Science is NOT consensus, nor is it peer-review. It is a set of falsifiable theories.



Crick said:


> They are not stupid.  They are not socialists.  They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies".


Yes, many of them are, actually.



Crick said:


> They are doing science


One doesn't "do" science. It is not a method or a procedure of any sort. It is a set of falsifiable theories.



Crick said:


> because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future.


Science is not a time machine, nor a religion, nor a prophecy. It is a set of falsifiable theories.



Crick said:


> They've got children too.


Irrelevant.



Crick said:


> Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe.


Inversion Fallacy.



Crick said:


> Follow the real evidence.


True Scotsman Fallacy. [appeal to purity]

Science does not make use of 'supporting evidence'. It only makes use of conflicting evidence (which can falsify theories). No amount of blessing, purifying, sanctifying, nor any religious incantations can strengthen any theory of science. Theories of science simply continue to survive null hypothesis testing (in other words, they have yet to be falsified). If they fail even ONE null hypothesis test, then the theory is completely and utterly destroyed, rendering it no longer a theory of science. The theory that smoking causes cancer is one such theory.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate.  You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.
> ...


Yup, since they outright deny logic, science, and mathematics, they can make it whatever they want it to be, according to their religious dogma. "Climate Change" is nothing more than a circularly-defined buzzword religion.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, those twits do not understand what science is. All science is is a set of falsifiable theories. It is never 'settled', as it does not make use of proofs. It is not a consensus, peer review, a university course, a professor, an elite voting bloc, nor a casino (among other things these twits want to make science into).
> ...


Sure thing...

There are two main arguments that AGW proponents make: The Magick Blanket Argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument.

The Magick Blanket Argument argues that "blankets keep us warm, therefore CO2 keeps us warm". This arguments makes three main false equivalencies... It tries to equate "heat" [defined as the flow of thermal energy] with "thermal energy" [itself], it tries to equate a thermal energy source (us) with a non-thermal energy source (such as rocks), and [if compared to greenhouses], tries to equate a closed convective system with an open convective system. This argument violates the Stefan Boltzmann Law because it attempts to decrease radiance (due to CO2 supposedly "trapping heat") while simultaneously increasing temperature. If heat WERE actually being trapped (and radiance WERE actually being reduced), then temperature would actually DECREASE, not increase, via Stefan Boltzmann...

The Magick Bouncing Photon Argument argues that a photon of IR light is emitted from the surface, gets absorbed by <insert magick gas here>, then gets re-emitted back toward the surface, where it is absorbed, emitted again, etc. etc... Essentially, the photon never leaves the Earth, all the while, the sun keeps adding more photons to begin bouncing around like that.  This makes the surface warmer and warmer and the upper air cooler since photons don't reach it.  This denies the 1st Law of Thermodynamics because it is attempting to create energy out of nothing (it takes additional energy to increase the temperature of the Earth). Where is that additional energy coming from??  It denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because it attempts to decrease entropy (by concentrating heat at the surface and away from the upper air). In other words, it is attempting to make heat flow backwards (from cold to hot instead of hot to cold). It is creating a perpetual motion machine that would operate without any energy input.  It also denies the Stefan Boltzmann Law because, like the blanket argument, it is attempting to decrease radiance while increasing temperature. 


What actually happens is the sun heats the surface, then the surface heats the air... The air can't in turn heat the surface again.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


He obviously denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, like the other Church of Global Warming members do, in favor of their circularly-defined buzzword religion. They don't let logic, science, nor mathematics get in the way of their religious dogma...


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you threatening violence against another poster?


No, he wasn't. It is a common expression meaning to not let something "get in one's way".



Crick said:


> The second law does NOT say that radiation cannot flow from cold to warm.


Actually, it does. Radiation is a form of thermal energy transfer, like conduction and convection are. The 2nd Law states that entropy in any closed system cannot decrease (it can only increase or stay the same). Having heat flow from cold to warm is deceasing entropy [localizing ("trapping") heat]. Heat can only flow from warm to cold (which increases entropy).



Crick said:


> SSDD says that and he is the only one who does so.


Wrong. Many other people say so as well, including myself. But, it doesn't matter what any of us say, since the theory is its own support.



Crick said:


> You say it because he says it.


Welcome to Paradox City, Home of Irrationality!!  I thought you just got done saying that SSDD is the only one who says that.  NOW, you are claiming that jc456 says that as well... Which one is it?



Crick said:


> But, as you have been told more than once, you are following the WRONG fellow.


No, they are actually correct about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...



Crick said:


> Multiple physical laws more fundamental than the Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us that all matter radiates thermal energy all the time in all directions.


There is no "more fundamental", Crick... A law of science IS a law of science, so long as it hasn't been falsified.
Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold; it does NOT flow from cold to hot.



Crick said:


> The only reason you're not seemingly aware of Planck's Law is that SSDD doesn't spout some abortion of its intent so he can try to refute greenhouse warming.


Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy.  That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).


Thank you!

I've been trying, with no success, to explain how lower energy photons have no ability to warm a warmer object. Very few here have the competences or skill to understand the very basic principals of energy.

You will find the group here loves science by circular logic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



* This argument violates the Stefan Boltzmann Law because it attempts to decrease radiance *

Not sure what you mean here.

*(due to CO2 supposedly "trapping heat") *

Does CO2 absorb IR from the surface?

*The Magick Bouncing Photon Argument argues that a photon of IR light is emitted from the surface, gets absorbed by <insert magick gas here>, then gets re-emitted back toward the surface,*

Well, the "magick photons" can be emitted in any direction, right?

* Essentially, the photon never leaves the Earth, *

I've never heard anyone claim that. Have you?

*This makes the surface warmer and warmer and the upper air cooler since photons don't reach it.*

Why would the upper air get cooler? Unless it emits into space?

*What actually happens is the sun heats the surface, then the surface heats the air... *

The air is heated by conduction only? Or also by radiation?


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate.  You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.
> 
> The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct.  Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree.  They are not stupid.  They are not socialists.  They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies".  They are doing science because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future.  They've got children too.  Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe.  Follow the real evidence.





andaronjim said:


> Son, I have been on this planet much longer than any college puke who just came out of the liberal indoctrination stations.  I have seen climate change from really cold temps to really hot temps, depending on what part of the world I was on during those events.  You know what is remarkable?  Dumbasses like you who think that when it gets hot, oh my god, it must be global warming, but when it freezes outside, it is only weather...



I do not doubt you've been on this planet longer than most college graduates but you don't seem to have done much with the time to improve your knowledge base or reasoning skills.

Moving from one climate to another is not seeing climate change, it is experiencing different climates.

A warming climate results in higher highs and higher lows.  It results in more hot days and less cold days.  It will NOT result in NO cold days or NO snow or NO ice till its quite a ways along.  1.5C warming is not enough to do any of the things you seem to believe I am claiming to have happened.  What I think CO2 has done to us is this:






Do you have some reason to believe it hasn't?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*He obviously denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, *

Never, not even once!!

*like the other Church of Global Warming members *

Those guys are the worst! Any excuse to give the government more power/money.

* They don't let logic, science, nor mathematics get in the way of their religious dogma...*

Hey, you be nice to SSDD and jc456, until you get to know them, newbie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you threatening violence against another poster?
> ...



*Having heat flow from cold to warm is deceasing entropy [localizing ("trapping") heat]. Heat can only flow from warm to cold (which increases entropy).*

Excellent point. What about photons?

Can a 20C object send IR photons, for instance, toward a 37C object?


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).
> ...



Yes, I am finding that.  These types of people try to make science into religion. It is not.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments'). That's all science is.  The theories of Thermodynamics, for example, are theories of science. They have yet to be falsified. IF they DO become falsified one day, then they will no longer be theories of science. Those theories would then be completely and utterly destroyed.

Religion, on the other hand, is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in and of itself, but it DOES become fallacious the moment one attempts to prove it. That is otherwise known as 'fundamentalism' or 'being a fundamentalist' of a particular religion.  An example of a religion is Christianity. The 'initial circular argument' of Christianity is that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". All other arguments of Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

These types of people don't know how to differentiate the two... They don't know that it is RELIGION that makes use of supporting evidence, NOT Science. [Science, rather, makes use of conflicting evidence]. They don't know that it is RELIGION (and politics) which make use of consensus, NOT science...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Having heat flow from cold to warm is deceasing entropy [localizing ("trapping") heat]. Heat can only flow from warm to cold (which increases entropy).*
> 
> Excellent point. What about photons?
> 
> Can a 20C object send IR photons, for instance, toward a 37C object?



Looks like we have here another ill-tempered SSDD type sock puppet. I wonder if his brain is frozen like most of the others of his ilk.


.


----------



## otto105 (Mar 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> 
> Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.




I prefer not to discuss with ignorance.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Second, we need to note just how many thermometers are being used. Remember, our thermometers do NOT meet the requirements of Statistical Mathematics,



Please tell everyone what those requirements are. If you're not just trying to BS your way through a topic you don't understand, that should be no problem for you.



> Third, we need to now declare our variance/range values that we are making use of. With regard to temperatures, they have been recorded to vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and by as much as 49deg F per TWO MINUTES (showing the extreme importance of precise location and time). Temperatures have been recorded from as low as -128deg F to as high as 134deg F, a possible range of 262deg F.



Using anomalies solves that problem. If you weren't hilariously ignorant of the basics, you would have known that.



> In order to get that margin of error down to even +-10deg F, one would need approx. 200 MILLION thermometers.



GIGO. You stink at this, but you know too little to understand that.



> Satellite 'data' doesn't work, either...



Which is why most deniers rely on it entirely. More specifically, they rely entirely on the UAH satellite data set, which is known to have a wild cooling bias.



> This runs into similar issues that I already described above. CO2 is NOT uniformly distributed across the atmosphere,



It's very well mixed in the observation spots. Who feeds you this stuff?



> Also, Mauna Loa data has been known to be cooked



Oh, you're a conspiracy nutter. Why didn't you just say so up front, so we could have laughed at you then? it would have saved time.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments').



And since your beliefs are not falsifiable, they are obviously religious in nature. 

In stark contrast, our beliefs could be falsified by many types of hard data.  Thus, they qualify as hard science.

If you disagree, tell us what your theory of climate is, and then tell us what data could falsify it. If you state that you're not required to provide a theory, that will instantly qualify you as a wild-eyed religious zealot.


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...




Wow, where to start.

No one is claiming that a cold object will make a warm object warmer.  What we are claiming in response to the insane intepretations of one poster SSDD, is that all matter radiates in all directions at all times.  The intensity and spectrum of that radiation is determined by the temperature of the radiating matter.  It is NOT affected by the temperature of anything around it.

Billy Bob, apparently out of perceived friendship, has been trying to defend SSDD's position which claims that photons from cold matter WILL NOT RADIATE towards warmer matter.  That is, he believes that either all matter or all photons are somehow aware of the temperature of distant matter that they might hit and control is somehow exerted that prevents photons from taking off towards warmer matter.  This would have to include very distant matter, where relativity would become a large factor (it is actually a factor at all distances but that discussion can wait).  It would also have to include moving matter.  For example a photon could be emitted from a block of ice in front of you that, if unchecked, would travel through the window in your back door slider where its course would be slightly altered sending it out into space where, in ten thousand years, afte traversing the distorting gravity fields of three different black holes it will strike a small rocky object orbiting close to a distant star at very high velocity in a direction orthogonal to its path, at a particular spot being heated by a small kernel of radioactive material to a temperature one ten-thousandth of one Centigrade degree above the temperature of the emitting ice cube back in your kitchen ten thousand years ago.  But, according to SSDD and Billy Bob, that photon WOULD be checked, because the ice cube or the photon would somehow know all of this in advance and would somehow stop or be stopped from wasting its time making the trip.  So, this is the internet.  Be careful who you talk to.

We, the people here who accept the conclusions of the IPCC and mainstream science in general, agree that valid scientific theories are falsifiable.  AGW could be falsified.

Scientific theories are supported by supporting evidence and may be falsified by evidence that falsifies some fundamental element of a theory.

A consensus among scientists expert in a field under question does have value and does define what is and is not considered accepted science.  There are no proofs in the natural sciences so consensus is all you've got.  The reason we all believe Newton and then Einstein accurately described gravity is because a consensus of scientists accepted their work.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 25, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Please tell everyone what those requirements are. If you're not just trying to BS your way through a topic you don't understand, that should be no problem for you.


I TOLD you what they were IN THAT VERY SAME COMMENT. I went through the whole process step by step.



mamooth said:


> Using anomalies solves that problem. If you weren't hilariously ignorant of the basics, you would have known that.


Splendid... show me how that works...

I went through the whole process and showed you why we can't measure a global temperature (per Statistical Mathematics)...



mamooth said:


> GIGO. You stink at this, but you know too little to understand that.


Insult Fallacy.  Like I said, given the declared possible temperature variances, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers to get the margin of error down to +- 10deg F...  7,500 thermometers is MUCH less than 200 million, and the 7,500 we do have aren't even uniformly spaced nor read simultaneously by the same observer...



mamooth said:


> Which is why most deniers rely on it entirely. More specifically, they rely entirely on the UAH satellite data set, which is known to have a wild cooling bias.


I don't care what other 'deniers' do... Satellites are incapable of measuring global temperature. They don't measure absolute temperature; they measure light. Light cannot be converted into temperature, since the emissivity of Earth is unknown. We need to ALREADY KNOW what we are trying to solve for...



mamooth said:


> It's very well mixed in the observation spots. Who feeds you this stuff?


Statistical Mathematics "feeds me this stuff"... You seem to deny statistical mathematics, though...



mamooth said:


> Oh, you're a conspiracy nutter. Why didn't you just say so up front, so we could have laughed at you then? it would have saved time.


Mauna Loa cooking data does not make me a "conspiracy nutter"... It isn't even a conspiracy... A fairly recent volcano there should have made CO2 data skyrocket, but there was no spike in the data. That means that they are not releasing raw data (it's been cooked).


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 25, 2019)

mamooth said:


> And since your beliefs are not falsifiable, they are obviously religious in nature.
> 
> In stark contrast, our beliefs could be falsified by many types of hard data.  Thus, they qualify as hard science.


No idea what you're even going on about here...



mamooth said:


> If you disagree, tell us what your theory of climate is, and then tell us what data could falsify it. If you state that you're not required to provide a theory, that will instantly qualify you as a wild-eyed religious zealot.


Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy.  I don't have to provide you anything.

There is no such thing as a 'global climate'... Climate is typically defined as "weather in an area over a long period of time"... It is not quantifiable.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Heat does not flow uphill, Crick... It only flows from hot to cold. The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence, Crick. It only makes use of conflicting evidence. That's explained by the "white swan" example... No matter how many white swans you see, that doesn't further legitimize, sanctify, bless, nor make holy the theory that "all swans are white". No amount of 'methods' nor 'consensus' nor 'peer review' nor 'holy incantations' can make it so... It simply means that the theory hasn't been falsified as of yet. Once someone sees a black swan, for example, the theory is falsified. Conflicting evidence is what falsified it.

Science does not make use of consensus, Crick... A consensus by an elite voting bloc of "scientists" does not bless any theory and elevate it to some special level worthy of worship. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is, Crick...  Consensus is used in religion and politics; it is NOT used in science. Science is NOT religion, nor is it politics.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Insult Fallacy. Like I said, given the declared possible temperature variances, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers to get the margin of error down to +- 10deg F... 7,500 thermometers is MUCH less than 200 million, and the 7,500 we do have aren't even uniformly spaced nor read simultaneously by the same observer...



I am curious. What is it in statistical mechanics that demands 200 million thermometers as a requirement for a ±10 degree margin? You have very specific numbers. I would like to see where these numbers come from using statistical mechanics.


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



*The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.*

What about photons?
Are IR photons from the atmosphere allowed to move toward the surface?


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Nope. That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... It is also attempting to decrease radiance (by not letting the photon escape) while increasing temperature, in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface...  The sun heats the surface, NOT CO2 molecules...


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Insult Fallacy. Like I said, given the declared possible temperature variances, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers to get the margin of error down to +- 10deg F... 7,500 thermometers is MUCH less than 200 million, and the 7,500 we do have aren't even uniformly spaced nor read simultaneously by the same observer...
> ...


The surface area of Earth is about 197 million sq miles... Placing 7,500 thermometers (per NASA) across the Earth (uniformly spaced) would amount to one thermometer for an area slightly larger than the size of West Virginia (~26,000 sq miles). Can all of West Virginia be accurately measured using only one thermometer placed in the center of it, given that temperatures can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE??  That's your problem right there...  200 million thermometers would at least allow you to have the thermometers covering an area of approx 1 sq mile, which (given the declared variance) would result in a margin of error of +-10 deg F...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



*That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics*.

Photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter?
I don't suppose you have any backup for that claim?

*It is also attempting to decrease radiance (by not letting the photon escape) *

If a photon can be emitted in any random direction, eventually it will escape. Right?

* in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.*

The Stefan Boltzmann Law shows how the energy emitted by an object is in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. It doesn't say cooler can't radiate toward warmer. 

*Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface.*

Who said they can? Do IR photons from the surface instantly flash away into deep space?
Or are they absorbed by GHG molecules?


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics*.
> 
> Photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter?
> I don't suppose you have any backup for that claim?


The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The theory supports itself.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It is also attempting to decrease radiance (by not letting the photon escape) *
> 
> If a photon can be emitted in any random direction, eventually it will escape. Right?


You're arguing that a photon will come from the sun, heat the surface, get emitted by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, get RE-EMITTED by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, etc. etc. etc...  CO2 cannot heat the surface. The surface is hotter (it has more energy). Something with less energy cannot heat something with more energy in an isolated system.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> * in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.*
> 
> The Stefan Boltzmann Law shows how the energy emitted by an object is in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. It doesn't say cooler can't radiate toward warmer.


Yes, it does. It says that radiance is directly proportional to temperature... If radiance is decreased, temperature is also decreased. They are on opposite sides of the equation... The other two numbers on the temperature side of the equation are constants.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface.*
> 
> Who said they can? Do IR photons from the surface instantly flash away into deep space?
> Or are they absorbed by GHG molecules?


YOU are saying that they can... YOU are saying that a photon emitted by CO2 can heat the surface...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



You don't seem to know what the Central Limit Theorem is. 

Here is the deal with the limited distribution of measurements, you are right, we cannot measure the exact average temperature of the air. Even if we had complete coverage of thermometers, they only measure the surface temperature with a few short term altitude exceptions like in radiosondes, etc. So winds, updrafts, etc will give a large variance in readings anyway.  

The use of thermometers in global climate change is just that - change. We can with a reasonable accuracy measure change from one year to the next with thousands of daily readings over the whole planet. Someone here mentioned temperature "anomalies". You probably didn't understand what that meant. That is perhaps a poor name, but it is measuring change from a reference value. 

Long term change is measured by a regression analysis. For a linear analysis we can measure a slope, but not the zero intercept because of the dearth, inaccuracy and placement of thermometers. However the zero intercept is not important when the long term interest is more in slope rather than absolutely known value of daily temperature. 


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics*.
> ...


*The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The theory supports itself.*

Where does it mention photons?

*You're arguing that a photon will come from the sun, heat the surface, get emitted by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, get RE-EMITTED by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface*

Nothing in the 2nd Law prohibits that.

*CO2 cannot heat the surface.*

Who said it could?

*The surface is hotter (it has more energy).*

Excellent! That means it radiates more. So even when it absorbs photons from the cooler atmosphere, it is still emitting more (more energetic, more in number) than the atmosphere. So of course that net means it cools.

*Yes, it does. *

You're lying. Or ignorant.

* It says that radiance is directly proportional to temperature... If radiance is decreased, *

When matter radiates, it cools. You still haven't shown that radiation is directed, limited or dimmed according to surrounding matter.

*YOU are saying that they can..*

Where?

*YOU are saying that a photon emitted by CO2 can heat the surface...*

Any photon absorbed by any matter heats it. That's kinda what absorbed photons do.
But if the surface emits 30 and absorbs 20, that's still net cooler.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You don't seem to know what the Central Limit Theorem is.
> 
> Here is the deal with the limited distribution of measurements, you are right, we cannot measure the exact average temperature of the air. Even if we had complete coverage of thermometers, they only measure the surface temperature with a few short term altitude exceptions like in radiosondes, etc. So winds, updrafts, etc will give a large variance in readings anyway.


Yup, that's essentially the problem. We can't accurately measure a global temperature for a plethora of reasons.



Wuwei said:


> The use of thermometers in global climate change is just that - change.


"Global climate change" is a meaningless term. It has only ever been circularly defined. What IS "global climate change"... There is no such thing as a "global climate"... The Earth does not have a climate. Climate is typically defined as "weather in an area over a long period of time". How can 'in an area' be "global", especially when there is always all kinds of weather variation across the globe at any given point in time? Is the Earth's climate hot and dry? Is it cold and wet? Is it humid? Climate can only be discussed on a very localized scale; it can't be discussed on a global scale.



Wuwei said:


> We can with a reasonable accuracy measure change from one year to the next with thousands of daily readings over the whole planet.


No, we can't. While we can measure temperature at specific locations where there are weather stations, we can't use those measurements towards determining a 'global temperature' (due to the unaddressed location and time biases). Also, variances are far too great (20deg F per MILE, 49 deg F per TWO MINUTES). To have any semblance of accuracy, temperatures must be simultaneously read by the same observer to avoid time bias, and the thermometers must be uniformly spaced to avoid location bias.

We can measure temperature and temperature changes/patterns at specific locations, but NOT for the Earth as a whole. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.



Wuwei said:


> Someone here mentioned temperature "anomalies". You probably didn't understand what that meant. That is perhaps a poor name, but it is measuring change from a reference value.


What "reference value" are you using? How did you determine that value?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> "Global climate change" is a meaningless term. It has only ever been circularly defined. What IS "global climate change"


Why don't you Google: _What IS "global climate change_"



gfm7175 said:


> We can measure temperature and temperature changes/patterns at specific locations, but NOT for the Earth as a whole. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.


As far as the statistical mathematics needed, more specifically it is Sample Theory that should be used. We have to make do with what is available, not what is ideal. There are statistical tests to measure how the sample size and distribution of samples affects final results. The full sample can be divided into subsamples that cover the sample space and compared against each other. For example use half the samples evenly distributed, and recompute the linear regression of temperature vs time (over the valid number of years). Then use the other half and do the same thing. This can be repeated with different partial distributions and compared to get a confidence level of the average global temperature.



gfm7175 said:


> What "reference value" are you using? How did you determine that value?


There are various ways to do that. In the end it really doesn't matter. When you are interested in the slope, changing the vertical offset will not change the slope. In climate _change_, it is the slope that is of interest.







.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > "Global climate change" is a meaningless term. It has only ever been circularly defined. What IS "global climate change"
> ...


Stopped reading after "google it"... "Google it" is NOT an argument...

You keep talking about "climate change", yet you haven't defined that terminology yet... What is the definition that you are operating under?

Also noticed "we have to make due with what is available..."... That's not good enough in terms of accuracy... If you want any sort of an accurate global temperature, you NEED to have thermometers uniformly spaced, you NEED to have them simultaneously read by the same observer, and given the 20deg F per MILE variance, you NEED to have about 200 million of them to yield a result that would have even a halfway reasonable margin of error...


----------



## sparky (Mar 25, 2019)

*



			How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
		
Click to expand...

*
*How do we know we're not?*

*~S~*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


....and when that doesn't work, you can always add in the heat trapped - like a rat - 2,000 meters deep in the oceans!


----------



## sparky (Mar 25, 2019)

sparky said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ah, it's all a joke now.....i see...~S~


----------



## abu afak (Mar 25, 2019)

sparky said:


> *How do we know we're not?*
> *~S~*





sparky said:


> ah, it's all a joke now.....i see...~S~


*You have ZERO to say in this and most other sections you One-Line Clown.
Get lost asshole.*

`


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Stopped reading after "google it"... "Google it" is NOT an argument...
> 
> You keep talking about "climate change", yet you haven't defined that terminology yet... What is the definition that you are operating under?
> 
> Also noticed "we have to make due with what is available..."... That's not good enough in terms of accuracy... If you want any sort of an accurate global temperature, you NEED to have thermometers uniformly spaced, you NEED to have them simultaneously read by the same observer, and given the 20deg F per MILE variance, you NEED to have about 200 million of them to yield a result that would have even a halfway reasonable margin of error...


You asked what is climate change. I wasn't trying to be factious in saying Google it. There are lots of places with explanations. I'm not going to spoon feed you. 

You seem to be a bit of a novice in statistics.. I tried to give you some facets of how Sample Theory might be applied. If you don't like it nor understand it, so be it.


.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You asked what is climate change. I wasn't trying to be factious in saying Google it. There are lots of places with explanations. I'm not going to spoon feed you.


Yes, I did. This whole discussion is meaningless if you can't even define the terminology that you are basing your whole argumentation on... It IS your job to "spoon feed" me. YOU are asserting that something called "climate change" exists... YOU need to define what that terminology means. You shouldn't even have to steal it from somebody else; YOU should be able to form your OWN arguments. Stealing the arguments of others is intellectual laziness... Telling someone to "google it" is intellectual laziness.

Please provide me with the definition of "climate change" that you are making use of whenever you use that terminology. Remember, definitions CAN NOT be circular...



Wuwei said:


> You seem to be a bit of a novice in statistics.. I tried to give you some facets of how Sample Theory might be applied. If you don't like it nor understand it, so be it.


You didn't give any examples of anything... You didn't show any work...


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2019)

GFM, you really seem to be weaseling here.  In English, a definition is a description of a word's common usage.  It is perfectly correct to use a dictionary or other reference.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 26, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Yes, I did. This whole discussion is meaningless if you can't even define the terminology that you are basing your whole argumentation on... It IS your job to "spoon feed" me. YOU are asserting that something called "climate change" exists... YOU need to define what that terminology means. You shouldn't even have to steal it from somebody else; YOU should be able to form your OWN arguments. Stealing the arguments of others is intellectual laziness... Telling someone to "google it" is intellectual laziness.
> 
> Please provide me with the definition of "climate change" that you are making use of whenever you use that terminology. Remember, definitions CAN NOT be circular...



To add to what Crick said, some people are taking words or phrases that have a strict scientific meaning and substituting their own colloquial meanings. That has lead to all kinds of self contradictions. If you don't want to abide by definitions in the science literature, there is no common ground for any kind of dialog. Using a science definition most definitely is not intellectual laziness. However, since you are limiting the subject to earth surface temperature, my response only addressed that aspect of climate change.



gfm7175 said:


> You didn't give any examples of anything... You didn't show any work...


I showed an example of a very useful procedure used in Sample Theory to test the accuracy of sampled data. Why do you think it is not useful. What do you mean by "work". 



.
.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 26, 2019)

Consensus is not a scientific word


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I did. This whole discussion is meaningless if you can't even define the terminology that you are basing your whole argumentation on... It IS your job to "spoon feed" me. YOU are asserting that something called "climate change" exists... YOU need to define what that terminology means. You shouldn't even have to steal it from somebody else; YOU should be able to form your OWN arguments. Stealing the arguments of others is intellectual laziness... Telling someone to "google it" is intellectual laziness.
> ...


I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...

Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"??  I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 26, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



Math would be ideal


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> GFM, you really seem to be weaseling here.  In English, a definition is a description of a word's common usage.  It is perfectly correct to use a dictionary or other reference.


Dictionaries don't define words, Crick. People do.  Dictionary definitions might be logically sound, but they also might not be...

The purpose of a dictionary is to standardize spelling and pronunciations. Dictionaries are not "authoritative" over any word meaning.

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 26, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics*.
> ...



*The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The theory supports itself.*

Where does it mention photons?

*You're arguing that a photon will come from the sun, heat the surface, get emitted by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, get RE-EMITTED by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface*

Nothing in the 2nd Law prohibits that.

*CO2 cannot heat the surface.*

Who said it could?

*The surface is hotter (it has more energy).*

Excellent! That means it radiates more. So even when it absorbs photons from the cooler atmosphere, it is still emitting more (more energetic, more in number) than the atmosphere. So of course that net means it cools.

*Yes, it does. *

You're lying. Or ignorant.

* It says that radiance is directly proportional to temperature... If radiance is decreased, *

When matter radiates, it cools. You still haven't shown that radiation is directed, limited or dimmed according to surrounding matter.

*YOU are saying that they can..*

Where?

*YOU are saying that a photon emitted by CO2 can heat the surface...*

Any photon absorbed by any matter heats it. That's kinda what absorbed photons do.
But if the surface emits 30 and absorbs 20, that's still net cooler.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 26, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...


The math would need superscripts, subscripts, Greek symbols, and a half a page of equations involving a large data base. It's not possible to show that on this limited text messaging system. It involves understanding calculus. I already told you the procedure in an earlier post. If you don't understand that procedure and cannot construct the math from that, you certainly wouldn't be able to understand the math when you see it. 



gfm7175 said:


> Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...


I already told you in post #401.


.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...
> ...


so you yourself can't define climate change with your own words.  That was the dude's ask.  so in #401,  you didn't give him that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...
> ...



...and after that, you still have to add in the heat trapped 2,000 m deep in the ocean to make the numbers work


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2019)

Ever wonder why people ignore you Frank?


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...
> ...


"Too complicated" mantra and "you don't understand" mantra were both dismissed on sight...

And no, you didn't answer me in your post #401... I asked you to provide me with a definition for "climate change", as you are continuously making use of the term. You have yet to provide any definition for it...

Remember, definitions CANNOT be circular...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> ...



What you mean is you prefer not to discuss in ignorance...If you believe any such observed, measured data exists, by all means, I would love to see it.  It is hilarious how quickly you wack jobs are to start calling names and pointing to consensus rather than simply present the data I am asking for and shut me down?  Ever consider why you can't do that?  It is because the evidence that I claim does not exist, does not, in fact exist.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2019)

sparky said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Failure to produce even a single piece of evidence after 30+ years that supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is anything other than natural variability is a pretty good indication...would't you say?


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...


[/QUOTE]

I gave you a definition for anthropogenic global warming that was not circular, yet you continued to claim that it was.  This is why I have been suggesting you are simply trying to avoid debate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics*.
> ...



*The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The theory supports itself.*

Where does it mention photons?

*You're arguing that a photon will come from the sun, heat the surface, get emitted by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, get RE-EMITTED by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface*

Nothing in the 2nd Law prohibits that.

*CO2 cannot heat the surface.*

Who said it could?

*The surface is hotter (it has more energy).*

Excellent! That means it radiates more. So even when it absorbs photons from the cooler atmosphere, it is still emitting more (more energetic, more in number) than the atmosphere. So of course that net means it cools.

*Yes, it does. *

You're lying. Or ignorant.

* It says that radiance is directly proportional to temperature... If radiance is decreased, *

When matter radiates, it cools. You still haven't shown that radiation is directed, limited or dimmed according to surrounding matter.

*YOU are saying that they can..*

Where?

*YOU are saying that a photon emitted by CO2 can heat the surface...*

Any photon absorbed by any matter heats it. That's kinda what absorbed photons do.
But if the surface emits 30 and absorbs 20, that's still net cooler. 

Robin? Are you ok?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Ever wonder why people ignore you Frank?



Stop trolling, Crick


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 27, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> "Too complicated" mantra and "you don't understand" mantra were both dismissed on sight...


Strawman I never said the math was complicated, it's just to messy. You expect me to put a bunch of math with special symbols on this text editor? 



gfm7175 said:


> I asked you to provide me with a definition for "climate change", as you are continuously making use of the term. You have yet to provide any definition for it...



Your post on this thread was that millions of thermometers were needed for accuracy. You were not concerned about climate change in general, you were concerned only with temperature. I am abiding by your definition of climate change.

Here is that part of post #401 that you missed.


Wuwei said:


> However, since you are limiting the subject to earth surface temperature, my response only addressed *that aspect of climate change*.




.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > "Too complicated" mantra and "you don't understand" mantra were both dismissed on sight...
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 27, 2019)

To see how the earth's average temperature changes from one year to the next.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 27, 2019)

for what purpose?  The variance within that information would be so subjective it would therefore relegate the data useless.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > "Too complicated" mantra and "you don't understand" mantra were both dismissed on sight...
> ...


And STILL, you KEEP using the term "climate change" without even offering up a definition for the term...  And now you're claiming that I offered up a definition and that you are "abiding by it"... I've never offered a definition; I have only ever asked YOU for one...

I have no idea what you are even talking about when you say "climate change"... It is a meaningless buzzword.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> I gave you a definition for anthropogenic global warming that was not circular, yet you continued to claim that it was.  This is why I have been suggesting you are simply trying to avoid debate.


It WAS circular, Crick... I bolded the areas which were circular and explained to you WHY they were circular.   It's not my problem that you are outright denying logic...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 27, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> And STILL, you KEEP using the term "climate change" without even offering up a definition for the term... And now you're claiming that I offered up a definition and that you are "abiding by it"... I've never offered a definition; I have only ever asked YOU for one...
> 
> I have no idea what you are even talking about when you say "climate change"... It is a meaningless buzzword.


Sorry you don't understand.


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > And STILL, you KEEP using the term "climate change" without even offering up a definition for the term... And now you're claiming that I offered up a definition and that you are "abiding by it"... I've never offered a definition; I have only ever asked YOU for one...
> ...


Neither do YOU, Wuwei... It is a circularly-defined buzzword... It is meaningless... Any argument based on it is a void argument. You need to define your terms, Wuwei...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



Robin?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 27, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Neither do YOU, Wuwei... It is a circularly-defined buzzword... It is meaningless... Any argument based on it is a void argument. You need to define your terms, Wuwei...



You started out simply saying that you need more than 200 million thermometers to measure an average temperature on Earth. I disagreed and was focusing on the nature of statistical Sampling Theory on measurements. You didn't understand that. If you now want to argue circular buzzwords I simply am not interested.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> 
> Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.



While you bury your ignorant head in the sand...

It's funny that every country in the world knows global warming is real, half the USA knows it's real, 99% of scientists know it's real.  Only Republicans and corporations that pollute a lot don't know.  Interesting.  

two GOP lawmakers are pushing proposals that abandon the party’s outright climate change denial.

some Republicans are starting to shift on climate change as the center of the debate slides left toward policies that could make a dent in surging greenhouse gas emissions.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who is a close ally of President Donald Trump and who in the last Congress proposed a bill to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, drafted a nonbinding resolution staking out a Green Real Deal that would acknowledge the threat climate change poses to “human health and safety” in “communities across the United States.” The document, which Politico published last week, does not set targets for emission cuts but calls for ramping up low-carbon investments and “otherwise reducing or achieving net-zero emissions from fossil energy.”

On Monday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) proposed a New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy that he said would “double federal funding for energy research” and implement a five-year plan to “create new sources of cheap, clean energy.”

“The purpose of the original Manhattan Project during World War II was to find a way to split the atom and build a bomb before Germany could,” he wrote in an op-ed for Fox News. “Instead of ending a war, the goal of this New Manhattan Project will be to minimize the disruption on our lives and economies caused by climate change, to clean the air and to raise family incomes.”

It’s difficult to see the proposals becoming law while Trump, who routinely mocks climate science, remains in the White House and mainstream Republicans and their fossil fuel benefactors continue to downplay increasingly dire forecasts for warming in the coming decades.

But even if the first two Republican proposals to counter the Green New Deal don’t yet amount to an earthquake for the GOP, they are a rumble. The proposals also offer hints at where policy talks may go if Democrats retake the presidency or Senate in the 2020 elections.

“The tectonic plates are shifting,” Joseph Majkut, a climate policy expert at the conservative Niskanen Center, said by phone.

Until last year, climate change ranked low in surveys of voters’ concerns. But the figures began inching up among Republicans in 2018. In December, two-thirds of voters said they were very or somewhat concerned about new climate warnings in a Politico/Morning Consult survey. Last month a League of Conservation Voters poll of Democratic primary voters found taking action on climate change to be a top factor in deciding which candidate to support.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> ...


*It's funny that every country in the world knows global warming is real, half the USA knows it's real, 99% of scientists know it's real.  *

The Little Ice Age ended. It's in all the history books.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

1850


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


That’s not what the entire rest of the world thinks and all the scientists, dummy


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The Little Ice Age ended. It's in all the history books.

*That’s not what the entire rest of the world thinks *

The entire rest of the world thinks the Little Ice Age never ended? Morons.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Idiot


----------



## gfm7175 (Mar 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You started out simply saying that you need more than 200 million thermometers to measure an average temperature on Earth.


Yes, I did... and that's because you DO need AT LEAST that many. If you want an accurate global temperature measurement, you can't use the thermometers as we have them now, "adjust" the numbers a bit, and call them good.  Thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced AND simultaneously read by the same observer to remove biases and to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.



Wuwei said:


> I disagreed and was focusing on the nature of statistical Sampling Theory on measurements. You didn't understand that.


You didn't focus on anything. You haven't even gotten more in-depth about anything as of yet... You haven't even made an argument for me TO understand...



Wuwei said:


> If you now want to argue circular buzzwords I simply am not interested.


I just want you to tell me what definition of "global warming"/"climate change" you are operating under... I want you to define the term in a non-circular way.  You are purposely avoiding this point, since you can't offer up anything but a circular definition...  Basing an argument on a circularly-defined/undefined word renders a void argument. I'd say that bit is Logic 101, but that might even be an insult to Logic 101...


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2019)

Your turn:  give us a non-circular definition of the term "accurate" as used by you in the following sentence:

_ "If you want an _accurate _global temperature measurement, you can't use the thermometers as we have them now, "adjust" the numbers a bit, and call them good." _

You might want to do a little research before you get started as your previous posts have clearly demonstrated you do not understand the concept of circular definitions or circular logic.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> To see how the earth's average temperature changes from one year to the next.



Again...the daily min max may be 200 degrees apart...an average is meaningless...completely meaningless...even if you had a real average and not the heavily manipulate, massaged, homogenized, infilled sham of a record that we have at present...which is worth less than nothing.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> It's funny that every country in the world knows global warming is real, half the USA knows it's real, 99% of scientists know it's real.  Only Republicans and corporations that pollute a lot don't know.  Interesting.



Who ever said that climate change isn't real?  Not me.  

Human caused climate change, however, remains unproven.  And tell me, how do you suppose all these people "know" that we are causing the climate to change when there has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.  

Wouldn't you expect at least one such paper to be published before folks start making claims about how they "know" we are causing the climate to change?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny that every country in the world knows global warming is real, half the USA knows it's real, 99% of scientists know it's real.  Only Republicans and corporations that pollute a lot don't know.  Interesting.
> ...


There are plenty of papers. Where u been?


----------



## Flash (Mar 28, 2019)

We know there is no man made global warming because the yahoos that says it is are the ones creating false data to prove it.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Oh...there are papers galore...but not a single one in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

But by all means, if you think such a paper exists, lets see it...who wrote it?  In which publication was it published?  Lets see a link to it.

So lacking any such paper, exactly where does the conviction and certainty that we are causing any changes in the global climate come from?


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2019)

Flash said:


> We know there is no man made global warming because the yahoos that says it is are the ones creating false data to prove it.



That's a great deal of false data over a great many years.  Do you have some evidence supporting that contention?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We know there is no man made global warming because the yahoos that says it is are the ones creating false data to prove it.
> ...


They won't believe the data.  They don't trust scientists.  They trust oil companies and lobbyists.






Fossil fuels — like oil, natural gas, and coal — “contain carbon that’s been locked away from the natural cycle for eons.” When we burn these fossil fuels, the carbon combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide. This extra carbon dioxide (and other GHGs like methane) traps more and more heat in our atmosphere.

Humans started harnessing fossil fuels on a massive scale during the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution began about 1760 and most historians mark its end sometime before the middle of the next century.

Basically, it was a time of profound transformation. Before the Industrial Revolution, about 80 percent of the world’s population were rural farmers. But the Industrial Revolution changed how the world lived and worked, bringing millions to urban centers to work in factories.

Now add China, India, Mexico, Middle East, Africa to us industrialized nations.  Now we are putting way too much up in the air.  It was ok when it was just Europe and the USA but now it's the entire world that is industrialized.


----------



## Flash (Mar 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We know there is no man made global warming because the yahoos that says it is are the ones creating false data to prove it.
> ...




Go read the Climategate emails.  The stupid principal climate scientists were giggling among themselves at how they were falsifying actual data because it was for "the good of mankind".  Actually it was only good for their research grants.

Then we had the UN falsifying data and under the filthy ass Obama administration NASA and NOAA were corrupted into producing bogus data.

AGW is nothing more than a Moon Bat scam.  Only idiots fall for it.  If it wasn't a scam then they scientists wouldn't have to falsify data.  Also, maybe their predictions would actually come true every once in awhile.  That never happens.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 29, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural



*Funny words from the chief ringleader, BOZO himself.*  Man is part of his environment so sure he has an influence.  The question is to what degree are his actions contributing to what the Earth does otherwise and what will the Earth do once man eventually moves past carbon fuels toward greener energies in the next century?

_And the historical record is clear:_  despite the worst calamities of Super Volcanoes, Deccan Traps, Chicxulub asteroids or Mars-size impactors, each time the Earth rights itself back to a happy planet again.  You can't argue with history.

More so, just as bovine farting or algae in the sea effect change, man is but one more natural biological function of the Earth.  We are not screwing it up, we are merely exerting the normal technological pressure that any advanced life form will advance on affecting its climate on its way towards becoming a multi-planet species, and whatever the consequences, whether we can take it or the planet, 99% of the Earth's species were already extinct before man ever walked the face of the Earth, and there will be a million million new ones long after we are gone.  Life marches on (except for whiny liberals who do nothing but cry, complain and shout the sky is falling).


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




When are you going to give it up Silly booboo and stop with the Fucking propaganda about fossil fuel?

1. They Spent billions since the 1970's on Green technology

2. They came out and admitted that Fossil fuel and deforestation is a contributor 




.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...








The first bullet point is fine.
The second bullet point, change the word pollution to dioxide.
The third bullet point, not even close.


----------



## Flash (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> [
> View attachment 252864



1.  We don't really know the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere.  They predict CO2 being a greenhouse gas in computer models but measured data doesn't prove it.  That is one of the reasons that these assholes have to make up data.  We do know that the earth was warmer with less CO2 and cooler with ten times as much CO2.  We also know that CO2 emissions typical lags temperature increased.

2.  True but nature also produces CO2 emissions. Much more than humans.  By the way, pollution is a different term than greenhouse gases.  They are not the same.

3.  There is no scientific conclusion to be drawn, only a weak correlation.  Like saying you can predict the performance of the stock market by the length of women's skirts.  

When these yokels stop making this a political discussion on redistribution of wealth and technology being destroyed and stop falsifying data we can have a real scientific discussion.  But until then it all going to be moot with the coming solar minimum that will put us in a mini ice age for the next 50 years or so.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*Why conservatives keep gaslighting the nation about climate change*
*Republican climate rhetoric shifts (again), but the goal remains the same.*

*In recent years, leaders of the Republican Party have become aware that denying the existence of global warming makes them look like idiots. Changes in climate have become obvious, not just to scientists, but to ordinary people — they can be directly measured, with such exotic instruments as a “thermometer.” Majorities of every group except the most conservative Republicans (who will trust their media over their lying eyes) believe it is happening.

Denying visible, tangible reality is a dicey business, even for the modern US right. It makes the party look like a death cult. So Republican climate-communication strategy has undergone something of an adjustment.

Not a large adjustment, mind you. The GOP remains dead set against doing anything about climate change, against any policy that would threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies. That is the non-negotiable baseline, despite a few fringe figures who signal otherwise (until the time comes for votes).

But front-line, hardcore denialism of the “it’s a hoax” variety has largely receded to the base. Republican leaders and spokespeople have moved back to the next line of defense: Yes, the climate is changing, but we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible.

Professional double-talker Marco Rubio, senator from the climate-battered state of Florida, ran a version of this on CNN’s Jake Tapper show earlier this month.

Why conservatives keep gaslighting the nation about climate change


*


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2019)

Watch what liars Republicans are

“Sea level rise and changes in the climate, those are measurable,” Rubio said. “I don’t think there’s a debate about whether that’s happening because you can measure that.” See? He’s a reasonable guy! Not some crazy denier.

“The secondary aspect,” he adds, “is how much of that is due to human activity...”

Tapper pushes on: “Do you believe it is man-made?”

“Humanity and its behavior, scientists say, is contributing to that,” Rubio acknowledged. “I can’t tell you to what percentage is contributing and many scientists would debate the percentage is contributable to man versus normal fluctuations, but there’s a rise in sea level, temperatures are warmer in the waters than they were 50, 80, 100 years ago. That’s measurable.”

In short: The climate is changing but we’re not sure why.

Make note of what policy might follow from this perspective. We don’t really know how much humans are contributing to climate change, so there’s no sense in trying hard to reduce our emissions. 

Rubio’s is not a new rhetorical ploy, of course, nor is it unique to him. But it has helped the GOP wriggle out from under the uncomfortable “denier” label. Conservative leaders who pull this move tend to get the headlines they want: “Republican acknowledges climate change.”

There are two things to say about this rhetorical move by the GOP.

First, this is still denialism. It doesn’t get Republicans out of the trap like they think it does, unless the media is incredibly lazy. (Ahem.) Second, and more broadly, the ever-shifting rhetoric of climate denial reveals that particular arguments about science were never really offered in good faith. The fact is, the GOP is the party of fossil fuels; it recognizes, accurately, that to acknowledge climate change is to empower its opponents.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



* Changes in climate have become obvious, not just to scientists, but to ordinary people *

Do you have a 100 year period in history when "the climate did not change"?
How about a 20 year period?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yea but the changes weren't as drastic as now.  In fact we were going into an ice age but somehow we are warming.

I'm not going to argue with you.  I'm just putting you down as a denier.  Not even a good one.  Republicans have gotten good at denying GW without actually denying it.  They say we are contributing but now the question is, how much.

For 10 years they said we weren't contributing, now we are but the question how much.

This reminds me of the Corporations and Republicans who denied cigarettes caused cancer or that lead was bad for us.

You simply suck.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2019)

Toddsterdummy


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


*Yea but the changes weren't as drastic as now.  *

Excellent point!

What were the changes over this most recent 50 year period? 
What about the 50 year period before that?
What about the eighteen 50 year periods before that?

Before we waste...err...invest trillions in windmills, we need to know more.

*In fact we were going into an ice age but somehow we are warming.*

Thank goodness. A bit of warming is much better than an ice age.
An ice age would kill billions.

*I'm not going to argue with you.*

That's good. I wouldn't want to make you cry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

Sealydodo


----------



## Flash (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterdummy




I think if anybody has proved to be an idiot it is you.  You actually believe this silly AGW scam.

I am not a climate expert but I am an Environmental Engineer.  Worked in the field for 30 years.  I actually know what pollution really is.  I have cleaned up more pollution in my career than you and ten thousand of your Moon Bat buddies will ever see in your lifetimes.

While not an expert I am very well read on the subject because in post retirement I taught college courses in Environmental Science and had to well versed on it for the course.

Global warming and climate change is real.  No doubt about it.  It has been the case since the end of the last ice age.  However, there is absolutely no proof that man has altered the climate with greenhouse gasses.  We have polluted the hell out of a lot of things but absolutely no proof we have altered the atmosphere.  

The reason these yokels have to make up data and none of their predictions ever come true is because there is no substance to the scam.  

You are either an idiot or you are gullible.  Maybe even both.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's worse now because of all the fossil fuels we are burning
No, it's not good that we are warming the planet.  That's a very ignorant thing to say.
You already make me cry you are so stupid.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2019)

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterdummy
> ...


You wasted you time typing to me.  I read the first 2 sentences and then just stopped.  Don't waste your time idiot.  Bye


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



*It's worse now because of all the fossil fuels we are burning*

What's worse? How do you know?

*No, it's not good that we are warming the planet. *

If the alternative is a new ice age, you're damn right warming the planet is good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterdummy
> ...



Don't make her cry. She's stupid and fragile.


----------



## MAGAman (Mar 29, 2019)

shockedcanadian said:


> I believe man is responsible for at least some damage and potential climate changes to the environment.  I also believe with pressure, science and Free Market principles, this damage can be reversed and minimized.
> 
> Look, America has cut emissions the most in the world, China and expanding economies like India are a greater threat to pollution than America is.  This isn't the 1950's America has cleaner processes of extraction and use of natural gas.  You can't see the sun in some cities in China.
> 
> I have no problem with using alternative sources of energy, I say, develop it, make it cost affordable and effectively functional for use.  That's the free market. * I support tax breaks for those putting their own money into a project, I do not support boondoggles, it has destroyed an already weak economic environment in Ontario*.


That is a very rational and doable idea.

Brilliant idea.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



The first part is wrong since C02 doesn't absorb "heat" they absorb IR, which they release immediately.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



* they absorb IR, which they release immediately. *

Release how, precisely?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Who cares. You’re not a scientist are you? Stop pretending to understand. And you’re just trying to stall the progress with stupid irrelevant questions. Republicans tactic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*Who cares*

I care.

*Stop pretending to understand. *

What do you feel I'm pretending to understand?

*And you’re just trying to stall the progress with stupid irrelevant questions. *

The progress of what?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2019)

Flash said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterdummy
> ...


Nice. It’s my opinion the pollution problem triggered all this AGW nonsense. It’s a, see we polluted therefore we affect the atmosphere. Nope, no evidence


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Collisions, 99%


----------



## Flash (Mar 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Most of these stupid Moon Bats don't even know the difference between the terms "pollution" and "greenhouse gasses".  They think the terms are synonymous and they aren't.

The seven billion humans have done a significant amount of polluting of the planet.  No doubt about it.  However, that does not mean burning fossil fuels has altered the climate.

Contrary of what these stupid Moon Bats have been brainwashed on there is absolutely no real indisputable evidence that man made CO2 has altered the climate of the earth.

There is evidence that the earth's climate changes.  That has been going on since the formation of the earth.  There is evidence that the earth is getting warmer but that has been going on since the end of the last ice age.

If there was evidence of AGW then the AGW alarmists wouldn't have to fabricate data and maybe even some of their predictions would come true. None of their predictions ever come true. 

This AGW bullshit is probably the biggest hoax every put on mankind.   Nothing more than a scam and these stupid Moon Bats fall for it hook, line and sinker.

Of course generally these are the same people that think socialism is peachy keen so they aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

Flash said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



For you to reject AGW, you must:

a) Reject the greenhouse effect
AND/OR
b) Reject that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and is therefore a greenhouse gas
AND/OR
c) That humans are responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 411 ppm

all three of which are beliefs founded on mountains of evidence.

So, on which of these topics have you chosen to either spread your ignorance or spread you lies?


----------



## Flash (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




a.  There are some greenhouse gasses.

b.  There is no proof that man made level of COs has caused a warming of the earth.

c.  There is no proof that man is responsible for the increase amounts of CO2.  Besides, that doesn't make a damn of difference.  The earth has been warmer with less CO2 and the earth has been colder with more CO2.  In addition, historically CO2 increased lags a warming climate.  

There is no mountain of evidence.  Most of what you stupid Moon Bats think is evidence is based upon bogus data.

You ignorance  of real verifiable science contributes to your acceptance of this silly scam.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2019)

I


Crick said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I  reject AGW . Now what?


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

Why do you reject AGW?  The Second Law of Thermodynamics?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Why do you reject AGW?  The Second Law of Thermodynamics?


No observed empirical data to say it is. Six years in here and nothing


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

You have been shown large amounts of date supporting AGW.  What you refer to is the bullshit, rhetorical question you ask over and over again and then reject any answer given - just like your idol SSDD.  You have been shown the amount of warming that human GHG emissions has produced.  What else are you pretending to need?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have been shown large amounts of date supporting AGW.  What you refer to is the bullshit, rhetorical question you ask over and over again and then reject any answer given - just like your idol SSDD.  You have been shown the amount of warming that human GHG emissions has produced.  What else are you pretending to need?


Nope. Nothing agw


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

And now you lie.


----------



## Flash (Mar 30, 2019)




----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

Over that same period, deniers have been predicting a cooling climate, recovering Arctic ice, recovering glaciers and increased agricultural productivity from CO2 fertilization.  Where might those be Mr Flash?

In the mean time, the world has gotten warmer at an increasing pace, sea level rise has accelerated, CO2 levels continue to increase and now we look to be facing the 6th mass extinction event in the last half billion years.  Who has been more correct: Deniers or mainstream science?  

You get three chances and the first two don't count.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Over that same period, deniers have been predicting a cooling climate, recovering Arctic ice, recovering glaciers and increased agricultural productivity from CO2 fertilization.  Where might those be Mr Flash?
> 
> In the mean time, the world has gotten warmer at an increasing pace, sea level rise has accelerated, CO2 levels continue to increase and now we look to be facing the 6th mass extinction event in the last half billion years.  Who has been more correct: Deniers or mainstream science?
> 
> You get three chances and the first two don't count.


Or not .  Northern hemisphere winter worse in decades where humans exist. D’oh


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

Global temperatures have been rising


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Global temperatures have been rising


That’s all made up. Admitted as as well.over two thirds of the planet has no thermometers. I guess you didn’t understand the earth is mostly water. And humans don’t live there


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2019)

JC456, you're a bot produced by Venezuelan oil companies to spout anti-AGW propaganda.

No one has admitted those data are fake.  Ocean temperatures are taken by ships and satellites.  Military and research vessels drop XBT buoys at least daily providing a huge library of data to several thousand feet of depth.  If you'd like to calculate the area of the Earth's surface physically occupied by thermometers, I'm sure it is a tiny fraction of 1%.  If you'd like to calculate the area of the Earth's surface accurately monitored by thermometers, you will come to a much, much larger number.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> JC456, you're a bot produced by Venezuelan oil companies to spout anti-AGW propaganda.
> 
> No one has admitted those data are fake.  Ocean temperatures are taken by ships and satellites.  Military and research vessels drop XBT buoys at least daily providing a huge library of data to several thousand feet of depth.  If you'd like to calculate the area of the Earth's surface physically occupied by thermometers, I'm sure it is a tiny fraction of 1%.  If you'd like to calculate the area of the Earth's surface accurately monitored by thermometers, you will come to a much, much larger number.


Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study


----------



## Dick Foster (Apr 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It helps to bear in mind that most of the warmer types have arts degrees and know not one lick of science, scientific methods or higher math skills. When you stray from gay arts history and crap like that, they're completely lost.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Watch what liars Republicans are
> 
> “Sea level rise and changes in the climate, those are measurable,” Rubio said. “I don’t think there’s a debate about whether that’s happening because you can measure that.” See? He’s a reasonable guy! Not some crazy denier.
> 
> ...



I can't help but notice that you never provide actual science to support your claims..it is always comments by some politician or an opinion piece from the mainstream media.  Ever wonder why you can't actually produce any real science to support your claims?  

It is because there is none...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Of course you did......that is what cult's recommend...  As soon as someone starts to challenge your faith, you are to clap your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA at the top of your lungs.  That way you can pretend that you didn't hear and don't have to actually try to defend your indefensible position.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Who cares. You’re not a scientist are you? Stop pretending to understand. And you’re just trying to stall the progress with stupid irrelevant questions. Republicans tactic.



People who are not dupes care.  People who are actually interested in the science care.  Clearly, you are not one of those people.

And you believe pointing out that CO2 doesn't "trap" anything is stupid and irrelevant?  You think that pointing out that there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is stupid and irrelevant?  You think pointing out that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses is stupid and irrelevant?  Really?

If so, then you just proved that you are both stupid and irrelevant...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> all three of which are beliefs founded on mountains of evidence.



All three are founded on mountains of failed models...nothing more.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have been shown large amounts of date supporting AGW.  What you refer to is the bullshit, rhetorical question you ask over and over again and then reject any answer given - just like your idol SSDD.  You have been shown the amount of warming that human GHG emissions has produced.  What else are you pretending to need?



No skidmark....we have not.  Not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...the only evidence you have shown is evidence of how easily you are fooled..


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares. You’re not a scientist are you? Stop pretending to understand. And you’re just trying to stall the progress with stupid irrelevant questions. Republicans tactic.
> ...


Oh stfu. Plenty of science out there. You ignore it so why post it?


----------



## Flash (Apr 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




These Moon Bats have given up on believing in God and have replaced God with this silly ass Global Warming religion as their object of worship.

It is really pathetic when you think about it.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 5, 2019)

Flash said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Your religion is like global warming.  It too is man made.  

Better to worship the earth and not ruin it like you bible thumpers who actually worship corporations more than you do god.


----------



## Flash (Apr 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You stupid Moon Bats have a triune AGW God just like us Christians do.  The AGW Scam Father, the Son of Stupidity and the Holy Spirit of Economic Destruction.   

That is OK.  You stupid Moon Bats can support the Disciples of the AGW God for President all you want.  Lets see how far that $100 trillion price tag just for the US alone to "save the planet" gets you in 2020.


----------



## basquebromance (Apr 6, 2019)

"This week, Diamond & Silk claimed that the climate was changing because of the speed of the rotation of the Earth, which is truly a breathtaking level of scientific ignorance."


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I am not ignoring anything...I am asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and neither you, nor any other warmer seems to be able to produce it...not a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence.

But do feel free to post a bit of what you claim I am ignoring...I would like to see it.  We both know that you won't be posting anything though...it is easy to say there is plenty of evidence...it is another thing entirely to step up to the plate and produce it...and neither you nor anyone else will be producing it because none exists...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2019)

basquebromance said:


> "This week, Diamond & Silk claimed that the climate was changing because of the speed of the rotation of the Earth, which is truly a breathtaking level of scientific ignorance."



Some time ago, they were claiming that climate change was going to both speed up and slow down the rate of rotation of the earth...that didn't work out so they just switched it around hoping that might work out better.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > all three of which are beliefs founded on mountains of evidence.
> ...



That is what they never seem to understand, is that untestable/unverifiable climate models are the hallmarks of pseudoscience. They continually ignore The Scientific Method way of research, which is why their many prediction/projections never works.

========================

Pseudoscience: from Wikipedia,
*
"Pseudoscience* consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited. The term _pseudoscience_ is considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization."

The Scientific Method:  from Wikipedia,

"The *scientific method* is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are _principles_ of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises."

========================

Too many science illiterates fail to distinguish the difference between the two definitions.

Meanwhile those same science illiterates will ignore the many documented failures of their pseudoscience bullcrap, such as this sampling:

Where is the "hot spot"?
Where is the .30C per decade warming rate?

on and on....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 6, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Models are NOT evidence moron... Try yourself some EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED evidence to support your failed model..  When models have no ability to match reality, it tells us that the model is worthless.


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 11, 2019)

oldsoul said:


> First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. Secondly, I am, admittedly, a skeptic. I am unsure as to whether or not changes in the environment are human caused or not. Now, we could debate the validity of the science, or we could just cut to the chase and discuss the real, underlying problem with EVERY single claim that the "science is settled". What is that you ask? Well, if the science truly is settled, then why is it that human caused climate change is still referred to as either a hypothesis, or a theory?
> 
> Hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
> 
> ...



Since you didn't read any of the links abu afak provided, you should just have shut up.

Secondly, "the science is settled" means that the folks who actually know whereof they speak - a.k.a. climate scientists - by their vast, overwhelming majority agree that AGW is the best theory, the theory with the most explanatory value, to explain the observed changes of the earth's climate / temperature.  That doesn't mean it's "the truth", that is, no longer amenable by way of providing a better explanation.  It also doesn't mean it's a mere hypothesis, as it's confirmed from a myriad of different angles, and internally consistent, and consistent with observations and fundamental natural laws.

Requiring scientists to be skeptical, and then using their being skeptical to denigrate the object of their skepticism to be at most a hypothesis - because who could be skeptical of the truth? - is just ludicrous, baloney, a too-smart-by-half joke.  There simply is no other way of forcing consistent with the observable climate signals.  The Earth Institute link explains things fairly well, and in a fashion that should be easily understood even by those not versed in (climate) science.

You are not a "skeptic".  You are just ignorant - not reading any of the links indicates: probably willfully ignorant.  That's no way of entering a debate.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 11, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. Secondly, I am, admittedly, a skeptic. I am unsure as to whether or not changes in the environment are human caused or not. Now, we could debate the validity of the science, or we could just cut to the chase and discuss the real, underlying problem with EVERY single claim that the "science is settled". What is that you ask? Well, if the science truly is settled, then why is it that human caused climate change is still referred to as either a hypothesis, or a theory?
> ...


So when the Dinosaur bones were first found, and they were studied, and had the bones placed in a certain way,  every scientist thought that they, the dinosaurs, were slow moving reptiles, how long did that settled science last?  Just because there is a consensus doesnt make the science settle at all, you worthless dumbass.  Science is always changing until the proof is in the pudding not in the model...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Secondly, "the science is settled" means that the folks who actually know whereof they speak - a.k.a. climate scientists - by their vast, overwhelming majority agree that AGW is the best theory, the theory with the most explanatory value, to explain the observed changes of the earth's climate / temperature.



Settled science without the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over the null hypothesis?  Really?  That sounds just like pseudoscience...all is good so long as the funding continues...

Tell me, in what other topic in any field of science do people hold up "consensus" as if it were actual evidence that a hypothesis is correct?    I did some searching and couldn't find any other instance...in all of science.  

It seems that in every other branch of science, when you question the prevailing mainstream hypothesis or theory, you start getting bombarded with the evidence to support it...and if observed, measured evidence exists, then you get hammered with that. 

In real science, when you question the hypothesis or theory, people start handing you evidence...in most cases, more than you ever wanted to see.  In climate science though, you get lots of talk about consensus and zero observed measured evidence which supports the hypothesis over natural variability...

Further, in real science, a single predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis scrapped, or radically changed in an effort to formulate a better hypothesis that doesn't experience predictive failures...the landscape of the past 3 decades is littered with failed predictions from climate science...in real science, a predictive failure gets a hypothesis scrapped, or fundamentally altered...in pseudoscience, the hypothesis can fail as many times as it fails...it won't matter so long as the funding continues...

You are a dupe....


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2019)

Completely unsurprised that you have no answer...because only in climate science do people argue that consensus is evidence...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Completely unsurprised that you have no answer...because only in climate science do people argue that consensus is evidence...


This just in....

Historic blizzard impacts 18 states and 50 million people


> Up to 2 feet of snow is expected to impact many western states as winds strengthen.


 but we are told that year after year, man keeps increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature is going up and in 11 and 1/2 years now, we are all doomed.  So if the temperature keeps going up year after year, how can you have "HISTORIC" blizzard....Liberals are and always will be the most stupid people on the planet.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 12, 2019)

That's why it's a "theory". When you factor in evidence that some universities are involved in bribery and corruption scandals at this time it isn't hard to conclude that universities are willing to fudge and skew data to keep lucrative global warming grant money flowing.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2019)

whitehall said:


> That's why it's a "theory". When you factor in evidence that some universities are involved in bribery and corruption scandals at this time it isn't hard to conclude that universities are willing to fudge and skew data to keep lucrative global warming grant money flowing.


It is the same reason why "cancer" will never have a cure.. Too much money is given for the research, the scientists dont want to kill the golden goose.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 27, 2019)

Oddball said:


> My favorite word for Climate Change is "IF".. that right there is the game changer..


Could
May

Might[/QUOTE]This thread starts with the word *Know.*
*`*


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > That's why it's a "theory". When you factor in evidence that some universities are involved in bribery and corruption scandals at this time it isn't hard to conclude that universities are willing to fudge and skew data to keep lucrative global warming grant money flowing.
> ...


That is total crap. You obviously know nothing about cancer research.

.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > My favorite word for Climate Change is "IF".. that right there is the game changer..
> ...



STFU, warmer.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 29, 2019)

Oddball said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


You need to put some meat on your posts.
Granted you have a losing poition, but at least make a show of it like some others here.
`


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here are 197 bad arguments global warming deniers make and the scientific response to the stupid shit you say

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Your bad arguments on on this list so stop making flawed arguments.  Seriously.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



*Your bad arguments on on this list*

I can see why asking you to prove your claims makes you sad.

*so stop making flawed arguments.*

You first, seriously.


----------



## badger2 (Jul 29, 2019)

#503: But sooner or later the perpetrators run out of options as knowledge about cancer accumulates even though one discovery may lead to further complexity. This is the beauty of scientific method: cancer cells cannot recognize radiation damage, though healthy cells can, and do repair it.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 31, 2019)

*Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change*
PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO UPDATED 27 MIN AGO
Matthew J. Belvedere@MATT_BELVEDERE

KEY POINTS

“The climate is changing. Are we part of the reason? Yeah, it is,” says Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
Veering off the Trump administration message, Perry adds, “I’ll let people debate on who’s the bigger problem here.”
Perry says that it’s worth developing Zero-Emissions technology and that the Trump administration has made great strides. (_abu afak: LOL on that last point. He's gone backwards_)
[......]


----------



## SSDD (Jul 31, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change*
> PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO UPDATED 27 MIN AGO
> Matthew J. Belvedere@MATT_BELVEDERE
> 
> ...



So contact him and ask if he can provide you with some actual physical evidence to support the claim....none of you warmer wackos has any...and my bet is that he doesn't have any either...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 2, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change*
> PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO UPDATED 27 MIN AGO
> Matthew J. Belvedere@MATT_BELVEDERE
> 
> ...


That is an odd switch for the Trump administration.
I thought Trump was supposed to choose administrators who agree with him and disagree with science and common sense. 

.


----------



## MAGAman (Aug 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change*
> ...


No, you didn't think.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 2, 2019)

This just in:

“GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS CLAIM THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, GET TO KEEP JOBS”

Film at 11


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 2, 2019)

MAGAman said:


> No, you didn't think.


Do you think these two did think?
Giuliani: "Truth isn't truth."
Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts"


----------



## MAGAman (Aug 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > No, you didn't think.
> ...


 they think alot.

If you could stop hating, you could think.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 2, 2019)

MAGAman said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > MAGAman said:
> ...


Is that the best you can do? I'm sure they think a lot. But not with any logic or wisdom.

.


----------



## MAGAman (Aug 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Is that the best you can do? I'm sure they think a lot. But not with any logic or wisdom.
> 
> .


I'm doing fine. You're the one chirping emotional posts.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 2, 2019)

Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven?  Ok course, there are  the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff.  Not practical way to live.


----------



## MAGAman (Aug 2, 2019)

MaryL said:


> Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven?  Ok course, there are  the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff.  Not practical way to live.


Yeah.. Why not destroy America's economy on a whim?


----------



## MaryL (Aug 2, 2019)

MAGAman said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven?  Ok course, there are  the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff.  Not practical way to live.
> ...


Ok, spare the snark, bucko. Really? The same economy that gouges for health care, housing and pharmaceuticals? I think we have had enough covering for those jerks. Please, the same assholes that hire illegals and then call it humanitarian  whilst Americans lose their jobs and their homes and live in the streets...Those same assholes? Global warming may or not be human caused, don't know.  Not going to feel sorry for the globalists that don't give a shit might  lose a few dollars  trying to rectify it.  They lost my sympathy a long time ago.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2019)

MaryL said:


> Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven?  Ok course, there are  the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff.  Not practical way to live.



*We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. *

How many trillions should we spend on your prudence? Just in case?


----------



## MaryL (Aug 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven?  Ok course, there are  the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff.  Not practical way to live.
> ...


What is the price of caution? It's way better than the price of being reckless. We end up extinct, you like that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2019)

MaryL said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



*What is the price of caution? *

According to some, $76 trillion.

*It's way better than the price of being reckless. *

Could spending $76 trillion to prevent "man made warming" be reckless?


----------



## MAGAman (Aug 3, 2019)

MaryL said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


It's not the globalists that lose their jobs, healthcare, homes and retirement when the economy tanks.

It's the average family.

It's the citizens.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What is the price of caution? *
> 
> According to some, $76 trillion.
> 
> ...


1. It's more than "caution". Read the OP or refute it instead of your usual FALLACIOUS replies with this cost Fallacy I'm busting now.

2. "$76 Trillion" (Google it) is the cost over FORTY Years estimate.
IOW, 1.9 Trillion a Year to the Whole Planet, not just USA.
That is out of $88 Trillion World GDP.
Just over 2%.
What's Cleaner Air, Water, and power worth?
What's Stopping Sea Level rising 6' worth?

3. Your'e a non-conversant Jerk who foists the same fallacious answer daily.
Get a new Toy, I just Busted your only one Clown boy.

`

`


----------



## MAGAman (Aug 3, 2019)

MaryL said:


> What is the price of caution? It's way better than the price of being reckless. We end up extinct, you like that?


If your hysterical scenerio were true, how do you suggest we force large Ecoterrorist nations like China, India and other countries to destroy their economies?

Biological war?  Conventional and Nuclear wars have such a large carbon footprint it would seem counterproductive.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 3, 2019)

MAGAman said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Is that the best you can do? I'm sure they think a lot. But not with any logic or wisdom.
> ...


Aww, quit your whining.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *What is the price of caution? *
> ...



*"$76 Trillion" (Google it) is the cost over FORTY Years estimate.*

If we spread it over 40 years, it's okay to waste $76 trillion?

*That is out of $88 Trillion World GDP.*​*Just over 2%*​
Can you cover my portion? Thanks!
Just send 4% of your income to the Clinton Foundation. Or the UN.
​*What's Cleaner Air, Water, and power worth?*​
I thought you were whining about CO2, not pollution?
​*What's Stopping Sea Level rising 6' worth?*​
Obama didn't stop that already?​


----------



## abu afak (Aug 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *"$76 Trillion" (Google it) is the cost over FORTY Years estimate.*
> If we spread it over 40 years, it's okay to waste $76 trillion?
> *That is out of $88 Trillion World GDP.
> Just over 2%*
> ...


I'd be Thrilled to Reap Your Share of the Net GAINS from Dropping Fossil Fuel subsidies and instituting Renewables!

The world Spends $5.2 Trillion on Fossil Fuel subsidies that would be replaced by one $1.9 Trillion in Renewables.
That's $3.3 Trillion LESS spending per year.
*
United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education *

"....A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that *USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The equivalent of over 6.5% of global GDP of that year,* it also represented a half-trillion dollar increase since 2015 when China ($1.4 trillion), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion) were the largest subsidizers.".."​

You can't debate me, you're just a wisecracking Clown.
`
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *"$76 Trillion" (Google it) is the cost over FORTY Years estimate.*
> ...



*I'd be Thrilled to Reap Your Share of the Net GAINS from Dropping Fossil Fuel subsidies*

Writing off a business expense is not a subsidy. 

_The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. _

Yeah, I'll bet. DURR.

*The world Spends $5.2 Trillion on Fossil Fuel subsidies*

How much of that is giving cheap fuel to poor people? LOL!


----------



## abu afak (Aug 4, 2019)

*How today’s global warming is unlike the last 2,000 years of climate shifts*
*Previous cooldowns and warm-ups were regional, driven by natural forces, paleoclimate data show*
CAROLYN GRAMLING
JULY 24, 2019
ScienceNews.org


""Temperatures across 98% of Earth’s surface were Hotter at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the previous 2,000 years.

Such nearly universal warming, occurring in lockstep across the planet, is Unique to this current era, scientists say. By contrast, other well-known cold and warm snaps of the past, such as the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, were, in fact, regional rather than worldwide.

What’s more, the rate at which temperatures are increasing now far exceeds any previous temperature fluctuations measured in the last two millennia. Those are the conclusions of a Trio of new papers examining temperature trends over the last 2,000 years, published online July 24 in *Nature* and _Nature Geoscience_.

[......]

`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 4, 2019)

MaryL said:


> Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven?  Ok course, there are  the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff.  Not practical way to live.



It is wiser to ignore the hype till such time as climate science can at least produce some observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...till that time, they are simply telling you how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> It is wiser to ignore the hype till such time as climate science can at least produce some observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...till that time, they are simply telling you how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...


There's tons of Evidence posted/linked in My OP from very credible sources.
oooooph
`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *How today’s global warming is unlike the last 2,000 years of climate shifts*
> *Previous cooldowns and warm-ups were regional, driven by natural forces, paleoclimate data show*
> CAROLYN GRAMLING
> JULY 24, 2019
> ...


Why are there 2,300 year old trees under the Arctic?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is wiser to ignore the hype till such time as climate science can at least produce some observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...till that time, they are simply telling you how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...
> ...


Models =/= evidence


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


naw, you got that one down.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is wiser to ignore the hype till such time as climate science can at least produce some observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...till that time, they are simply telling you how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...
> ...




Sorry guy...there is only what passes for evidence in the minds of people who have been completely bamboozled...you show evidence that glaciers have melted back and then simply assume that mankind is to blame..you show evidence that sea level has risen and then simply assume that we are to blame..you show evidence of some warming and then simply assume that mankind is to blame...and on and on...evidence of climate change which no one is disputing since the climate is always changing..,and tacked on to that evidence, an assumption that we are causing the change..

What I want to see is actual evidence that we are causing the change...or evidence that the present climate is outside the limits of natural variability...that sort of evidence has never been posted because that sort of evidence simply does not exist...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak , so you got nothing eh?  yep, figured as such.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

Very sad abu fack that you are reduced to doing nothing more than going about posting funny when you should be posting evidence to shut me the f*ck up if you have it...clearly you don't...so you go about laughing like a monkey in a tree as if that were rational behavior...you have my pity to have been reduced to a state of such impotence..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> abu afak , so you got nothing eh?  yep, figured as such.




He has the "funny" button and nothing else...how much more impotent could he possibly get?  This is what hitting the "funny" button when you have no actual argument amounts to...


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...there is only what passes for evidence in the minds of people who have been completely bamboozled...you show evidence that glaciers have melted back and then simply assume that mankind is to blame..you show evidence that sea level has risen and then simply assume that we are to blame..you show evidence of some warming and then simply assume that mankind is to blame...and on and on...evidence of climate change which no one is disputing since the climate is always changing..,and tacked on to that evidence, an assumption that we are causing the change..
> 
> What I want to see is actual evidence that we are causing the change...or evidence that the present climate is outside the limits of natural variability...that sort of evidence has never been posted because that sort of evidence simply does not exist...


There is plenty of Evidence why this warming is different/human caused.
One of the main ones is Solar radiation received vs Temp.

Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.

Also you stupid idiot, local effects like trees in the arctic - whatever sub or micro climate/region that might be, is NOT "Global" Warming. Doh!
Splash #8426

Your post barrage/burial/Bully attempt failed.
You have No brain, No Info, so tried brawn/your usual high frequency Idiocy.
`


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...there is only what passes for evidence in the minds of people who have been completely bamboozled...you show evidence that glaciers have melted back and then simply assume that mankind is to blame..you show evidence that sea level has risen and then simply assume that we are to blame..you show evidence of some warming and then simply assume that mankind is to blame...and on and on...evidence of climate change which no one is disputing since the climate is always changing..,and tacked on to that evidence, an assumption that we are causing the change..
> ...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> 
> Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.



Abu, has no idea about the concept of the NULL hypothesis, (probably never heard of it) which has not been shown to be vitiated by the slow warming trend rate. from Investopedia



> *What Is a Null Hypothesis? *
> A null hypothesis is a type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables or that a single variable is no different than its mean. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.



The difference between man and nature caused changes are currently insignificant, that is the reality warmists fails to understand. The AGW "hypothesis" fails to show that it is mankind who is driving climate change.

Now watch ABU flail all over the place........


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> ...


Oh look!
The "inappropriate Fallacy" Fallacy by junior chart dumper INSTEAD of being able to to rebut a single premise I put forward in my last, OR the many cited by the OP links.

It's no wonder he has Ducked on this Killer thread (and refutal of his whole existence) until now! Happened about a year+ ago too. He ran away/ignored.
``


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It is coming, the NULL hypothesis post was the beginning expose on how ignorant and stupid YOU are, a person who *AGAI*N just made that clear when he ignores the NULL hypothesis situation in science research, that I pointed out. 

You also have no idea what COHERENCE is either as your first post makes clear, which is a polyglot of claims that don't even match up with each other well. Some of the links don't even provide evidence to support their crap.

Oh its coming little boy......


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> ...
> It is coming, the NULL hypothesis post was the beginning expose on how ignorant and stupid YOU are, a person who *AGAI*N just made that clear when he ignores the NULL hypothesis situation in science research, that I pointed out.
> 
> You also have no idea what COHERENCE is either as your first post makes clear, which is a polyglot of claims that don't even match up with each other well. Some of the links don't even provide evidence to support their crap.
> Oh its coming little boy......


So to be clear, you have NO answer to anything in this thread.
Just suggesting one rational claim is a fallacy. (without showing how it is)
and additionally Ignoring Many Credible sources such as the OP. (Yale, Columbia, NASA, etc, etc).

*I Busted you so bad/your whole denial premise, you had me on Ignore for TWO YEARS, lest your whole reason for living fall apart.*

Now it's back to the Mensa boards for me, and back to High School/Ignore for you.
`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2019)

I haven't seen Crick or Old Rocks lately, I can only assume that they chained themselves to the Chinese embassy to protest the massive amount of CO2 the Chinese are spewing into the atmosphere


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> There is plenty of Evidence why this warming is different/human caused.



So lets see it...




abu afak said:


> One of the main ones is Solar radiation received vs Temp.
> 
> Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
> It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.



We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate?  Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...

Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass..  EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
> It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.


Please produce the empirical study..  I cant seem to find anything but failed modeling...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Now it's back to the Mensa boards for me,


LOL

They dont accept people with negative numbers...


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade..*.can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate?  Of course you can't..because we don't know...*we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
> 
> Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass..  EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...


And you're Wrong on that too
EPIC Hyper-posting piece of Crap.
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

*"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data.* The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.".."​..
You're so mouthy, so high frequency, and so emptily Contrary/STUPID.
You're a Freak.
We have Google now.
It's so easy not to make an ass of Yourself.
*
Billy Bob is even STUPIDER.
Has No content, just juvenile hostility.*
`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade..*.can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate?  Of course you can't..because we don't know...*we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
> ...


How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet.  Why stop 12 years ago?  If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet.  Why stop 12 years ago?  If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...


It didn't stop you contrary clown.
That's just when the study was done.
WTF!

Trapping at GHG Frequencies wouldn't "stop."
Unbelievable.
What vacuous contrariness.
`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet.  Why stop 12 years ago?  If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...
> ...




And that is the most current study you can find??? Look at the latest sceince..the pause is coming up on 20 years old now..


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And that is the most current study you can find??? Look at the latest sceince..the pause is coming up on 20 years old now..


Radiative blocking at specific GH Gas wave lengths wouldn't stop in any given year you IDIOT.
It's Physics, not a Cold front you ******* IDIOT!

It could get colder in any given year or even decade. (solar driven)
But it would have been colder yet without our GH Gas Blanket.

So Stupid!
But keep posting.
`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

What...greenhouse gasses only block radiation in certain years?  the fact is that the graphs show that after 20 years, there is no difference in the outgoing long wave radiation in the CO2 emission bands...because CO2 can't block radiation...the graphs are proof that CO2 is not blocking outgoing LW radiation...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade..*.can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate?  Of course you can't..because we don't know...*we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
> ...


Lets skewer the lying piece of Skeptical Shit Science..  ( a site that is known for fabrications, false information, and rewriting or deletion of science presented which refutes their absurd claims).

This is too easy...

Griss and Chen use a "modified" data set... IE: ADJUSTED...  Now why would they do this? It is really rather simple, the unaltered data did not find what they wanted to find and they adjusted it so it did. Worse still are the error bars of the work.. * +/- 7w/m^2 

Even a lowly statistician found the error.....

"The average error at the surface is seven watts per square metre, and despite that, they want you to believe that they can calculate the energy balance, which includes dozens of other energy flows, to the nearest half a watt per square metre?"
*
This is just to damn funny...
*
Global Energy Balances … Except When It Doesn’t*


----------



## abu afak (Aug 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Now it's back to the Mensa boards for me,
> ...


Actually, I'm in the top half of Mensans, and a much better debater in most areas: politics, economics, etc.

`


----------



## abu afak (Aug 9, 2019)

Based on Science...Climate Change Humans are Causing Global Warming

[...............]

*Today’s climate change is driven by human activities.*

Scientists know that the warming climate is caused by human activities because:

They understand how heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide work in the atmosphere
They know why those gases are increasing in the atmosphere
They have ruled out other possible explanations
Human activities have increased the abundance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. This increase is mostly due to burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million to more than 410 parts per million today. Most of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has occurred since the late 1950s. In Earth’s distant past, it would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years to see the amount of change in carbon dioxide levels that humans have caused in just the last 60 years.

*Natural changes cannot explain today’s global warming.*
It is true that Earth has cycled through many ice ages and warm periods in the past. Those past events have been driven by natural changes such as:


Variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun
Solar activity cycles that produce regular shifts in the amount of energy the Sun releases
Volcanic eruptions that eject dust and gas into the atmosphere, which shade the planet from the Sun’s rays
Variations in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere
Scientists can measure these natural changes. The warm periods that regularly occurred between the ice ages of the past million years or so can be explained by natural changes, but measurements of those changes today cannot explain the current levels of warming that we are experiencing.

The rapid warming we are experiencing today can only be explained by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The link between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures has been clear to scientists since the 1850s. Measurements show that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any other time in the past 1 million years—that is, since the dawn of humankind.
[........]


`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2019)

Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate?  Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 12, 2019)

abu afak said:


> They understand how heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide work in the atmosphere


This statement displays the total ignorance of science and how that trace gas actually works in our atmosphere.  CO2 does not "trap" energy it slows its release by absorption and collision (kinetic transfer). CO2 is incapable of warming with the immediate release of energy and can only warm due to collisions with warmer molecules.

This first statement is totally devoid of fact and is a lie.  From this point on your whole premise dies a sordid death.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 12, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *Natural changes cannot explain today’s global warming.*
> It is true that Earth has cycled through many ice ages and warm periods in the past. Those past events have been driven by natural changes such as:
> 
> 
> ...


Natural change CAN and DOES explain our current warming.

The models they use underestimate the input from natural factors and the combinations of those factors working together. Another bald face lie from your gods... Your models have a margin of error of +/- 7w/m^2.  This is a range of 14w/m^2... it takes just 2w/m to change earths temperature by 2 deg C. We have seen a solar origin change of 0.9 w/m^2 and our planet has warmed 0.68 deg C over 100 years. Just the solar component alone can cause all of the change we have seen to date.

Your whole article is a butchered list of outright lies and misstatements.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2019)

Poor impotent abu fak....reduced to clicking the funny button as if that were any sort of defense at all for having his ears pinned back with actual evidence...What is it like to be so inadequate and ineffectual that your best response is to click the funny button?


----------



## Confounding (Aug 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate?  Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?



As far as I'm aware Abu doesn't claim to be a climate scientist. If you actually want to understand more you should go talk to one. Make sure somebody has video of when you tell him he's not doing science right.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2019)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate?  Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?
> ...



Unfortunate to believe that only practitioners of a soft science like climatology are able to understand....the fact is, whether you guys care to acknowledge it or not is that we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what factors have an effect on the climate and how much....and haven't even begun to scratch the surface as to what effect each of those factors may or may not have on the others and what effect that may have on the climate...to suggest that we know all the factors is simply stupid...and people who believe it, are even more stupid than that.


----------



## Confounding (Aug 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what factors have an effect on the climate and how much



Who is doing the scratching?



SSDD said:


> to suggest that we know all the factors is simply stupid



You have never seen me suggest anything close to that.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2019)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what factors have an effect on the climate and how much
> ...



Truthfully?  People other than climate scientists.  Hell, engineers provide more actual observable, measurable proof regarding the movement of energy through the atmosphere than climate sceince ever has




Confounding said:


> You have never seen me suggest anything close to that.



I have also never seen you step up and tell someone like abu fak that the material they provide is wrong...in law, silence implies consent...


----------



## abu afak (Aug 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate?  Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?


Fallacious BS.
I don't need obvious STRAWMAN "ALL".
That's just a laughable chaallenge for every bitty bit of anything that causes climate change.

And it's an excuse for NOT dealing with the Four.

`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 19, 2019)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate?  Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?
> ...


Poor Abu fak fak...  

You can't win on anything.. That's what happens when you rely on talking points from Skeptical Shit Science.

Tell me, how the CO2 level changed over the last 14,000 years without man causing it and in very near terms as today's levels..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

MaryL said:


> Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven?  Ok course, there are  the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff.  Not practical way to live.



How is a warmer earth a bad thing?  History has shown us that the warmth of the minoan, the roman, and medieval warm periods were good for civilization and all 3 were warmer than the present...and as a species, we changed from hunter gatherers to civilization builders during the holocene optimum...a period that was warmer than either the minoan, roman, or the medieval warm period.

What do you suppose is the ideal temperature on planet earth...warmer or a relatively cold period such as we are in now?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

MaryL said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?  That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

MAGAman said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > MAGAman said:
> ...



Liberal ideas invariably do the most harm to the people who can least afford it.  It is typical of their thinking...they would gladly see millions driven into poverty in order to cause a mild inconvenience to the rich...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *What is the price of caution? *
> ...



Clean air and water have nothing to do with AGW...and nothing is going to be done towards getting clean air and water so long as the AGW scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasures out of the coffers...that is the degree to which you have been programed...you think that pollution and warming are somehow related...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is wiser to ignore the hype till such time as climate science can at least produce some observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...till that time, they are simply telling you how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...
> ...



Cut and paste a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Your claim that you have provided any such evidence are bullshit...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..


There is a wide range of temperatures that allow people and other life to survive on earth. There is no specific "ideal" temperature within that range. 

What people are concerned with is the high rate of change of average temperature. When the change is slow the generations can adapt to it. Centuries ago the smaller populations could easily adapt. 

Now there are around 7 billion people. A rapid adaptation is not as feasible. There are dense populations in areas that could be affected. A quick adaptation would be chaotic and expensive. A huge population is on coastlines. Farm areas will have to change. Global chaos is never good.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cut and paste a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...
> 
> Your claim that you have provided any such evidence are bullshit...


How do you define "natural variability"? Much of the natural variability over the millions of years came from infrequent catastrophes. The current fast unprecedented rise of CO2 may become a catastrophe. You have to define what you mean by natural variability before the question can be reasonably answered. 

As far as observed evidence, CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been shown to prevent earth from losing energy as fast as it would ordinarily.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..
> ...




Bullshit...see the post on the other thread...it is far to tedious to answer you every where you stalk me to..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cut and paste a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...
> ...



I don't define it anyway...you are the one who must redefine everything in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs.

And if CO2 et al were shown to prevent earth from losing energy as fast as it would otherwise lose it then there would be  tropospheric hot spot and the amount of LW at the TOA would not be increasing...your hypothesis is an abject failure...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I don't define it anyway...you are the one who must redefine everything in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs.


I have never redefined science nor it's definitions. You are doing the tired troll trick of lying while blaming others for the very same thing you do. You are the primary person here for redefining thermodynamics and you know it.

.

.


----------



## baileyn45 (Aug 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..
> ...


The problem is you cannot show a "high rate of change". You, nor anyone else, can give a rational, logical explanation of how the average temp of the planet is figured today. And this is going to be compared to the past? 

I keep going into these "environmental" threads and asking the same question. What could possibly convince you that the planet is warming? Longterm. CO2? The planet warms, it cools. What convinces you that any warming experienced since the end of the LIA makes you think this isn't normal?  i can't get an answer, from anyone.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't define it anyway...you are the one who must redefine everything in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs.
> ...



Of course you do...whenever it calls your faith into question...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2019)

baileyn45 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



These guys don't operate on any sort of logic...some of them know that climate change is a political narrative and some are just useful idiots...you can determine which one they are by the content of their posts.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 21, 2019)

baileyn45 said:


> The problem is you cannot show a "high rate of change". You, nor anyone else, can give a rational, logical explanation of how the average temp of the planet is figured today. And this is going to be compared to the past?


I have no idea what the temperature will be, but many are concerned about a high rate of change. Google _earth temperature history_ and click on images. You will find many that show a rapid rise since 1810. There are many sites giving explanations of how temperatures are measured. 



baileyn45 said:


> I keep going into these "environmental" threads and asking the same question. What could possibly convince you that the planet is warming? Longterm. CO2? The planet warms, it cools. What convinces you that any warming experienced since the end of the LIA makes you think this isn't normal? i can't get an answer, from anyone.


For god's sake do not try to get an answer from a forum like this. You will find lots of threads of everyone calling each other idiots and dupes. The issue is very polarized.


.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Really? Where have I redefined science? I go by what is in journals, textbooks, and university lectures. You deny black body radiation, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics in general. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> These guys don't operate on any sort of logic...some of them know that climate change is a political narrative and some are just useful idiots...you can determine which one they are by the content of their posts.


@ baileyn45 See what I mean about the narrative always turning into insults. Also politics.


----------



## Ropey (Aug 21, 2019)




----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



To begin with you claimed that the SB law described two way energy flow...even though the equations do no such thing...and on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up to try and support your faith in unobservable unmeasurable untestable mathematical models.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> To begin with you claimed that the SB law described two way energy flow...even though the equations do no such thing...and on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up to try and support your faith in unobservable unmeasurable untestable mathematical models.



Thank you, but really I can't take credit for two way energy flow of radiation. The credit belongs to scientists starting with Stefan himself to Albert Einstein. Also every text book and lecture that discusses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in detail assumes two way flow. Nothing else makes sense in physics.

Your one way energy flow violates Planck's black body radiation law, the second law of thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics.

You said "_on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up"_. What other things did I "make up" that disagrees with science?

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To begin with you claimed that the SB law described two way energy flow...even though the equations do no such thing...and on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up to try and support your faith in unobservable unmeasurable untestable mathematical models.
> ...



And still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence...oh the tedium..


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Not true. There was much observed two way radiation that satisfies the second law. If you find this so tedious, why do you keep torturing yourself by posting fake science?

You said I go on and on making up science. Please list all the science you think I make up? You already know that your science is self-contradictory.


.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


LOFL Denier boy!
Stomata is a Much Less reliable way to measure CO2 than air pockets ln Atmosphere Ice Cores.
You Clowns are just full of DISHONEST novelties/anomalies.

*Stomatal data vs ice core measurements to measure CO2 levels*
Link to this page
*What the science says...*
*Stomatal data is Not as direct as ice core measurements and hence Not as precise.*

*Climate Myth...*
*Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels*
"When stomata-derived CO2 (red) is compared to ice core-derived CO2 (blue), the stomata generally show much more variability in the atmospheric CO2 level and often show levels much higher than the ice cores." (David Middleton)

Shortly after F. Wagner published his stomatal results (here), a response appeared in Science. The key difference in the result can be seen in the figure:







This figure shows that Wagner's data shows a sharp increase to 330ppm at 11,260 years BP (years before 1950), staying there for 500 years, in disagreement with the Taylor Dome and Vostok ice-core records.

In deciding between these results, several items should be noted:

*Firstly, ice-core CO2 measurements are Direct measurements on air that has been enclosed in bubbles. On the other hand, stomatal density is an Indirect measure.* Experiments on stomata density showed that "the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots" (Idso et al 1984). In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.

*Secondly, several different ice-core data sets are essentially consistent. ...."*

````


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 22, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Poor Abu Fak Fak.... You link to an opinion piece by a left wing alarmist... IT also does not mention that other factors were used to determine water content for the study. SO this is propaganda at its worst..  You omit facts because you do not understand the sciecne..    Priceless to the last..


----------



## baileyn45 (Aug 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> baileyn45 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is you cannot show a "high rate of change". You, nor anyone else, can give a rational, logical explanation of how the average temp of the planet is figured today. And this is going to be compared to the past?
> ...


Think about it, the planet came out of the LIA in roughly 1850 and we saw rapid warming. I don't see how that is surprising. At the same time CO2 levels didn't accelerate much until 1950. The question becomes what caused the warming for the 100 years before CO2 rising? 

As far as how temps are measured, I've spent a lot of time looking into that and quite frankly I'm appalled. While we have decent coverage of the ocean surface now, we have nothing to compare it to historically. The land based system is quite frankly a joke. The amount of data that is basically invented, or as they like to say "extrapolated", is astounding. I've seen NOAA maps where half of the land mass has no actual data points. Then the data is "homogenized" which brings in a whole host of other issues. I just can't see how it can be credible. 

Another issue is using ground temps. Listening to an interview with a planetary scientist, she made the point that when studying temps of planets with an atmosphere, they have no interest in ground temps. They seek data from the heart of the atmosphere. On Earth that's something like 5-7 km up. The sat and weather balloon data of that part of the troposphere tell a completely different story than the ground temps.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 24, 2019)

baileyn45 said:


> Think about it, the planet came out of the LIA in roughly 1850 and we saw rapid warming. I don't see how that is surprising. At the same time CO2 levels didn't accelerate much until 1950. The question becomes what caused the warming for the 100 years before CO2 rising?
> 
> As far as how temps are measured, I've spent a lot of time looking into that and quite frankly I'm appalled. While we have decent coverage of the ocean surface now, we have nothing to compare it to historically. The land based system is quite frankly a joke. The amount of data that is basically invented, or as they like to say "extrapolated", is astounding. I've seen NOAA maps where half of the land mass has no actual data points. Then the data is "homogenized" which brings in a whole host of other issues. I just can't see how it can be credible.
> 
> Another issue is using ground temps. Listening to an interview with a planetary scientist, she made the point that when studying temps of planets with an atmosphere, they have no interest in ground temps. They seek data from the heart of the atmosphere. On Earth that's something like 5-7 km up. The sat and weather balloon data of that part of the troposphere tell a completely different story than the ground temps.


Uh, yeah!
The Warming, and it's acceleration, especially in the last 50 years, does Correlate with the Industrial Revolution (150 years) and especially the accelerating increase (and CO2) in the last 50, even 20 years.
And btw the temps ARE avg Not just land.
You make up up alot of **** in your warpo narrative.
`

`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> baileyn45 said:
> 
> 
> > Think about it, the planet came out of the LIA in roughly 1850 and we saw rapid warming. I don't see how that is surprising. At the same time CO2 levels didn't accelerate much until 1950. The question becomes what caused the warming for the 100 years before CO2 rising?
> ...


And yet Ice Cores show us your rapid rise has been seen many times before... Correlation does not mean causation.... Again your appeal to correlations are improper as there are other causes that we simply do not understand that have caused these warming periods in the past you and your ilk have failed to rule out.


----------



## Confounding (Aug 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> rapid rise has been seen many times



At the same rate?

Global Warming



> The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring _much more rapidly_ than past warming events.





> Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Aug 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


We know that because Al Gore said so.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > rapid rise has been seen many times
> ...



It's all models all the time with you guys...that's because you have no actual evidence to support your beliefs.  The fact is that in just the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when the temperature changed much more than any change we have seen, and in a much shorter time. 

The gold standards in temperature reconstructions are derived from the GISP2 ice cores taken from Greenland and the Vostok ice cores taken from Antarctica.

Both show temperature increases that are both larger than any we have seen and that they happened at a far faster rate than anything we have seen...similar changes are seen in both the arctic and antarctic along the same time lines indicating that the temperate changes were global in nature.











So yes...there have been multiple periods in just the past 10,000 years where the temperature changed more, and at a much faster rate than the mild temperature change we have seen.  The actual data simply don't jibe with the story that your alarmist "scientists" are telling.

And by the way...your alarmist "scientists" are showing a graph derived from proxy records with an instrumental record attached on the end...incredibly deceptive and dishonest...but then, they don't bother to tell you how unethical that sort of thing is....and how it is being used to dupe useful idiots and support an alarmist narrative.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 24, 2019)

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different



Another thing that climate "scientists" don't spend much time educating people about...there is a correlation between rising CO2 and temperature but that correlation is that CO2 follows temperature around like a puppy and is a result of rising temporaries..not a cause.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different
> ...




*I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. - Crick*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different
> ...


Bah. Who needs any education when you can say instead, "we have consensus"


----------



## abu afak (Aug 25, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different


CO2 is BOTH a trailing indicator and Contributor to Warming.
This is basic stuff Crusader/anti-Evolution guy.


EDIT:
`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different
> ...



Got any observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

I predict that you have none...and in response to your lack of evidence, you will impotently hit your funny button because that is all you have left.  Go for it goober...hit that funny button and show us all just how impotent you are.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


We went through this in the beginning and middle of this thread.
Science has shown the trapping frequencies are the precise ones of GH Gases.
Go Vomit your daily denial in the Conspiracy section.

`

`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.


If GHG's absorb their resonant wavelengths from the earth's LWIR. The region of atmosphere that absorbs those wavelengths must heat. Don't forget the conservation of energy principle.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.
> ...



Sorry guy...all the gasses that absorb IR lose it to collisions with other molecules like O2 and N2  before they can warm....there is no radiative greenhouse effect.  The only thing in the atmosphere that actually heats is water vapor...


----------



## abu afak (Aug 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different
> ...


And of course... in the absence of other traditional causes like solar forcing...
CO2 and other GHGs like Methane/CH4 are enough to warm the planet all alone.
Which is what happened on earth since the Industrial Revolution.
See OP and many others in the thread.

`


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Randomly loosing absorbed energy to other molecules like O2 and N2 by collisions means those other molecules gain kinetic energy. Otherwise where does the energy go? Remember the conservation of energy. And remember a random gain in kinetic results in heat.

.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Whoever said that the O2 and N2 that gain energy via conduction don't get warmer...of course they warm....and so does water vapor...but it isn't due to a radiative greenhouse effect and more CO2 can't make it warmer...more water vapor could make it warmer...but not more of any of the other so called greenhouse gasses.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different
> ...


Lol.

So the ice cores are "deniers!"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.
> ...


SO explain why it does not...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Whoever said that the O2 and N2 that gain energy via conduction don't get warmer...of course they warm....and so does water vapor...but it isn't due to a radiative greenhouse effect and more CO2 can't make it warmer...more water vapor could make it warmer...but not more of any of the other so called greenhouse gasses.


There is also a radiative green house effect. 
It is needed to explain the less complex atmosphere of Venus. Otherwise where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

.


----------



## deanrd (Aug 25, 2019)

*How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?*

How can anyone asked this question with all the data that’s out there and how it’s studied and how it’s interpreted.

 Next, these right wingers will be blaming the Greenland debacle on the left and insisting the world is only a few thousand years old.

 If they spend more time learning stuff then sniffing trumps b@lls, they wouldn’t have so many questions.
 And their questions wouldn’t be so laughable.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Whoever said that the O2 and N2 that gain energy via conduction don't get warmer...of course they warm....and so does water vapor...but it isn't due to a radiative greenhouse effect and more CO2 can't make it warmer...more water vapor could make it warmer...but not more of any of the other so called greenhouse gasses.
> ...




Do you ever actually "THINK" about any of the shiny objects you glom onto before you pronounce them as evidence to support your beliefs?  Ever?  The radiative greenhouse effect, as described by climate science doesn't even begin to explain the temperature on venus...the venus / runaway greenhouse effect is pablum for the useful idiots that climate science gets from the very top shelf...

Climate science says that for each doubling of CO2, the temperature increases 3.5 degrees (although that number is trending closer to zero every year)...but lets go with 3.5 degrees....18 doublings of the amount of CO2 on earth would give you the same CO2 concentration as on venus...3.5 degrees times 18 doublings equals 63 degrees...so according to the greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus should be 63 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be once you account for the difference in solar energy reaching the surface...which is ~17 W/m^2.... The fact is that it would take thousands of doublings of CO2 to reach the temperatures on venus if it were a greenhouse effect as described by climate science that was responsible for the temperature there.  The numbers simply don't add up.

If you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect is at work on venus, do explain how it is that the CO2 in the atmosphere of venus multiplies the ~17W/m^2 of solar energy that reaches the ground to ~16,000 W/m^2.  Do provide the formula by which you believe this happens.

The actual accounting for that ~16/000 W/m^2 is that temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.

This happens in accord with the equation

H = PV=U

Where

H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V - Specific Volume (m^3)
U = Specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

Half of the very large mass of the atmosphere of Venus holds a VERY large amount of potential energy.....hence the 16,000W/m2 at the surface.

The last time I provided this to you, you had a strangely incomplete notion of what enthalpy was.  You were under the impression that enthalpy was nothing more than a tool for calculating the lapse rate. 

Here...have a definition:

enthalpy - a quantity associated with a thermodynamic system, expressed as the internal energy of a system plus the product of the pressure and volume of the system, having the property that during an isobaric process, the change in the quantity is equal to the heat transferred during the process. Symbol: H


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?*
> 
> How can anyone asked this question with all the data that’s out there and how it’s studied and how it’s interpreted.
> 
> ...



The actual data don't support your claims...and output from failing computer models which is what you are talking about is little more than evidence of the incompetence of climatologists.  You are right however, that there is a lot of interpreting going on...a great deal of interpreting is required to change real world data which doesn't support the hypothesis into an explanation for why the earth has seen a bit of warming.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



My question was where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?
Your first paragraph was mostly the usual bitter insults.
Your second paragraph was non sequitur.

Your third paragraph asks for a formula that gives the 1600 W/m² from the surface of Venus. It's the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface of Venus was observed measured and confirmed to be around 864 °F. Plug that temperature into a SB calculator and you get a radiation of 16582 W/m²

The remaining paragraphs are non sequitur again. There you only hand wave why you think the surface is hot, but you don't answer the question, 

*Where does the 16582 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?*

 .


----------



## abu afak (Aug 26, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Lol.
> 
> So the ice cores are "deniers!"


Au Contrare.
I used/love Ice Cores, while Billy Bobb wanted to use the less reliable Stomata to pervert the CO2 record.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2019)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Lol.
> ...



Ice cores show CO2 LAGGING temperature on both increase and decrease. If your AGW "Theory" were correct, the increase in CO2 would show runaway temperature increases.

Hence, AGW Theory = fail!







https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ce-NOAA-NCDC-Red-represents-CO_fig6_269429690


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 26, 2019)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Lol.
> ...


Stomata has been confirmed highly accurate by multiple sources and processes. It is far more accurate than ice core records... But you still want to use garbage when gold is available.... Bravo... Useful idiot...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Still waiting for wuwei's explanation as to why empirical evidence does not support his conjecture..


----------



## abu afak (Aug 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Still waiting for wuwei's explanation as to why empirical evidence does not support his conjecture..


Nothing but the ole Burden Shift Stromata breath.
Any IDIOT can see the Empirical Evidence.
The only debate (for Fringers like you) is about whether that EVIDENCE is correlation or Causation.
LOL
`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 26, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for wuwei's explanation as to why empirical evidence does not support his conjecture..
> ...


You cant even tell us what the BASIC AGW PREMISE IS and some how you think your an expert on it... now that is funny..  you cant even back up your claims with empirical evidence or science, yet again you claim expert status....

You are nothing but a useful idiot spouting crap.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You cant even tell us what the BASIC AGW PREMISE IS and some how you think your an expert on it... now that is funny..  you cant even back up your claims with empirical evidence or science, yet again you claim expert status....
> 
> You are nothing but a useful idiot spouting crap.


NO answer to my point about evidence, so you try the above.
I have done so Scores of Times and beyond basically you Lying MORON.
So instead you just try insult.
You're an argumentative 10 year old with an 80 IQ.
`

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Basic AGW Premise

Warming = Global Warming
Cooling = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 26, 2019)

abu afak said:


> NO answer to my point about evidence,


What evidence?  All you have posted are failed modeling papers and pure correlation conjecture. Funny that you refuse to look at any empirical evidence which utterly destroys your failed AGW premise, yet you hail pure fantasy as real..


----------



## Confounding (Aug 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> empirical evidence which utterly destroys your failed AGW premise



Some links please?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 26, 2019)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > empirical evidence which utterly destroys your failed AGW premise
> ...


LOL...

There are many throught this thread...  Be a good boy and go read them..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> *Where does the 16582 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?*
> 
> .



We can discuss that right after you explain how you think a radiative greenhouse effect powered by CO2 multiplies the ~17 W/m^2 of energy that reaches the surface of venus into 16,000 W/m^2.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > *Where does the 16582 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?*
> ...



That's another way for you to say that you don't know where the radiation goes. Your brand of self contradictory fake physics simply can't answer that question.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Talk about contradictory physics...you are claiming that CO2 multiplies abut 17 watts per square meter of energy reaching the surface of venus into over 16,000 watts per square meter.

Come on guy....you are so fixated on that 16,000 W/m^2....lets hear how the radiative greenhouse effect, powered by CO2 on Venus multiplies the ~17 W/m^2 of solar energy that actually reaches the surface into 16,000 W/m^2. 

Here on earth, climate science claims that for each doubling of CO2, the radiative greenhouse effect causes the temperature to rise 3.5 degrees...18 doublings would give us the same CO2 concentration as on venus and according to climate science, the temperature would rise by 63 degrees. 

It sounds like an epic story...full of miracles...perhaps even bigger than the story of the loaves and fishes...I mean, in that story, they fed a few thousand with a basket full of bread and fish...in your story, a measly 17 watts per square meter of energy gets multiplied 950 times....by a gas that can only absorb and emit...tell us how it happens...and do provide a formula by which we can follow the magic.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 27, 2019)

The scientific debate here doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the public thinks. People who vote are very aware of everything out there on the science...…..they just don't care. The reason they don't care is they don't see that there is anything we can do one way or another. How do we know that? Because Congress couldn't be any less interested in climate change action which means the constituents aren't caring. Its consistently been that way for 20 years now. Look at the public take on the Green New Deal. Have we ever seen such an immense collective yawn? I mean, c'mon now......people don't want to spend 40K for a crappy EV when they can get the same car for 15K less without the stress. Nobody wants to give up their cell phones or pay double for their electricity. Have the government in control of our thermostats. No more hamburgers. Doy…...only the zombies advocate for this.......those left behind in their formative years.......people who are lost and are desperate to be involved in some cause.

Again......progressives have been taking bows in front of these science banners and billboards for two decades. Whats the analogy? How about this.....attending a group navel contemplation session and spiking a football when  you leave!


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> alk about contradictory physics...you are claiming that CO2 multiplies abut 17 watts per square meter of energy reaching the surface of venus into over 16,000 watts per square meter.


This isn't the first time you confused Energy and Watts. The units for Watts is *energy/sec.* Your statement should have been "..._17 watts per square meter of energy *per second* reaching the surface of venus..._"



SSDD said:


> Come on guy....you are so fixated on that 16,000 W/m^2....lets hear how the radiative greenhouse effect, powered by CO2 on Venus multiplies the ~17 W/m^2 of solar energy that actually reaches the surface into 16,000 W/m^2.


What happens to an object if there is a constant input of 17 Watts but no good way for that input energy to get out? It gains 17 more Joules as each second rolls by. If there is no outlet of energy it gets hotter and hotter. In the case of Venus it gets hotter until it's over 700 F and radiating 1600 Watts. All that energy gradually seeps through the CO2 up to the TOA and releases that 17 Watts. But the surface remains hot. 



SSDD said:


> It sounds like an epic story...full of miracles...perhaps even bigger than the story of the loaves and fishes...I mean, in that story, they fed a few thousand with a basket full of bread and fish...in your story, a measly 17 watts per square meter of energy gets multiplied 950 times....by a gas that can only absorb and emit...tell us how it happens...and do provide a formula by which we can follow the magic.


In the past a phenomenon was judged a miracle if it was not understood at all. Today's physics has easy explanations. For those who don't believe today's physics, then yes it is a miracle for them.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2019)

Still waiting..........You seem to be under the impression that CO2 somehow holds energy...it doesn't...it can't...so keep trying..

You are laboring under the belief that the energy is additive...that is the failure of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C  ...it is still going to be 100C..


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Still waiting..........You seem to be under the impression that CO2 somehow holds energy...it doesn't...it can't...so keep trying..
> 
> You are laboring under the belief that the energy is additive...that is the failure of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...


You have totally misunderstood. Try reading more slowly. CO2 can heat up. It can hold energy as heat..



SSDD said:


> If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..


I totally agree. But you totally missed my point.

Again you are confusing energy with power. 17 Watts is power not energy. Power is energy transferred *per unit of time*. 

Suppose you set an object on an source that was powered by 17 Watts. If you sealed it in a container with a perfect vacuum around it, it would continue to absorb energy at the rate of 17 Joules per second and increase in temperature until radiation heated the container hot enough to the point that the outside of the container radiates 17 Watts externally. 

Think of the filament in the vacuum of a 17 Watt light bulb. No matter the beginning temperature the filament will continually absorb energy and will turn red hot. At equilibrium 17 Watts will be radiated outside the bulb (container) to match the 17 Watts input. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Still waiting..........You seem to be under the impression that CO2 somehow holds energy...it doesn't...it can't...so keep trying..
> 
> You are laboring under the belief that the energy is additive...that is the failure of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...
> 
> If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C  ...it is still going to be 100C..



*You seem to be under the impression that CO2 somehow holds energy...it doesn't...it can't*

Exactly! That's why all the CO2 we see is dry ice...…...LOL!


----------



## LaDairis (Aug 27, 2019)

All atoms and molecules "hold" energy when exposed to direct sunlight.  Co2 isn't special in that regard, absorbing weak infrared but nothing else.  That's why the satellites and balloons show no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2.  Co2 is just another gas.  The whole concept of a "Greenhouse Gas" is bullshit.  All gasses absorb sunlight, and the differences are minor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

LaDairis said:


> All atoms and molecules "hold" energy when exposed to direct sunlight.  Co2 isn't special in that regard, absorbing weak infrared but nothing else.  That's why the satellites and balloons show no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2.  Co2 is just another gas.  The whole concept of a "Greenhouse Gas" is bullshit.  All gasses absorb sunlight, and the differences are minor.



*All gasses absorb sunlight,*

Really? How can we see the Sun?


----------



## LaDairis (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Really? How can we see the Sun?



IF we lived on Jupiter, or even Venus, we couldn't.  "Clear" atoms and molecules make it easier to see the visible spectrum.  Density is a huge issue.  "Clear" atoms and molecules like Co2 do absorb EM from the Sun, just not the visible portion....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 27, 2019)

LaDairis said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Really? How can we see the Sun?
> ...




How could we live on those planets to much C02 ..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

LaDairis said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Really? How can we see the Sun?
> ...



* "Clear" atoms and molecules make it easier to see the visible spectrum.  *

If "all gasses absorb sunlight", how does sunlight make it to the surface....unabsorbed?

*Clear" atoms and molecules like Co2 do absorb EM from the Sun, just not the visible portion....*

What does O2 and N2 absorb?


----------



## LaDairis (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If "all gasses absorb sunlight", how does sunlight make it to the surface....unabsorbed?



DENSITY, and which atoms and molecules are absorbing which bands of EM.  If the atmosphere was 100% Co2 and 400 miles thick, very little if no IR would reach Earth from sunlight.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What does O2 and N2 absorb?



They absorb something, otherwise they'd be at -459F...


----------



## LaDairis (Aug 27, 2019)

bear513 said:


> How could we live on those planets.




We can't.

Venus is too hot and has a sulfur based environment toxic to human life.

Jupiter kills humans multiple ways, including by magnetic field.... temperature, pressure, poison atmosphere of METHANE.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

LaDairis said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If "all gasses absorb sunlight", how does sunlight make it to the surface....unabsorbed?
> ...



*They absorb something, otherwise they'd be at -459F...*






Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Hmmmmm.....no mention of 02 or N2 absorbing incoming solar energy.


----------



## LaDairis (Aug 27, 2019)

According to that, Co2 doesn't even absorb IR....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

LaDairis said:


> According to that, Co2 doesn't even absorb IR....



I think the incoming IR is only a tiny portion of total solar radiation and
CO2's absorption wavelength is mostly too long to affect it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2019)

LaDairis said:


> All atoms and molecules "hold" energy when exposed to direct sunlight.  Co2 isn't special in that regard, absorbing weak infrared but nothing else.  That's why the satellites and balloons show no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2.  Co2 is just another gas.  The whole concept of a "Greenhouse Gas" is bullshit.  All gasses absorb sunlight, and the differences are minor.



CO2 is invisible to short wave radiation and visible radiation which is what sunlight is mostly made up of...CO2 only absorbs  infrared radiation in a few narrow wavelengths.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You have totally misunderstood. Try reading more slowly. CO2 can heat up. It can hold energy as heat..



Sorry guy..but it can't...not at atmospheric temperatures and pressure.





Wuwei said:


> Again you are confusing energy with power. 17 Watts is power not energy. Power is energy transferred *per unit of time*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LaDairis (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think the incoming IR is only a tiny portion of total solar radiation




Correct




Toddsterpatriot said:


> CO2's absorption wavelength is mostly too long to affect it




Translation - IR doesn't have "energy" like UV and X-Ray.... and hence is not the main source of EM energy from the Sun.  It is minuscule as a percent of it.


But make no mistake, if you put Co2 in a glass jar and put it in space orbiting around Earth, the Co2 will warm some.... because it does absorb some energy from the EM generated by the Sun.  All gasses do.  And that's the real point...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You have totally misunderstood. Try reading more slowly. CO2 can heat up. It can hold energy as heat..
> ...


Wrong wrong wrong. A container of CO2 at 200 F holds more energy than a container of CO2 at 100 F. The molecules in the first container have a higher average kinetic *energy*. It is absolutely astounding that you deny that very simple physics.



Wuwei said:


> Again you are confusing energy with power. 17 Watts is power not energy. Power is energy transferred *per unit of time*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]
You seem to be saying power and energy are the same thing? They are not!
Power is the amount of *energy *transferred *per unit of time*. Read a physics book!

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


He can't do that, he'd be reminded of his many errors.


----------



## Confounding (Aug 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It is absolutely astounding that you deny



Really? After everything you've seen you're surprised? By the way the person you're speaking to claims to understand the climate better than climate scientists do. He is a complete fool.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Suppose you set an object on an source that was powered by 17 Watts. If you sealed it in a container with a perfect vacuum around it, it would continue to absorb energy at the rate of 17 Joules per second and increase in temperature until radiation heated the container hot enough to the point that the outside of the container radiates 17 Watts externally.



Where do you get these ideas...the lightbulb glows, not because it is absorbing energy and retaining it.  It is glowingt because of high resistance... the current is being run through a very tiny filament. The filament doesn't have enough surface area to bleed off the energy being run through it.   If you run the same amount t of energy through a heavy gage filament which provides little to no resistance, you could run the same current through it ill the end of time and never get even the smallest bit of a glow.

If you need it, I can provide you with instructions to build your own light bulb using different thicknesses of filaments to see how wrong you are.

Yet one more example of your complete misunderstanding of the physics of how and why things work...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..
> ...



You totally agree?  Then why do you believe there is a radiative greenhouse effect?  You see the box at the bottom of the image...239.7 + 239.7 + sigma T^4?  

Now look at the second line...what does it say that T equals?  That equation is stating that the temperature is equal to precisely what I just said could not happen above and you agreed totally.  There is the mechanism by which your radiative greenhouse effect supposedly works and you just agreed that it doesn't happen...thanks.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2019)

Confounding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It is absolutely astounding that you deny
> ...



Sorry guy....but you are the one who has been fooled...

Obviously you neither read, nor understood anything he has said...

Further up in the post, I said"

"If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C.."

To which wuwei said:

"I totally agree. But you totally missed my point."

He totally agrees...and that is damned interesting because the radiative greenhouse effect is based on the same thing that we both just stated can not happen...you can't add a bucket of water at 100F to a bucket of water at 100F and expect the temperature to rise a single degree higher than 100C.

And that is true..you can try it yourself with some warm water and a thermometer...

And yet, here is the basis of the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn, man made global warming.








You see the Red arrow pointing down?  And the red arrow pointing up?  See the explanation of what they represent?  Energy emitted by the top layer of the atmosphere and energy emitted by the bottom layer of the atmosphere...see that?  Both the same.

Now look at the equation in the box at the bottom of the image...It says that T....T stands for temperature equals the energy indicated by the red arrow plus the energy indicated by the blue arrow....mathematically, they just claimed that if you pour a bucket of water at 100F into an equal amount of water at 100F, that the resulting temperature will be 200F.

Now do I expect for you to understand this?  Of course not...but just so you know that your apparent hero of the minute agrees with me regarding what happens to the temperature of a thing, when you combine it with another thing at the same temperature...NOTHING...because temperatures are not additive.  The equation which describes the radiative greenhouse effect is claiming that temperatures are additive...that if you add some energy at one temperature to some more energy at the same temperature that the temperature will be the sum of the two....

It doesn't happen..


----------



## Confounding (Aug 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Show the climate scientists. I'll read about you in the paper.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose you set an object on an source that was powered by 17 Watts. If you sealed it in a container with a perfect vacuum around it, it would continue to absorb energy at the rate of 17 Joules per second and increase in temperature until radiation heated the container hot enough to the point that the outside of the container radiates 17 Watts externally.
> ...



For god's sake. Another concept that went over your head. I'm trying to show you the difference between Power and Energy and you go off into a tangent.

Not only do you not understand power and energy, your tangent is also wrong. A light bulb glows because it is absorbing energy and retaining much of it in a vacuum. If the bulb were broken and the filament were intact and immersed in water it would not retain much of the 17 Watts of continuous energy input would it. With your misunderstanding of the simplest science, no wonder you are such a science denier.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


This is another example where you don't understand the difference between power and energy. 
Your first example starting with,* "If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C..."*
has no power input like the sun. 

Your picture is an example with power input from the sun. 
Apples and oranges.
.


.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2019)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Climate scientists know all about it...that is how bad they are at math.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> For god's sake. Another concept that went over your head. I'm trying to show you the difference between Power and Energy and you go off into a tangent.



Sorry guy...but you are the one who is missing the point



Wuwei said:


> Not only do you not understand power and energy, your tangent is also wrong. A light bulb glows because it is absorbing energy and retaining much of it in a vacuum. If the bulb were broken and the filament were intact and immersed in water it would not retain much of the 17 Watts of continuous energy input would it. With your misunderstanding of the simplest science, no wonder you are such a science denier.
> 
> .



You really don't understand even the basics do you?  You run that 17 watts through a heavy gage filament and chances are it would barely warm to the touch...no matter how long you ran the current through it...and are you under the impression that the filament retains energy because it is in a vacuum?  You think that is why there is a vacuum in most light bulbs?  Is that what you think?  Geez guy...go learn something..

There is a vacuum in a light bulb because the filament would burn up if there were oxygen in there...not because the vacuum makes it retain energy or anything like that...You could just as easily fill the bulb with any inert gas that would prevent combustion and get the same effect.

Where do you get these idiotic ideas?  You certainly don't read them anywhere.....are you just making it up as you go?  You constantly get the basics wrong....and because you don't understand the basics, everything you build upon your misunderstanding is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F...  Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...

Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing.  Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...

T = 100 + 100
T = 100


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Total atmospheric radiation is about 360 w/m^2.  They are double counting radiation emitted in the atmosphere. This is why thier results are always to high..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



* They are double counting radiation emitted in the atmosphere. *

How many watts reach the surface from the Sun?
How many watts does the surface emit?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You really don't understand even the basics do you? You run that 17 watts through a heavy gage filament and chances are it would barely warm to the touch...no matter how long you ran the current through it...and are you under the impression that the filament retains energy because it is in a vacuum? You think that is why there is a vacuum in most light bulbs? Is that what you think? Geez guy...go learn something..
> 
> There is a vacuum in a light bulb because the filament would burn up if there were oxygen in there...not because the vacuum makes it retain energy or anything like that...You could just as easily fill the bulb with any inert gas that would prevent combustion and get the same effect.


So what. That's elementary. Of course a larger filament would not get as hot.  You still missed the point -- there is a difference between energy and power. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...
> 
> Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing. Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...
> 
> ...



Arrrggg. Now you are confusing power with temperature!
You think that diagram means the temperature is doubling? 

Temperature is not doubling! 

The equation in that diagram is the final step of the solution of two simultaneous equations with two unknowns. The two numbers are powers, not temperatures doubling. There are many sites that show how that is done, for example .... 

One-Layer Energy Balance Model | METEO 469: From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming

If you don't understand it let me know and I will simplify it for you. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't understand even the basics do you? You run that 17 watts through a heavy gage filament and chances are it would barely warm to the touch...no matter how long you ran the current through it...and are you under the impression that the filament retains energy because it is in a vacuum? You think that is why there is a vacuum in most light bulbs? Is that what you think? Geez guy...go learn something..
> ...



So what?  Energy is how much work you do...power is how quickly you can get it done.  That isn't helping your case in trying to provet that light bulb filaments are retaining energy because they are in a vacuum...Where do you get bullshit like that?  

It is a prime example of how badly you misunderstand the basics.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...
> ...



Not at all...only the energy is doubling in that equation...  And does the equation not say that T= (239.7 + 239.7)..........?

Are you not doubling infrared radiation that originated in the same place?  

Funny you suggest that I look to you for an explanation of an unphysical, unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that is the basis of the abject failure of climate models...  If I need an explanation for magic...I will seek out a magician...not some goob who simply makes crap up as he goes and doesn't even grasp how and why a light bulb works..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




How many watts reach the surface from the Sun?
How many watts does the surface emit?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Funny you suggest that I look to you for an explanation of an unphysical, unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that is the basis of the abject failure of climate models... If I need an explanation for magic...I will seek out a magician...not some goob who simply makes crap up as he goes and doesn't even grasp how and why a light bulb works..



And a pleasant good morning to you too.

It's not magic. It is the application of the SB equation used twice. From the diagram you posted,

P = Radiated power, sun to earth
P = Aεơ(Tₑ⁴ - Tₐ⁴) Radiated power, earth to atmosphere
P = Aεơ(Tₐ⁴ - Tₛ⁴) Radiated power, atmosphere to space
(At equilibrium all radiated powers are up toward space and must be equal.)

Your diagram assumes 
area A = 1 m² 
and ε = 1
Also the temperature of space is assumed to be zero

The two equations simply become:
P = ơ(Tₑ⁴ - Tₐ⁴) Radiated power, earth to atmosphere
P = ơ(Tₐ⁴ - 0) Radiated power, atmosphere to space

Add the two equations:
P+P = ơ(Tₑ⁴)

Tₑ⁴ = 2P/ơ => Tₑ =  303 ⁰K

These last two equations are identical to those in your diagram. That is how it is derived. You will notice that the second temperature terms in both SB equations are always smaller than the first, just as you like it. You don't need to assume back radiation although it is implicit.

Note that the fourth root of the middle terms in your last equation should be used but was omitted. No doubt a simple typo by the author. The diagram is a "toy" example of a "slab" atmosphere and isn't meant to accurately calculate the earth temperature. However it is only a few degrees off.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It's not magic. It is the application of the SB equation used twice. From the diagram you posted,
> .



And therein lies the error which brings about the inevitable failure of climate models.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


The earths surface radiates about 360W/m^2...  The equation tells they think that number is closer to 470W/m^2.  The extra 110W/m^2 is supposed to be from the self reinforcing loop (AKA; mid tropospheric hot spot) which doesn't exist.

The EREB Satellite measurements tell us that as down-welling solar radiation increases so does the output of the earth in the LWIR bands.





The slope of the empirically measured energy shows that as DWSR increases the LWIR output increases as well.  In the model outputs the slope is one of holding energy in the atmosphere, which is not occurring.

Graph Source: Dr. David Evans


----------



## deanrd (Aug 29, 2019)

Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world. 

 Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 29, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.
> 
> Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?




What Trump is proposing is less than 1/8 of naturally occurring methane over 50 years...  Your an idiot as methane's half life is just 30 days...  So your fears are unjustified..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.
> 
> Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?



More nukes means less methane.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It's not magic. It is the application of the SB equation used twice. From the diagram you posted,
> ...



Exactly what is the error that lies therein?

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



It doesn't take into account smart photons or dimmer switches.


----------



## beautress (Aug 29, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.
> 
> Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?


Congratulations. You have just received the most misleading post of August, 2019 award. You have earned yourself a 1-in-12 chance to receive the Dummox of the Year award on April 1, 2020.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 29, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.
> 
> Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?



Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.

Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 29, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.
> 
> Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.


You lying jerk.
Even you must know you're wrong.

A more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, methane emissions will leap as Earth warms
Science Daily

"..While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases,* methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. *New research in the journal _Nature_ indicates that for each degree that  Earth's temperature rises, the amount of methane entering the atmosphere from microorganisms dwelling in lake sediment and freshwater wetlands -- the primary sources of the gas -- will increase several times. As temperatures rise, the relative increase of methane emissions will outpace that of carbon dioxide from these sources, the researchers report.".."​
and now they're going to be Pouring it into the atmosphere gratuitously and unnecessarily.
Horribly Blatant/Irresponsible behavior even if you are one of the Clowns unsure about AGW and GHGs.

`


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 29, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.
> ...





You didn't read the garbage paper since there is no evidence presented that "*methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas." *is even a real number and that CH4 can't trap heat because it doesn't absorb heat, it absorbs IR*. *That is why the paper is garbage.

Meanwhile the internal link led to another paper showing this:


> Methane (CH4) is an important greenhouse gas because it has 25 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) by mass over a century1.



Is it 30 times more potent, or is it 25 times more potent or is it 80 time more potent, or what the IPPC says (a different number) again. It seems nobody knows, which is why we get so many different "estimates"of the hyper trace gas potency.

Meanwhile once again CH4 is a negligible ghg, a fact you should have learned years ago. Almost nothing times almost nothing = irrelevant, that is what short lived CH4 is in the energy budget, have you seen the MODTRAN results of this feeble gas?

You are just a ignorant and stupid as Deanrd is.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 29, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


'methane thirty times'

*A more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, methane emissions will ...*
https://blogs.princeton.edu › research › 2014/03/26 › a-more-potent-green...Mar 26, 2014 - *While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent* as a heat-trapping gas.

*How The EPA And New York Times Are Getting Methane All Wrong ...*
https://thinkprogress.org › how-the-epa-and-new-york-times-are-getting-m... Aug 20, 2015 - Here, for instance, is the New York Times from Tuesday: “Methane, which leaks from oil and gas wells, accounts for just 9 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution —* but it is over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so even small amounts of it can have a big impact on global warming.”*


*Methane is like 'CO2 on Steroids' When It Comes to Trapping Heat*
https://www.sightline.org › methane-climate-change-co2-on-steroidsFeb 12, 2019 - 
*It traps atmospheric heat 87 times more effectively than CO2, then it ... others cite a heat-trapping power around 30 times greater than CO2.*


*Study Suggests EPA May Seriously Underestimate Methane Gas ...*
https://www.forbes.com › sites › lisettevoytko › 2019/06/07 › study-fertiliz...Jun 7, 2019 - Methane gas seeps out of Esieh Lake in Alaska. ... that methane emissions from the U.S. fertilizer industry are 100 times higher than previously ...


*How to count methane emissions | MIT News*
news.mit.edu › how-count-methane-emissions-0425Apr 25, 2014 - But a direct comparison between methane and carbon dioxide, the most ... gram for gram, *methane is about 30 times as potent a greenhouse ...*


*Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of - EPA*
https://www.epa.gov › climate-indicators › climate-change-indicators-atmo...Jan 23, 2017 - Global Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide Over Time Line graph showing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from ...


*Menacing Methane - read out latest blog and learn all about methane*
https://bosscontrols.co.uk › menacing-methane-menacing-methane-methan...Find out about the devastating effects of menacing methane. ... Menacing methane – *methane is a greenhouse gas thirty times more potent than carbon dioxide.*


*Methane Is Leaking All Over The Place | FiveThirtyEight*
https://fivethirtyeight.com › features › methane-is-leaking-all-over-the-placeFeb 3, 2016 - *Methane sticks around in the atmosphere for Decades, rather than centuries like carbon dioxide, but it absorbs much more heat. *On a time scale ...



`


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It doesn't take into account smart photons or dimmer switches.


Actually those equations don't need smart photons or dimmer switches since the second temperature terms in both SB equations are always smaller than the first, just as SSDD likes it to be. Both equations give the same result whether you use one-way or two-way radiation. We will have to wait to see what new fiction he is going to conjure up, because he has some emotional stake in proving science is wrong.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 29, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.
> 
> Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.


Actually Methane can last for Decades and is (consensus) 30x as powerful at heat trapping than CO2.

Settled by my last post above.

`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 30, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.
> ...


Where is your atmospheric hot spot supposed to be with this one?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't take into account smart photons or dimmer switches.
> ...









Guess you also don't realize, or are unaware of the ramifications that they are using 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in a manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the emissivity, the area or temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation. Their application of the S-B law only applies to ideal black bodies, radiating into an ideal vacuum.  It is a blatant, and sophomoric misapplication of both the equation and the S-B law.  The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If you are operating under the belief that that sort of math represents science then once again...you demonstrate beyond argument that you are simply ignorant on the topic...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



* they are using 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in a manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the emissivity, the area or temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation.*

It's true, they're using it the correct way.

Still no backup for your one-way, dimmer switch version? Weird.

*The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.*

The colder source is radiating less toward and receiving more from the warmer object.
No violation.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Guess you also don't realize, or are unaware of the ramifications that they are using
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the derivation they obviously use the subtracted form of the SB law.
You can complain about the picture because it illustrates two-way radiation, but the math can be interpreted as one-way radiation in the SB law exactly the same way you always insist. You have to realize that the picture was drawn for those that believe science, so you have to forgive them for not believing in your fake one-way radiation science. 



SSDD said:


> The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.



This is the basis of their math. Where is the colder source radiating to a warmer object? 
P = Aεơ(Tₑ⁴ - Tₐ⁴) Radiated power, earth to atmosphere
P = Aεơ(Tₐ⁴ - Tₛ⁴) Radiated power, atmosphere to space

That math exactly represents your sort of science.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2019)

To bad you can’t read an equation.  This 

 is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> To bad you can’t read an equation.  This View attachment 276710 is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....



*This 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is the basis of their math...*

It's the basis of Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Guess you also don't realize, or are unaware of the ramifications that they are using
> ...



Look at your equations....do tell...what is the area of the atmosphere...the A is for area...you have no idea what equations are saying do you?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To bad you can’t read an equation.  This View attachment 276710 is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....
> ...


And that form describes a perfect black body (notice no expression for emissivity) radiating into a perfect vacuum...does that describe the atmosphere?


----------



## Frannie (Aug 30, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...



99.999 percent of climate change on the Earth happened before the first human.

There is no evidence large or small that humans caused or are causing climate change.

But how can that be since you have internet links.

You proved nothing, but please keep on wanking


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*And that form describes a perfect black body*

Yup.

* (notice no expression for emissivity)*

I noticed.

* radiating into a perfect vacuum...*

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> To bad you can’t read an equation. This
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You forgot that I said that the "toy" example of a "slab" atmosphere had the following assumptions and I adhered to those assumptions.


Wuwei said:


> Your diagram assumes
> area A = 1 m²
> and ε = 1
> Also the temperature of space is assumed to be zero





SSDD said:


> Look at your equations....do tell...what is the area of the atmosphere...the A is for area...you have no idea what equations are saying do you?


Yes look at my equations. You will see that when the area is set to 1 m² the result is the *power per square meter*.

The example you posted is not a climate model that should be taken seriously. It is an oversimplified example that students can understand. There are a number of unrealistic assumptions including the fact that they use a slab and not a exponentially decreasing density with altitude. This is another example of a reference you gave to something that you don't fully understand.

.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 31, 2019)

Frannie said:


> 99.999 percent of climate change on the Earth happened before the first human.
> 
> There is no evidence large or small that humans caused or are causing climate change.
> 
> ...


Duh..

And so have 99.99% of the Extinctions.

Doesn't mean we haven't caused any.

Man has only been on the planet for 200K of 1.5 Billion years of life.
And for 95% of that we were just hunter gatherers.

Duh.


`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 31, 2019)

[QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 23024269, member: 29707"

* radiating into a perfect vacuum...*

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?[/QUOTE]

Why do you suppose SB would have spoke to the radiation emitting from ideal black body in perfect thermal equilibrium made possible by an ideal interface with a perfect vacuum,  and then put it in air where conduction and convection (which would be a less than perfect interface and alter that perfect equilibrium) were also possible in addition to radiation?  Does that make any sort of rational, scientifically valid sense to you?  If it does, by all means explain.

While you are at it...you might describe an instance of any perfect, or near perfect black body that is radiating into something other than a vacuum.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To bad you can’t read an equation. This
> ...



And what exactly is the area of a gas?  There is a reason that the SB law can't correctly be applied to a gas...there are other laws that deal with gasses..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> [QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 23024269, member: 29707"
> 
> * radiating into a perfect vacuum...*
> 
> Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?



Why do you suppose SB would have spoke to the radiation emitting from ideal black body in perfect thermal equilibrium made possible by an ideal interface with a perfect vacuum,  and then put it in air where conduction and convection (which would be a less than perfect interface and alter that perfect equilibrium) were also possible in addition to radiation?  Does that make any sort of rational, scientifically valid sense to you?  If it does, by all means explain.

While you are at it...you might describe an instance of any perfect, or near perfect black body that is radiating into something other than a vacuum.[/QUOTE]

*Why do you suppose SB would have spoke to the radiation emitting from ideal black body in perfect thermal equilibrium made possible by an ideal interface with a perfect vacuum,  *

Where did he say, or use, a perfect vacuum?

*Does that make any sort of rational, scientifically valid sense to you?*

Says the guy who knows all black bodies above 0K radiate, but, for some reason, stop radiating in equilibrium.
Or, for some reason, dial down their radiating if matter is anywhere in the universe in line of sight.

What's your rational, scientifically valid reasoning for that?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is *always *the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.

In the example, the SB law is applied to a "slab".  It's artificial. You still don't understand your own example!

And you complain about tedium. Your problem isn't tedium it's defective memory and a lack of comprehension of physics. We have to go through these things time and again and you never get it.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is *always *the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.



Oh...I understand perfectly...you, however, lacking any real understanding of the basics seem to be hopelessly lost.  I pointed out that the SB law deals with radiators in terms of area...and what do you do?  Tell me about square meters as if I didn't just point that very fact out to you....without ever even once wondering why I might have pointed it out to you. 

Lets keep it simple and look at a single cubic meter of atmosphere.  How many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter of air.  The SB law, after all only works if you can assign an area to the emitter in question.  Again...how many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter? 



Wuwei said:


> In the example, the SB law is applied to a "slab".  It's artificial. You still don't understand your own example!



I understand...which is why I brought it up in the first place....precisely how many 1 square meter "slabs" of air are in a 1 cubic meter block of air? 

And then, climate science assumes that the slab is emitting radiation as if it were an ideal black body radiating into a vacuum even though it is not a black body, nor is it even a gray body..  How much of that "slab" that is assumed to be radiating as if it were an ideal black body is actually radiating?  Only a small part of any parcel of air you care to pick out is actually radiating...as only a small bit of it is composed of radiative gasses capable of radiating.. 

And of that very small percentage  of that theoretical "slab" of air that is supposedly radiating as if it were an ideal black body, how much of it is actually even getting the opportunity to radiate due to the fact that convection and conduction as a result of energy being exchanged via collisions with other molecules is completely dominating the energy exchange within the slab?



Wuwei said:


> And you complain about tedium. Your problem isn't tedium it's defective memory and a lack of comprehension of physics. We have to go through these things time and again and you never get it.



The tedium of talking to you, in addition to having to restate practically everything I say due to your "interpretation being wrong" is this very thing...having to explain the basics to you in such fine detail it is as if I am talking to a 5 year old...  You have to have your hand held through every step.

When you look at this equation:











Because of your belief, you see an equation that rationally and accurately describes the basis of how the temperature of the atmosphere is derived.

When I look at that equation, I see:

An equation that counts the infrared radiation twice in computing a temperature even though the infrared radiation originates from a single source

An equation that assumes that the emitter is radiating as if it were a perfect black body even though it isn't a black body, or even a gray body

An equation that views the emitter in terms of area (A) although in this case, you can't calculate the area of the emitter since it has no area

An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though only 0.04% of the emitter is even capable of emitting meaning that 0.004% of the area of the emitter is actually capable of emitting

An equation that assumes that the emitter is emitting across the entirety of its non existent area even though almost none of the 0.0004% of its non existent area that is even capable of emitting is actually emitting because conduction and convection completely dominate the energy movement through its non existent area.
And then it isn't enough to clue you in regarding the problems with the equation, I have to hold your hand and walk you through each of the problems as if you were a child...and then after all that, because your belief is so ingrained, and you are so blinded by it, you will still ignore all the problems with the equation that make it nothing more than a wild assed, wrong approach to a guess about why the atmosphere is the temperature that it is.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > OMG you still don't understand the SB equation. The area A is *always *the area of the emitter. It is commonly set to 1 m² to express the power emitted per unit area. You should know that already. The surround can be, for example, the area of a small room or a huge room, or the atmosphere. We went through this many times before, and you still don't ;understand it.
> ...


Thank You...  One person who actually gets it.  The problems are so massive with the equation it is next to useless..  Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



It comes close because it was custom tailored for out atmosphere and doesn't operate on any sort of real physics...if it did, then it could accurately predict the temperature of any planet with an atmosphere...it doesn't even come close to any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...

It is a reverse engineered wild assed guess...nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Correct;

They needed a close approximation for modeling but close doesnt cut it in forward prediction. It ends up causing a positive forward bias and modeling failure.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



What they need is to address the actual physics that govern the energy movement through the atmosphere..but they can't do that since it would un-demonize CO2 and the left would loose its talking points...

What amazes me is that there are those on this board, who are supposed to be bright enough to grasp the problems with that equation who are perfectly willing to shut down a conversation, and an entire thread  that calls those problems, and the equation itself into question...to question such stupendously bad science makes one a denier...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Oh...I understand perfectly...you, however, lacking any real understanding of the basics seem to be hopelessly lost. I pointed out that the SB law deals with radiators in terms of area...and what do you do? Tell me about square meters as if I didn't just point that very fact out to you....without ever even once wondering why I might have pointed it out to you.


Me wonder what you are thinking? You never think. Why should I wonder?



SSDD said:


> Lets keep it simple and look at a single cubic meter of atmosphere. How many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter of air. The SB law, after all only works if you can assign an area to the emitter in question. Again...how many square meters of air reside within that cubic meter?


Now you are confusing volume with surface area. With a "slab" atmosphere the area is defined by the surface normal to the flow. You are conflating the volume of the slab with the surface normal area. The importance of depth of an object along the surface normal has to do with the optical depth. Look it up. Don't be concerned if the GHG's are not fully opaque to IR for a small depth. Neither are sun glasses, half silvered mirrors, etc opaque to visible, but they still have an emissivity that can be measured.



SSDD said:


> I understand...


You obviously don't.


SSDD said:


> And then, climate science assumes that the slab is emitting radiation as if it were an ideal black body radiating into a vacuum even though it is not a black body, nor is it even a gray body.. How much of that "slab" that is assumed to be radiating as if it were an ideal black body is actually radiating? Only a small part of any parcel of air you care to pick out is actually radiating...as only a small bit of it is composed of radiative gasses capable of radiating.



I already told you that the example is not climate science. It is a toy example where they explicitly assume it is a black body and the emissivity is one. Only the top of the slab is radiating to a vacuum.
You are confusing actual climate science with a toy example. Try reading the premise of the example again.



SSDD said:


> And of that very small percentage of that theoretical "slab" of air that is supposedly radiating as if it were an ideal black body, how much of it is actually even getting the opportunity to radiate due to the fact that convection and conduction as a result of energy being exchanged via collisions with other molecules is completely dominating the energy exchange within the slab?


You are still confusing the toy example for students with actual climate science. Your slab example doesn't discuss convection  and conduction. It's a lesson only on radiative transfer of energy.



SSDD said:


> The tedium of talking to you, in addition to having to restate practically everything I say due to your "interpretation being wrong" is this very thing...having to explain the basics to you in such fine detail it is as if I am talking to a 5 year old... You have to have your hand held through every step.
> 
> When you look at this equation:
> 
> ...


I see it as a toy example for students.
.


SSDD said:


> And then it isn't enough to clue you in regarding the problems with the equation, I have to hold your hand and walk you through each of the problems as if you were a child.


When I try to walk you through real science, you have a childish temper tantrum, and essentially call 150 years of science foolishness and idiocy, and try to convince everyone to believe your fake thermodynamics.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..


At least you get it. Thank you.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What amazes me is that there are those on this board, who are supposed to be bright enough to grasp the problems with that equation who are perfectly willing to shut down a conversation, and an entire thread that calls those problems, and the equation itself into question...to question such stupendously bad science makes one a denier.


Spoken like a true flat-earther.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Don't get me wrong, it comes close to a general approximation and that is what it was designed for, modeling..
> ...


Thank You, But SSDD is making a valid point. The equation is for a black body in a vacuum, a point you fail to understand. It also treats a non-blackbody as a blackbody. Two issues that can not be reconciled. The atmosphere is a multi-layer and multi-mixture body dominated by convection and conduction due to collisions being the primary method of energy transfer. Radiation is a bit player, in our atmosphere, below the tropopause.

Until these problems are addressed the Stefman-Bozman constant is just a reverse engineered SWAG. A close approximation in a fluid dynamic atmosphere doesn't work.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Thank You, But SSDD is making a valid point. The equation is for a black body in a vacuum, a point you fail to understand. It also treats a non-blackbody as a blackbody. Two issues that can not be reconciled. The atmosphere is a multi-layer and multi-mixture body dominated by convection and conduction due to collisions being the primary method of energy transfer. Radiation is a bit player, in our atmosphere, below the tropopause.
> 
> Until these problems are addressed the Stefman-Bozman constant is just a reverse engineered SWAG. A close approximation in a fluid dynamic atmosphere doesn't work.



The "slab" example was referring only to the radiation aspect. Sure, in actual climate science there are many other complex processes that must be considered, but that was outside the scope of the example. Most likely, SSDD was simply deflecting from the restricted slab example to a more complex problem so he could have something to argue about.

The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum. That is only SSDD's POV.

Radiation is not a bit player. Integrated over 24 hrs, the earth absorbs around 160 W/m² from the sun and radiates around 400 W/m². SSDD has never had an explanation for that difference. The toy example points to a way of understanding the physics, but he still is in denial.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2019)

If you want to turn the atmosphere into slabs, then physics says that there can be no radiation between two such objects in intimate contact with each other...again, we are back to convection and conduction being the primary means of energy movement.

You simply gloss over the glaring problems with the basis of the greenhouse effect...everything that comes after, no matter how complicated it gets is built from that basic equation which is so fraught with problems that it can never describe anything like the actual physics happening in the atmosphere...and it can never accurately predict the temperature of any other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...and it should be able to predict the temperature anywhere if it is based on real physics..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum.


Incorrect;

The SB equation demands a vacuum as the atmosphere has a totally different emissitivity. This can change the radiative properties of the BB. Its this unknown that an a atmosphere brings, which they have yet to deal with.

IE; If I run water on a BB it cools rapidly or if it is cold warms rapidly. The issue is how those items in contact affect the BB's radiative properties.

Again, LWIR radiation is a bit play in the troposphere due to our atmospheres water content.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum.
> ...



The SB law does not require radiation to a vacuum in order for it to be valid. Where do you and SSDD get this?

You have to define more explicitly what configuration you are referring to. Radiation from exactly what to what. Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.  

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If you want to turn the atmosphere into slabs, then physics says that there can be no radiation between two such objects in intimate contact with each other...


If you look at your toy example again you will see that the atmosphere slab is separated from the earth. There is no contact. Unrealistic? Of course. That's why it is a toy example.



SSDD said:


> You simply gloss over the glaring problems with the basis of the greenhouse effect...everything that comes after, no matter how complicated it gets is built from that basic equation which is so fraught with problems that it can never describe anything like the actual physics happening in the atmosphere...and it can never accurately predict the temperature of any other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...and it should be able to predict the temperature anywhere if it is based on real physics..


I don't gloss over it. The example does. You keep digressing away from the nature of the fictitious slab example that you brought up. 


.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.


What do you think is happening to the earths surface?  You really dont get it...

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in this pointless exercise until now. You all have demonstrated you do not understand even the basics of the science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.
> ...



*SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum.*

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.


I agree with Todd. Find a reference that explains what you are thinking. SSDD says the same thing but won't cite a source.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...





Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.
> ...


The writing of the equation is all the evidence I need. It does not make reference to anything other than the black body. IF it were to inclued the atmosphere it would have included it in the equation, which it does not.

Here is how Britanic Explaines the Law.

*"Stefan-Boltzmann law*, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if _E_ is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and _T_ is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then _E_ = σ_T_4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. *The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

SOURCE

The equations creation does not include the atmosphere, only the black body. Thus it,  by itself, must be in a vacuum. The "black-body" calcuation is done in a vacuum.*


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum.
> ...



If wuwei understood just a little bit more about the S-B law, he would understand exactly Jack.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


What a moron....If you are going to theorize a perfect black body why would you put it in an environment where its radiation could change?  

The fact is that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 describes a perfect black body radiating into a perfect vacuum...If you put it in a place where there is other matter, then the equation changes to reflect the new environment....  How can you possibly not know this...it is basic....


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Exactly...there are a whole set of equations that are applied when the black body is, for example, not perfect in which case an expression for emissivity is included, and when the BB is in the presence of other matter...where the difference between the BB and its cooler surroundings are calculated...

They expect that such details be spelled out for them in crayon...

since it is far beyond the crayon level, the chances of finding someone writing serious science, at the grade school level to explain what anyone looking at material at this level should already know is about zero...and since no one is going to write at kindergarten level for these bozos, they just go on believing that they know it all...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I agree with the Britannica definition in the sense that it is the original form that Boltzmann wrote for black body radiation. What Boltzmann did was integrate the black body radiation formula over all wavelengths to get the sigma. 

I'm sure you are aware that later the law was generalized to "grey bodies" where the emissivity factor was introduced to the original form. This is still called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. If you insist on calling it a black body formula with no emissivity, then the SB equation is useless because true black bodies do not exist in nature. Also you disagree with all science when you say it is only valid in a vacuum.

Do you think the SB equation means there is only one-way radiation and zero radiation between objects at the same temperature?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What a moron....If you are going to theorize a perfect black body why would you put it in an environment where its radiation could change?
> 
> The fact is that
> 
> ...


See post 724 above.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Exactly...there are a whole set of equations that are applied when the black body is, for example, not perfect in which case an expression for emissivity is included, and when the BB is in the presence of other matter...where the difference between the BB and its cooler surroundings are calculated...
> 
> They expect that such details be spelled out for them in crayon...
> 
> since it is far beyond the crayon level, the chances of finding someone writing serious science, at the grade school level to explain what anyone looking at material at this level should already know is about zero...and since no one is going to write at kindergarten level for these bozos, they just go on believing that they know it all...



See post 724.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The equation does not make any calculations for a grey body nor does it make any calculations for our atmosphere.

You simply add what you want to make it do as you want. That is not how science works.  

Simply amazing what passes for science in your world today.

Tell me, What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic? They do nothing.  They do not warm anything and the two bodies emit at the same rate relative to their surroundings. Have you observed anything different?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Do you see a factor for emissivity in 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 which is the basis for the whole dog and pony show?  How about a factor for area?  How about a factor for the temperature of the environment for which the emitter is radiating?  How about anything at all that would at least give the appearance of some actual thought going into the hypothesis?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The equation does not make any calculations for a grey body nor does it make any calculations for our atmosphere.
> 
> You simply add what you want to make it do as you want. That is not how science works.
> 
> Simply amazing what passes for science in your world today.


So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics. 
So I want to add what I want??? No it's science adding what agrees with experiment.
Just as SSDD does, you want to personalize me as the culprit who invented thermodynamics.



Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me, What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic? They do nothing. They do not warm anything and the two bodies emit at the same rate relative to their surroundings. Have you observed anything different?


That is an ill-formed generalization. You need to be specific.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do you see a factor for emissivity in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you still complaining about the toy slab atmosphere example? We already covered that more than once.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The equation does not make any calculations for a grey body nor does it make any calculations for our atmosphere.
> ...


LOL... Really? "well established"  Hardly!

Point me to just *ONE* model that has passed the predictive phase and concurred with empirically observed data.



Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic? They do nothing. They do not warm anything and the two bodies emit at the same rate relative to their surroundings. Have you observed anything different?
> ...



What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic?

Show your work!


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic?
> 
> Show your work!



According to the physics in his fantasy world, the energy will be doubled...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you see a factor for emissivity in
> ...



Actually you only attempted to gloss over the obvious, and catastrophic flaws...that "toy" is the basis for the entire dog and pony show...and I suppose that you believe by calling it a "toy" you can somehow distance yourself from the absolute absurdity of what you believe...Go to any explanation of the greenhouse effect from any source you care to visit, and they all begin with that and build upon it from there...they don't build the "toy"  as an explanation and then do something entirely different when it is "real" science...they build upon the very equation you see there and anything built upon that joke is going to be nothing more than a bigger joke...as evidnenced by the fact that it can't produce an estimate of the temperature here without a fudge factor..and can't even get close to predicting the temperature of other planets...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics..



Well known?  What a laugh...In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


The SB constant is valid for a black body in a vacuum.  The "fudge factor" is the attempt to account for the atmosphere, which they still are unable to model in any valid form. It's not so much the SB constant as it is the crap they try to pass off as science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics..
> ...



*In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy. *

And some idiocy is limited to you.

Still no back up for your all-knowing, all-seeing photons? Weird.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



And the wait continues for a measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a lower frequency to a higher frequency...Do be sure to send me an IM when you find one...the Nobel committee will be interested.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You'll have to give your definition of spontaneous.
And what do you mean by "lower frequency to higher frequency"?
I thought your claim involved temperatures?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!





SSDD said:


> According to the physics in his fantasy world, the energy will be doubled..


That is a bald faced lie. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!





SSDD said:


> Well known? What a laugh...In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.





Billy_Bob said:


> The SB constant is valid for a black body in a vacuum. The "fudge factor"....



If you guys want to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that includes the emissivity,  and if you want to deny radiation is exchanged between objects, and insist on one way radiation, and if you insist the SB equation only works in a vacuum, you disagree with thermodynamics. It is simple as that. So be it.

Neither of you can explain why the earth absorbs 160 W/m² from the sun and radiates around 400 W/m² of LWIR. 

So be it.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!
> ...


You think the earth only receives 160 W/m^2 from the sun?  Really?

Here is Trenbreths Cartoon...






At any one point in time we are receiving, at TOA, about 1,364 W/m^2.

In direct radiation we receive about 170W/m^2.  IN INDIRECT radiation, where the energy is received by the atmosphere and then re-radiated we gain another 425 W/m^2 at the surface..

That is potentially 595 W/m^2 that is received by the surface from the solar input.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!
> ...


Prove it by showing me the Model and data to support your supposition.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You think the earth only receives 160 W/m^2 from the sun? Really?


OK so it's 170 W/m², not 160 must be different sources. Whatever.



Billy_Bob said:


> IN INDIRECT radiation, where the energy is received by the atmosphere and then re-radiated we gain another 425 W/m^2 at the surface..


Don't let SSDD see that.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



See Post #672

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> If you guys want to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that includes the emissivity,  and if you want to deny radiation is exchanged between objects, and insist on one way radiation, and if you insist the SB equation only works in a vacuum, you disagree with thermodynamics. It is simple as that. So be it.



You really can't read words without reinterpreting them can you?  Where did you get any of those notions other than the statement of the second law that says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction, I can't imagine where you got any of it.

The version of the SB equation that is shown in the model for the greenhouse effect describes a radiator emitting into a vacuum...had they used another derivation of the equation the error would not have been so blatantly obvious...the problem is that the SB equation works for blackbodies and gray bodies......the atmosphere is neither. 

A black body is a hypothetical body that absorbs without reflection all of the electromagnetic radiation incident on its surface.  A gray body is any body that emits radiation at each wavelength in a constant ratio less than unity to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature.  Neither of those definitions describes our atmosphere...or any atmosphere that we are aware of.  The SB equation simply can not be rightly applied to gasses...it is as simple as that.



Wuwei said:


> Neither of you can explain why the earth absorbs 160 W/m² from the sun and radiates around 400 W/m² of LWIR.



Because the earth does not absorb 160Wm2 from the sun...that is just a bullshit number that climate science found that they had to use in order for their bullshit equation to provide a number that closely approximates the actual temperature here...yet another reason that their bullshit formula can't even begin to predict the temperature on any other planet with an atmosphere...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit.  And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere...  That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The version of the SB equation that is shown in the model for the greenhouse effect describes a radiator emitting into a vacuum...had they used another derivation of the equation the error would not have been so blatantly obvious...the problem is that the SB equation works for blackbodies and gray bodies......the atmosphere is neither.
> 
> A black body is a hypothetical body that absorbs without reflection all of the electromagnetic radiation incident on its surface. A gray body is any body that emits radiation at each wavelength in a constant ratio less than unity to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature. Neither of those definitions describes our atmosphere...or any atmosphere that we are aware of. The SB equation simply can not be rightly applied to gasses...it is as simple as that.



Yes, the toy example is certainly way too simple to be of any serious use.
Yes, we all know how a black body and grey body are defined.
Yes, the SB equation cannot be applied to the atmosphere in a way that would make sense because of complex physical atmospheric dynamics and non-linearities.



SSDD said:


> Because the earth does not absorb 160Wm2 from the sun...that is just a bullshit number that climate science found that they had to use in order for their bullshit equation to provide a number that closely approximates the actual temperature here...yet another reason that their bullshit formula can't even begin to predict the temperature on any other planet with an atmosphere...


That number is not the solar radiation at high noon at the equator. It is the average over the whole earth at all latitudes and longitudes, and includes zero input at night.
That number is not used in serious computations involving GHG's in the atmosphere, because the effects are way way too nonlinear to use averages. The Trenberth diagrams show other averages of extremely nonlinear energy flows and are not a basis for the science. Averages like that are used only as a budgetary figure to show the various types and orders of magnitude of various energy flows.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.


The energy is not counted twice. See post # 672

BTW now that you mention Venus again, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 3, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


*My theory on man-made Climate Change is that with enough daily propaganda you can convince almost anyone about anything.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.
> ...


Try again... most of the Trenbreth 425W/m^2 in atmospheric radiation is from the sun not the BB upwelling.  Even Trenbreth wasn't stupid enough to try and parse that out because it would show the upwelling was insignificant to the earths energy budget.

Now to the lie.  342 W/m^2 is what is theorized in ISR, yet Trenbreth indicates almost 595W/m^2.  This is more energy than can enter the system at any given point on earth. Please tell me where this magical energy is stored at, adding another 170 W/m^2 would boil the earths oceans...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.
> ...


Try Again....  Trenbreth's cartoon most certainly does double count energy.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Try again... most of the Trenbreth 425W/m^2 in atmospheric radiation is from the sun not the BB upwelling. Even Trenbreth wasn't stupid enough to try and parse that out because it would show the upwelling was insignificant to the earths energy budget.
> 
> Now to the lie. 342 W/m^2 is what is theorized in ISR, yet Trenbreth indicates almost 595W/m^2. This is more energy than can enter the system at any given point on earth. Please tell me where this magical energy is stored at, adding another 170 W/m^2 would boil the earths oceans...


You mention 425 W/m², 595 W/m², and 170 W/m². None of those values occur in your Trenbreth diagram of Post #741. I am not going to waste time trying to second guess you.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Try Again.... Trenbreth's cartoon most certainly does double count energy.


SSDD's diagram does not. You are confusing two different diagrams.

You never answered my question, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, the toy example is certainly way too simple to be of any serious use.
> Yes, we all know how a black body and grey body are defined.
> Yes, the SB equation cannot be applied to the atmosphere in a way that would make sense because of complex physical atmospheric dynamics and non-linearities.



You can call it a "toy" all you like and yet, it is the foundation of the greenhouse effect hypothesis and nothing as the mathematical description gets more complex ever corrects the errors made at its foundation...




Wuwei said:


> That number is not the solar radiation at high noon at the equator. It is the average over the whole earth at all latitudes and longitudes, and includes zero input at night.[/quotye]
> 
> It is not even an accurate average over the whole earth...since the amount of energy absorbed by land and then radiated in the form of IR is an entirely different amount than that absorbed by the oceans and then radiated in the form of IR.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.
> ...



Of course it is...denial on your part doesn't change the fact...all of the energy originates from the surface of the earth..and it most certainly is counted twice....


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.
> ...



Precisely where I told you that it goes...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Try Again.... Trenbreth's cartoon most certainly does double count energy.
> ...



Here is a diagram of a system that not only can predict the temperature here, but can also accurately predict the temperature of any planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumably any planet anywhere with an atmosphere.  Maybe you can look at it and puzzle out where the 1600Wm2 that doesn't reach the surface of venus...and doesn't leave the planet at the top of the atmosphere goes...here is a hint...enthalpy...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



This is the only process (Model) that works in our atmosphere. They accurately evaluate the 342W/m^2 that is circulating in the atmosphere where Trenbreth's Cartoon implies almost 700W/m^2.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Try again... most of the Trenbreth 425W/m^2 in atmospheric radiation is from the sun not the BB upwelling. Even Trenbreth wasn't stupid enough to try and parse that out because it would show the upwelling was insignificant to the earths energy budget.
> ...



...and increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM does what exactly to the energy budget?  

Pretty sure it has no effect whatsoever. What does your lab work show? Can you show us a repeatable lab experiment that can falsify the "no effect whatsoever" theory? What? No? you can't?!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Try again... most of the Trenbreth 425W/m^2 in atmospheric radiation is from the sun not the BB upwelling. Even Trenbreth wasn't stupid enough to try and parse that out because it would show the upwelling was insignificant to the earths energy budget.
> ...


425+170=595

Are you this illiterate in math?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You can call it a "toy" all you like and yet, it is the foundation of the greenhouse effect hypothesis and nothing as the mathematical description gets more complex ever corrects the errors made at its foundation...


The SB is a foundation for the toy example. Emission and absorption of vibration modes are the foundation for the GHE.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course it is...denial on your part doesn't change the fact...all of the energy originates from the surface of the earth..and it most certainly is counted twice....


The energy is not counted twice. See post # 672 again. Where is it counted twice there?. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Precisely where I told you that it goes..


You never told me.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That's a nice colorful picture. 
As I said you don't know where Venus's radiation goes.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> 425+170=595
> 
> Are you this illiterate in math?



You mentioned 425 W/m², 595 W/m², and 170 W/m². *None of those values occur in your Trenbreth diagram of Post #741. Why did you post it as if it had no relevance*. 

I am not interested in your snarky games. 

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > 425+170=595
> ...



Does the Trenbreth diagram account for 400PPM of CO2?  Watt happens to the energy budget at 280PPM, does the budget collapse into nothing?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 3, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...and increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM does what exactly to the energy budget?





CrusaderFrank said:


> Does the Trenbreth diagram account for 400PPM of CO2? Watt happens to the energy budget at 280PPM, does the budget collapse into nothing?


I have no idea. I'm not going to worry about it either. The physics of climate science at that level is very complex with huge databases. So I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I am not an avid AGW advocate. I have said that several times on this forum. 

You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it, I will call you out on that. Fake physics will lead you nowhere in trying to justify your position. 

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > 425+170=595
> ...


Lets do this by the numbers;

1. Direct radiation = 170 W/m^2
2. Indirect radiation = 425 W/m^2 (Trenbreth left this off of his diagram on purpose but it was included on his subsequent graphs) You didn't even question Trenbreths lack of careful display.





3. The numbers do not add up.  Point radiation is 342 W/m^2 but every single add in his calculations place the down ward radiation well over 700 W/m^2

You tell me about this cartoon and why he left off the 425 Number... Its  because his fraud would have been evident before the congressional hearing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ...and increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM does what exactly to the energy budget?
> ...



So you're confirming that CO2 has no effect whatsoever on the energy budget. 

Thank you.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ...and increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM does what exactly to the energy budget?
> ...



So in the end, all you have is an appeal to authority.  Sad, but entirely unsurprising.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.  

You deny observed and replicated experiments and observations to the extent that you believe self-contradictory fake physics. 
You believe that no process is *spontaneous* if there was previous input energy of any sort even though the process later *spontaneously* releases energy without external input. You believe that any configuration that is man-made cannot be *spontaneous*. That is absolutely contradictory to the definition of *spontaneity* in physics.

The remarkable contradiction is that you continually cite the second law as 
_Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._​
In your tortured view of physics that statement *does not apply to anything on earth* since all processes on earth result from prior energy going back to the origin of the solar system. 

Try Googling the second law of thermodynamics. You will see most sites define it by the nature of entropy. That law says nothing about one-way radiation being between objects. That is something that you entirely made up. Two way radiation does not violate any laws of physics. Your physics is so tortured that you can't even say where Venus surface radiation goes.

Since this thread is going over the same tedious crap. I will answer any retorts in the special thread created for denying radiation physics.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.





			
				wuwei said:
			
		

> You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it,....



Do feel free to post any of those experiments that actually demonstrate what you claim...and while I suppose it is pointless to ask...try not to post up the stuff which was only good enough to fool you.

The rest is nothing more than your endlessly tedious reinterpretation of statements that bear no resemblance to the original statement that was made...either you are a hopeless liar or literally unable to read and grasp the meaning of the words.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.
> ...


Can't answer my points eh?
I will remind you in Flacaltenn's science denier thread.
That's where your science denial tedium is supposed to go.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So you can't post up any of these experiments which supposedly prove your beliefs...again...unsurprising....

All of your points have been answered in the dismantling of your precious hypothesis...all the rest has been nothing more than an attempt to divert from your abject failure to defend it...


----------



## abu afak (Sep 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> *What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.*
> 
> You deny observed and replicated experiments and observations to the extent that you believe self-contradictory fake physics.
> You believe that no process is *spontaneous* if there was previous input energy of any sort even though the process later *spontaneously* releases energy without external input. You believe that any configuration that is man-made cannot be *spontaneous*. That is absolutely contradictory to the definition of *spontaneity* in physics.
> ...


I don't think I've met a single Conspiracist (or GOPer for that matter), who knows what the Appeal to Authority Fallacy is.

Citing an authority who is a Bona Fide expert in the field is not a fallacy.
If I cite Einstein on relativity, that's hardly fallacious... obviously.

The Appeal to Authority Fallacy would be saying "Donald Trump/Kobe Bryant/etc says there is no warming."
As they are mere celebrities/authorities with no expertise in the field.
(Citing a non-climate scientist might be another fallacious use)

`


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> I don't think I've met a single Conspiracist (or GOPer for that matter), who knows what the Appeal to Authority Fallacy is.
> 
> Citing an authority who is a Bona Fide expert in the field is not a fallacy.
> If I cite Einstein on relativity, that's hardly fallacious... obviously.
> ...



Yeah. Appeal to authority is a last ditch effort when someone has no valid argument. It seems prevalent in the flat-earther types.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think I've met a single Conspiracist (or GOPer for that matter), who knows what the Appeal to Authority Fallacy is.
> ...



And that is where you ended up...how much of a square meter (snicker) of atmosphere that is actually capable of radiating did you say is radiating according to the S-B law?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And that is where you ended up...how much of a square meter (snicker) of atmosphere that is actually capable of radiating did you say is radiating according to the S-B law?


If you want to continue misinterpreting the slab atmosphere example, take it to the Official Deniers thread made just for you.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And that is where you ended up...how much of a square meter (snicker) of atmosphere that is actually capable of radiating did you say is radiating according to the S-B law?
> ...


How much of a square meter of atmosphere, if there were such a thing is even capable of radiating?  How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?

It is the basis of the greenhouse effect...answer the question.

And how much of it does the SB law assume is radiating?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> How much of a square meter of atmosphere, if there were such a thing is even capable of radiating? How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?
> 
> It is the basis of the greenhouse effect...answer the question.



That is a good question, and worthy of looking into.

Probability of CO2 emission from excited state (with no collision)
 = 1 / 30,000

Number of air molecules per m³ = 2.53 10²⁵ (Use Avogadro's number)
CO2 density: 400 ppm
Number of *CO2 molecules per m³* @ 400ppm = *1.01 10²²*

Number in 15 micron excitation state *1.01 10²²* x 2/9 = *0.244 10²²* (2/9 comes from Equipartition Principle)

Relaxation time for CO2 vibration 6 microSec.
There will be roughly *0.244 10²²* molecules emitting 15 micron radiation every 6 microSec (6.0 10⁻⁶ sec)
Number of photons per second from CO2 = number x probability / 6.0 10⁻⁶
= *0.244* *10²²* / ( 30,000 x 6.0 10⁻⁶ ) = *1.35 10²²* emissions / sec

Energy of 15 micron photon = *1.3 10⁻²⁰* J
Joules per second of 15 micron photons = *1.35 10²²* x *1.3 10⁻²⁰* J/s = *1.75 x 10²* W

*Conclusion:*
So even though the collision probability is very high and there are only 400 ppm of CO2, the radiation density is around *175 Watts *radiating within a cubic meter at STP. That doesn't count what CO2 absorbs from the earth's total *396 W/ m²* radiation.  

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?



It is easier to compute a figure for conduction of heat through air.  Why don't you have a go at the computation and we can compare notes and methodology.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?
> ...


Don't dodge you seem to believe that the SB law can tell you how much a square meter of atmosphere (snicker) is radiating to a tenth of a Wm^2...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Nope, no dodge. Post #780 gives the total radiation power density in a cubic meter. It's radiation is isotropic. 

 You still haven't given a figure for the conduction of heat through air. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Laughing out loud in your stupid face....

30,000?  Really?  How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air?  When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..

No doubt you believe yourself even though there is no such thing as a square meter of air...of course you believe all manner of rediculousness.....

You may as well calculate the percentage of unicorns that successfully complete the yearly migration...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Laughing out loud in your stupid face....
> 
> 30,000? Really? How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air? When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..
> 
> ...



Ho hum. Still laughing out loud at your monitor screen? And another unicorn reference! How unique.

Still hung up on your slab atmosphere example? We are past that. You demanded to know what a cubic meter of CO2 was radiating. I showed you it is around 175 Watts isotropically.

How about a computation on the conduction of heat in the atmosphere. It's easy. I will give you my answer: 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Laughing out loud in your stupid face....
> ...



You demonstrate the garbage in garbage out principle perfectly...you actually believe that 1 in 30,000 CO2 molecules actually radiates a photon?  In any given cubic centimeter of air, there are roughly 77,000,000 molecules...of those, about 30,000 are CO2 molecules...the odds of any of those thirty thousand molecules not having a collision with any of the 77 million molecules they are jostling around with in the time between absorption and emission of a photon is not even close to 1 in 30,000...not even close.  I think William Happer was closer to the mark when he said that about 1 in a billion CO2 molecules will escape a collision and actually emit a photon...

Your numbers based on your wildly wrong odds of a CO2 molecule actually emitting a photon are so far off, that it isn't even funny to me.....garbage in..garbage out...the guiding principle of climate science..


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec.  That means that, on the average, within *6000 nanoSec* it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference,  https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is *0.2 nanoSec*. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns. 

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
 CO2 emission probability is  *0.2 ns* / *6000 ns* = *1 / 30,000*

So, your guess was wrong. There is a *175* Watt radiation density due to CO2. 
Conduction is only *0.000255* Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY.  I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


The second law defines this. 

The observations tell us, bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted. *

When you finally post the masses of photons at various frequencies, will you also post their temperatures?
Can't wait to see your data.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle (as the equation describes). Your just to damn lazy to do the math...

Keep spinning TOAD, your circular arguments and lies bore me.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I doubt that it is laziness where toddster is concerned.  He has made it abundantly clear that he can't even read a simple equation...much less solve one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle*

I saw your imaginary equation. Any back up?
Any link that shows the temperature of these photons? No?

LOL!

DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You never responded to my post about a 41C object radiating toward a 50C object. Why is that?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *
> 
> Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?


Yes it did
And now it is changing at an accelerated pace

The earth can survive any climate change. It is one tough piece of rock
It is humans who are vulnerable


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *
> ...



*And now it is changing at an accelerated pace*

How do you know?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I didn't respond because the comment really didn't warrant any response...Which part of the second law of thermodynamics makes you think that could ever happen?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *
> ...



The only proxy temperature reconstructions that have sufficient resolution to support your claim of accelerated change are ice core temperature reconstructions and they all show changes in the past that were much larger than the bit of warming we have seen...and those changes happening much faster than any we have seen...so which studies do you think show otherwise?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.*

I explained that work was done, so why do you feel no energy will flow from cooler to warmer?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Do describe the "work" that you believe is being done in order to move energy from the 41 degree object to the 50 degree object.

In simple terms, this is the work being done to move energy from cool to warm in a refrigerator

1. The compressor constricts the refrigerant vapor, raising its pressure, and pushes it into the coils on the outside of the refrigerator.

2. When the hot gas in the coils meets the cooler air temperature of the kitchen, it becomes a liquid.

3. Now in liquid form at high pressure, the refrigerant cools down as it flows into the coils inside the freezer and the fridge.

4. The refrigerant absorbs the heat inside the fridge, cooling down the air.

5. Last, the refrigerant evaporates to a gas, then flows back to the compressor, where the cycle starts all over.

So do describe the work being done to move energy from your 41 degree object to a 50 degree object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Do describe the "work" that you believe is being done in order to move energy from the 41 degree object to the 50 degree object.*

The work that warmed the 40C object up to 41C.

Like the work done to heat a flashlight filament to 3000C allows those photons to travel towards the Sun's
5500C surface. 

Unless that's not allowed under your physics regime?

Like the work done to make the Sun's surface 5500C allows those photons to non-spnotaneously travel into the much hotter corona.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 10, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *
> ...


Humans can evolve to embrace climate change, global warming too


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you can't describe any such work...figures.

And what sort of evidence do you have that photons from a flashlight ever reach the sun?  It may come as a surprise to you..but simply imagining a thing doesn't make it so....evidence...it is all about evidence which is why I ask for it so often...you might take time to wonder why you guys never seem to be able to produce any.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*So you can't describe any such work...figures.*

Energy can't move from cooler to hotter, unless work is done.
The work done at the Sun's core (fusion) travels to the Sun's surface and then through the hotter corona.
I did work (chemical battery) to get the 40C object up to 41C. Work which allows the 41C object to radiate toward the 50C object.

Unless you're claiming I need to do work to make the cooler 40C object hotter than the 50C object?

Is that your claim? 

*And what sort of evidence do you have that photons from a flashlight ever reach the sun?*

I breathlessly await your proof that my flashlight photons are prohibited from hitting the Sun.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Energy can't move from cooler to hotter, unless work is done.
> The work done at the Sun's core (fusion) travels to the Sun's surface and then through the hotter corona.



Actually, that isn't at all what science thinks...alfen waves have been pointed out to you before, but since that doesn't jibe with your beliefs, you tend to forget.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I did work (chemical battery) to get the 40C object up to 41C.



Not sure what sort of work you are claiming, but OK...you did some work to get the temperarature up to 41C



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Work which allows the 41C object to radiate toward the 50C object.



Describe the work that moved energy from a cooler object to a warmer object...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unless you're claiming I need to do work to make the cooler 40C object hotter than the 50C object?



Who needs to claim that...it is obvious through observation and measurement.  Energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...if you want energy to move to a 50 degree object from an object that is 41 degrees, then you are going to need to raise the temperature..



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I breathlessly await your proof that my flashlight photons are prohibited from hitting the Sun.



*Second Law of Thermodynamics*: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.  

It is becoming clear that you don't really grasp the concept of work...what it is....what constitutes it....etc.  You continue to think like a 5 year old.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Energy can't move from cooler to hotter, unless work is done.
> ...



*alfen waves have been pointed out to you before*

Nobody cares about alfen waves. Just about cooler surface photons moving toward hotter corona.

*Not sure what sort of work you are claiming, but OK...you did some work to get the temperarature up to 41C*

The work in the Sun's core allows the cooler surface to non-spontaneously radiate through the hotter corona.
The work to heat to 41C allows the cooler body to non-spontaneously radiate to the hotter body.
The work done to heat the flashlight filament allows the photons from the flashlight to hitter the hotter surface of the sun.

You have early onset dementia? You forget your old claims?

*Who needs to claim that...it is obvious through observation and measurement.*​
Only to you. By yourself. All alone. Weird.

​*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.  *​​Yup. Flashlight has a battery. Makes the photons non-spontaneous, remember?​​*You continue to think like a 5 year old.*​​A 5 year old thinking circles around you. Sad.​​Maybe you should email Dr. Raeder, ask him about flashlight photons being prohibited from hitting the sun?​​He could probably use another laugh.​


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


you think he wouldn't believe in the 2nd Law?  hmmmm you know him?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and the 2nd Law is still the 2nd Law.  you provide the law that contradicts that, we'll read it. Until then, you can blabber about all you want on here, you still haven't refuted the 2nd Law.


What Causes the Sun to Give off Heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I think Dr. Raeder actually understands the 2nd Law, unlike your buddy.

You should email him.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


seems you should, it's you that says it does something it doesn't.  In that way you can get your verification of fact.  go for it, let us know what he tells you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*and the 2nd Law is still the 2nd Law.*

And SSDD is still confused.

*you provide the law that contradicts that, we'll read it. *

Nothing contradicts the 2nd Law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*seems you should,*

I did. SSDD's errors made him chuckle.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so you agree with...


Clausius statement: Heat cannot transfer from a low-temperature body to the high-temperature body until unless there is an external force on the system.
Otherwise, you need to find the document that says otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Reread my posts for the external sources of energy.

Do you feel flashlight photons can't hit the Sun's surface? Why?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


go outside and point your flashlight at it and tell us what it does.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Do you think that opening your front door on a frigid winter day makes your house warmer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Is there a force-field around the Sun?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Is there anything that prevents photons from outside my house from entering my house when I open the door?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you should go find out.  seems you have many questions on the sun.  when is your flight to experiment with it?

Hey curious, if you shined your flashlight at the International Space Station, will they see it?


----------



## deanrd (Sep 11, 2019)

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

deanrd said:


> How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.


what about them?  that's a rather all encompassing sentence.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *alfen waves have been pointed out to you before*
> 
> Nobody cares about alfen waves. Just about cooler surface photons moving toward hotter corona.



People who are wondering what sort of work could move the energy from deep in the sun to the corona wonder....clearly you wouldn't because you have yet to grasp how alfen waves could constitute the work necessary to move the energy.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The work in the Sun's core allows the cooler surface to non-spontaneously radiate through the hotter corona.



Your 40 degree object emits alfen waves?  Have you told any plasma physicists about that?  I am sure they would be interested.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The work done to heat the flashlight filament allows the photons from the flashlight to hitter the hotter surface of the sun.



Cleary you don't grasp what constitutes work...what sort of work do you think the flashlight is doing that would cause energy to move from a cooler object to a warmer object?  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have early onset dementia? You forget your old claims?



Of course not...and the claims you are making bear no resemblance to any argument I ever put forward...  As I said, the concept of work, and what constitutes it clearly escapes you...

*Who needs to claim that...it is obvious through observation and measurement.*



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup. Flashlight has a battery. Makes the photons non-spontaneous, remember?



Again...you are confusing work that is necessary to move energy from cool objects to warm objects with the whole discussion over what was a spontaneous process and what wasn't...like I said...over your head...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> A 5 year old thinking circles around you. Sad.



Sorry guy...the only one going in circles is you...to bad you have been unable to understand any of the discussions you are referring to.
​


----------



## abu afak (Sep 19, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> Do you think that opening your front door on a frigid winter day makes your house warmer?


Ask Billy Bobb, Weatherman2020 who have recent two day weather as "Climate Cooling, or better yet Skookerassballs who has a several year thread full (with most Deniers) of the same Fallacy.
They never even post the 10 day forecast, just a report or picture of a backyard.

`

`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


did you even read the material in the links you provided?  I expect you can post one paragraph from all of that that actually points to human involvement.  Right?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2019)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


why didn't you answer Frank?  afraid of being proved wrong?


----------



## abu afak (Sep 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> did you even read the material in the links you provided?  I expect you can post one paragraph from all of that that actually points to human involvement.  Right?


Yes of course you one line Dope.
You didn't read the thread.
One (just one) of the most Poignant is that for the last 50 years Scientists have measured solar output and forcing, and they have not increased...
But temperature has pretty steadily.

Thanks for letting me reiterate/Bump my point you worthless one line heel nipper.
(I waited until it was further down the board to do so. 
It's a tactical/IQ thing empty-last-word boy)

`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2019)

abu afak said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > did you even read the material in the links you provided?  I expect you can post one paragraph from all of that that actually points to human involvement.  Right?
> ...


and yet you can't pop out one thing that shows that humans are a cause to climate change.  not one observation.  Not fking one!!! all of those scientists and all of that equipment and zip.  wow dude, you are some kind of stupid.


----------



## Crick (Sep 26, 2019)

This, in conjunction with the isotopic analysis that clearly shows atmospheric CO2  above 280 ppm to have originated in the combustion of fossil fuels, is evidence that anthropogenic factors have been the primary source of the global warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> This, in conjunction with the isotopic analysis that clearly shows atmospheric CO2  above 280 ppm to have originated in the combustion of fossil fuels, is evidence of human causation.








No it isn't.   How many times do you have to be told that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> This, in conjunction with the isotopic analysis that clearly shows atmospheric CO2  above 280 ppm to have originated in the combustion of fossil fuels, is evidence that anthropogenic factors have been the primary source of the global warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years.


i'm still waiting for you to tell us what it's actually doing to change climate?


----------



## abu afak (Sep 29, 2019)

deanrd said:


> *How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.*


*And they think Trump's 11,000 Lies is the same as all the other Presidents' 2 or 3.*

They're quantitatively/numerical challenged.
And we're supposed to explain 1 or 1.5 degrees celsius to people who can't distinguish 1 from 1000?

`


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 30, 2019)

abu afak said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > *How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.*
> ...




Yea like I would believe this is fucking accurate to a degree after he recorded it 100 years ago.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> This, in conjunction with the isotopic analysis that clearly shows atmospheric CO2  above 280 ppm to have originated in the combustion of fossil fuels, is evidence that anthropogenic factors have been the primary source of the global warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years.



Not a bit of observed, measured data in the lot...all models all the time...nothing more than wild assed guesses....climate sceince has littered the scientific landscape of the past 4 decades with failed wild assed guesses...this is just more of the same.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

abu afak said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > *How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.*
> ...


VENDETTA


----------



## abu afak (Oct 8, 2019)

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


I'd like to believe you can show any better measurements. 

Then of course there is the Confirmation of Rising Sea level, Melting Glaciers, etc, in that period.

`


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2019)

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Got any evidence at all that the sea level was lower, and that the glaciers were larger prior to the onset of the little ice age which we are still warming out of?  Any at all?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 9, 2019)

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...




No one can, that's the ENTIRE problem 



.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 9, 2019)

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

"Opposing" (the AGW Consensus)

*Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,*[29]* NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.*[28][30]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[131] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".
According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."....".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


`


`​


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 10, 2019)

I have no problem with man-kind contributing to the current global warming episode ... but we really don't know how global warming occurs naturally ... and the ice core data is very plain that there are natural causes ... at best we can only speculate how much man-kind contributes ... if you'll pay me 2¢ per click, I'm going to post all kinds of crazy predictions; oceans boiling off by 2050, runaway greenhouse effect, Miley Cyrus' three headed alien love-child ... 

The majority of scientists worldwide haven't even taken a class in meteorology, let alone climatology ... typical atmospheric scientist is going hedge on the question, there's still too much we don't know about the climate system to say how much man-kind contributes ... 

Research continues ... we'll know what the climate is in year 2100 in just 80 years ...


----------



## abu afak (Jul 20, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I haven't seen Crick or Old Rocks lately, I can only assume that they chained themselves to the Chinese embassy to protest the massive amount of CO2 the Chinese are spewing into the atmosphere


They left for Saner pastures.
I did for a while too.
`


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 20, 2020)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen Crick or Old Rocks lately, I can only assume that they chained themselves to the Chinese embassy to protest the massive amount of CO2 the Chinese are spewing into the atmosphere
> ...



You weren't missed nor did you return with better debating skills.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2020)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen Crick or Old Rocks lately, I can only assume that they chained themselves to the Chinese embassy to protest the massive amount of CO2 the Chinese are spewing into the atmosphere
> ...


leftwing echo chambers are not saner pastures


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2020)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


wow...

I know what weather is and even a 10 day forecast is nothing more than weather. Your too stupid to understand even simple concepts as weather .


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 21, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They are Bob when you have to get away back to the padded isolation room at the local sanitarium to soak your head with likeminded people again for a long while to regroup yourself for another ass-kicking.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 22, 2020)

This is how seriously the left believes in preserving the environment.  This is the mess left behind by BLM in Seattle.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 22, 2020)

BS Filter said:


> This is how seriously the left believes in preserving the environment.  This is the mess left behind by BLM in Seattle.



What makes you think this is Seattle? ... just because it's wet? ... I understand, but there hasn't been that much rain there in months ... 

Cite or it didn't happen ... looks more like a garbage collector strike in Alabama ...


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > This is how seriously the left believes in preserving the environment.  This is the mess left behind by BLM in Seattle.
> ...


You ever been to Seattle?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 22, 2020)

BS Filter said:


> You ever been to Seattle?



Just a bit up north along The I-5 ... been to a few baseball games is all ... have you been to the Pacific Northwest? ...


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > You ever been to Seattle?
> ...


I live in the PNW.


----------



## elektra (Jul 22, 2020)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> *How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural*
> https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...


The first link, to a blog, should be a big clue that abu afac has no clue as to what is going on. 
Had he/she read the blog post, he/she would of realized it is not a science based article. First they state 97% of scientists agree? That is an opinion. All working climate scientists have never ever been surveyed. We have gone over this fact extensively. A group of people that are not scientists reviewed "scientific papers". Based on the content of those papers compared to specific set of conditions the people who made this claim decided if the scientists believed or not. We are not allowed to see the criteria this study was based on. We are not even allowed to see the study, unless we are willing to pay for it. 

This is an old argument proven false. It is the opinion of a team of people who read papers. It is not a survey of scientists.


> 97 percent of working climate scientists agree that the warming of Earth’s climate over the last 100 years is mainly due to human activity that has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why are they so sure?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 22, 2020)

BS Filter said:


> I live in the PNW.



And does this look like downtown Seattle? ... in summer? ... during dry season? ...


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > I live in the PNW.
> ...


No, it looks like early June when the vermin in Seattle were acting up.  Idiot.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 23, 2020)

BS Filter said:


> No, it looks like early June when the vermin in Seattle were acting up.  Idiot.



So ... you admit you don't know if that's Seattle or not ... it's an ugly picture of a garbage haulers strike and you thought you'd be funny ... it's still a lie ... your precious sagebrush whiteness has been bruised ...


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > No, it looks like early June when the vermin in Seattle were acting up.  Idiot.
> ...


Nope, I didn't admit anything.  Idiot.  It's a picture of Seattle.  You're the liar and everyone knows it.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 23, 2020)

BS Filter said:


> Nope, I didn't admit anything.  Idiot.  It's a picture of Seattle.  You're the liar and everyone knows it.



Geez ... you sure are quick to use the words "idiot" and "liar" ... those ideas weighing heavy on your mind? ...

That's not Seattle unless you have a citation ... looks more like the Deep South, conservatives cutting taxes and spending more ... what do those street signs say which street that is? ... strange how everything has been blurred out ... what kind of trees are those? ... 

Now don't get me wrong ... I agree the environmentalists are going too far too fast in your part of the country ... but this is Congress as a whole, both sides of the aisle, that is ruining your economy ... the Right doesn't give a rat's ass about you ...


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, I didn't admit anything.  Idiot.  It's a picture of Seattle.  You're the liar and everyone knows it.
> ...


You're an Idiot.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 11, 2020)

elektra said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> ...


There are links to many sites.
(Columbia, Yale, NASA, among those in my OP)
and I suggest you just type the premise/question in google for many more.

`


----------



## Dale Smith (Oct 11, 2020)

BS Filter said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > BS Filter said:
> ...


Abu and and the rest of the commie clowns that tout the U.N funded IPCC's "findings" are totally misinformed and they never bother to address nor add into the equation the variable of the SAIS aka "Solar Radiation Management Program. They also will never address the fact that we are going through a solar minimum cycle. "Climate Change" and the U.N Agenda 21 is about world government and the redistribution of wealth. It all goes back to the formation of the Club of Rome and their "Limits To Growth" agenda as well as "sustainable development" that was started in the late 60's. These morons are absolutely clueless and are advocating for a socialist, feudalistic like system of where there is no middle class.  Want to see what the future will look like if they get their way? Watch the Hunger Games".


----------



## the other mike (Oct 12, 2020)

The coal, nuclear, oil and gas industries, better known as the fossil fuel industry in general has done major damage--serious irreparable damage to the water in some areas. You add the combined additional pollution from Big Ag and Big Chem, and now we're cutting regulations to supposedly create jobs ?

Nobody will want to live here if they have to buy bottled water from Canada, including myself. 

Now you want to discuss climate change too ? That's fine....carry on.


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2020)

abu afak said:


> There are links to many sites.
> (Columbia, Yale, NASA, among those in my OP)
> and I suggest you just type the premise/question in google for many more.


Google is a big liberal democrat propaganda biased political site. All I have to do is type your false premise into google and, "believe"!

Like I said, you linked to a blog on a university website that you found using google. The blog expresses and opinion based on a study with limited parameters. Scientists were not asked if they know there is man-made global warming. 97% of scientists were not involved in this, "study". It is an opinion piece based on a set of parameters researched against "scientific papers", published behind a wall we must pay to see.

You have not read the study, you do not know the parameters they used. I doubt you could produce them in week let alone a day.

Google is not proof. You search a false premise and google gives you the political answer in which we must believe. That is not scientific, it is political. It is biased. It is propaganda.

Now go ahead and quote directly from that study you refer to and include a link. We will all wait holding our breaths.

Oh, and to correct myself, it is a survey. So post the survey referred to in your google search result.


----------



## elektra (Oct 13, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I haven't seen Crick or Old Rocks lately, I can only assume that they chained themselves to the Chinese embassy to protest the massive amount of CO2 the Chinese are spewing into the atmosphere


I made the claim that they were one and the same person. Strange that they are both gone. Kind of sad though, Old Crock is maybe too old to post.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 11, 2020)

elektra said:


> Google is a big liberal democrat propaganda biased political site. All I have to do is type your false premise into google and, "believe"!


No it is not.
This is just the Empty/Denialist view of someone on the right, conspiracists, etc.
Again, I suggest you actually type questions into google.. even for such things as error pop-ups. They will give working, not political answers.
Type in the opposite premise to mine if you like.
Many alt-right websites though, which are correct on things like Race, Islam, etc, have been unfairly scoured from youtube and other platforms.



> Like I said, you linked to a blog on a university website that you found using google. The blog expresses and opinion based on a study with limited parameters. Scientists were not asked if they know there is man-made global warming. 97% of scientists were not involved in this, "study". It is an opinion piece based on a set of parameters researched against "scientific papers", published behind a wall we must pay to see.
> You have not read the study, you do not know the parameters they used. I doubt you could produce them in week let alone a day.


Many of the links explain why and NASA also gathers the data/makes the observations itself.
I suggest you read some of the links FOR the reasons why.

*At the bottom of most all is the FACT they have measured solar output/forcing/radiation received by the earth, and UNLIKE all other warmings, this one is not caused by increased radiation received due to solar output/earth tilt, etc. Though we still do have some relatively short solar cycles (like minimums) within.
AND: radiation/heat being reflected back out into space is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the Greenhouse Gases.*

That's basically it/Gameover for you/everyone else here, included SunStrokeTommy.



> Google is not proof. You search a false premise and google gives you the political answer in which we must believe. That is not scientific, it is political. It is biased. It is propaganda.


*Science does not deal in "Proof," only math has proofs.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.*



> Now go ahead and quote directly from that study you refer to and include a link. We will all wait holding our breaths.
> Oh, and to correct myself, it is a survey. So post the survey referred to in your google search result.


Actually, citing a single study can be misleading/cherry-picking/quote mining, and not understand the overall concepts I posted above.
Good luck with future amateur denials.

`
`

*PS: It's incredible how much better/more intelligent the board looks with several prolific Trolls/clowns on ignore: SkookerAssbil, jc456, Toadstoolparrot, etc. May add a few more.*
`


----------



## ding (Dec 12, 2020)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?  We don't.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 12, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Many of the links explain why and NASA also gathers the data/makes the observations itself.
> I suggest you read some of the links FOR the reasons why.



This is patently false ... only NOAA has the extensive network of weather reporting stations and they partner with the other of the world's weather agencies to provide NASA with the observational data they use ... a common mistake ... NASA is conducting experiments in order to remotely gather this data, but that's all experimental at this point ... our climate data is still coming from NOAA ...

*


abu afak said:



			At the bottom of most all is the FACT they have measured solar output/forcing/radiation received by the earth, and UNLIKE all other warmings, this one is not caused by increased radiation received due to solar output/earth tilt, etc. Though we still do have some relatively short solar cycles (like minimums) within.
AND: radiation/heat being reflected back out into space is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the Greenhouse Gases.
		
Click to expand...

*
Let's see your numbers ... what is the measure of radiative forcing? ... what is the measure of radiation/heat being reflected back out? ... which wavelengths are being blocked by GHG, and what part of the energy? ...



abu afak said:


> *Science does not deal in "Proof," only math has proofs.
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.*



The physics portions of any discussion regarding radiative physics must have mathematical proofs ... or it's *conjecture*, not theory ... please, a link to the derivation of your claims ... specifically, what is the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration, radiative forcing, emissivity and surface temperature ... 

Some of the science is settled ... but much of it is not ... you Alarmists seem to have this backwards ... ignoring what is settled, and believing what hasn't been demonstrated ...


----------



## PredFan (Dec 12, 2020)

abu afak said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Google is a big liberal democrat propaganda biased political site. All I have to do is type your false premise into google and, "believe"!
> ...


You actually said that Google wasn’t a biased political site? And you expect anyone to take you seriously?


----------



## LaDairis (Jan 5, 2021)

ding said:


> How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? We don't.




We know that the Earth climate is 99% about where land is, which is why Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice of the Arctic.....


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2021)

LaDairis said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? We don't.
> ...


Sure.  Extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm.  Whereas at the north pole it's 280 ppm.


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Jan 5, 2021)

And the destruction of the ozone layer has nothing to do with it.   Sure. Uh huh
If you blame anybody on this conspiracy. Blame irresponsible industrial corporations and reckless science.. Not the population.
Now lets go mine lithium and build desposable batteries to solve it all
Only makes sense if you ay the stock market of course.
Perhaps a few more nuclear plants around fukushima as well. I heard uranium imining stocks are doing good again. It must be good for the environment.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2021)

ding said:


> LaDairis said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



70% of climate is where oceans are ... wow ... just wow ...

Glaciers don't form at the North Pole ... [shrugs shoulders] ... sorry, but that's life ...


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > LaDairis said:
> ...


They do, but not as readily as they do at the southern pole which has a continent parked on it.  The oceans and the sun are major players in climate but landmass configuration and atmospheric CO2 play their parts too.  Which is why we should be more worried about glacial cycles rather than a runaway greenhouse planet.  The latter just isn't going to happen.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2021)

ding said:


> They do, but not as readily as they do at the southern pole which has a continent parked on it.  The oceans and the sun are major players in climate but landmass configuration and atmospheric CO2 play their parts too.  Which is why we should be more worried about glacial cycles rather than a runaway greenhouse planet.  The latter just isn't going to happen.



I think you're confusing "sea ice" with "glaciers" ... those are two different things that form in two different ways ... having different reactions to carbon dioxide ... my point is that we have glaciers growing here in the Northern Hemisphere in spite having 415 ppm ... why are you saying 280 ppm is the cutoff and it's physically impossible for glaciers to be expanding? ... and there are glaciers retreating in the Southern Hemisphere, yet still under your 600 ppm figure ... this doesn't make any sense ...

Why on Earth are you worried about glacial cycles? ... seriously, you're ready fro a sub-900 mb Cat 5 hurricane landing on your beach house? ...


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > They do, but not as readily as they do at the southern pole which has a continent parked on it.  The oceans and the sun are major players in climate but landmass configuration and atmospheric CO2 play their parts too.  Which is why we should be more worried about glacial cycles rather than a runaway greenhouse planet.  The latter just isn't going to happen.
> ...


Whatever those things are.  That's what I am talking about.  If you want to play dumb about different thresholds for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation, that's your mistake to make.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Sure.  Extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm.  Whereas at the north pole it's 280 ppm.





ding said:


> Whatever those things are.  That's what I am talking about.  If you want to play dumb about different thresholds for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation, that's your mistake to make.



That's not how physics works ... unless you can explain why ... the radiative qualities of CO2 are the same either side of the equator ... I understand a computer programmer can make a simulation give these results ... echo "See, I'm right"; ... that's just part of the statistical arts, doesn't mean there's any basis in fact ... 

Why are these "tipping points" so vastly different ... and what empirical data confirms this ...


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Sure.  Extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm.  Whereas at the north pole it's 280 ppm.
> ...


That is how physics works.  You are dismissing the role land masses play in climate.  Earth's climate at any given time is dependent upon a whole host of factors.  The two polar regions have different atmospheric CO2 thresholds for glaciation because of our current plate tectonic configuration.  It's not even a up for debate.  No one questions this.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2021)

ding said:


> That is how physics works.  You are dismissing the role land masses play in climate.  Earth's climate at any given time is dependent upon a whole host of factors.  The two polar regions have different atmospheric CO2 thresholds for glaciation because of our current plate tectonic configuration.  It's not even a up for debate.  No one questions this.



I have to guess here, but I think you're talking about continentality ... and that only effects climates on land, mostly in the temperate cell ... that averages out over the year ... colder in winter, warming in summer; so a wash in our climate averages, and just over land ... obviously, there's no continentality over the oceans ... 

If your mind is set in stone in this, then don't be upset if people called you closed-minded ... there's no debate until you can use the right words ...


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > That is how physics works.  You are dismissing the role land masses play in climate.  Earth's climate at any given time is dependent upon a whole host of factors.  The two polar regions have different atmospheric CO2 thresholds for glaciation because of our current plate tectonic configuration.  It's not even a up for debate.  No one questions this.
> ...


I'm OK with people believing I am closed minded.  Do you have a teachers edition on using the "right words" or something?  Cause I don't think I could have been any clearer.  Our planet is tectonically (northern pole isolated from warmer marine currents) and atmospherically (CO2 of 400 ppm) configured for bipolar glaciation.  This has led to greater temperature swings for the planet primarily because of northern hemisphere glaciation.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2021)

ding said:


> I'm OK with people believing I am closed minded.  Do you have a teachers edition on using the "right words" or something?  Cause I don't think I could have been any clearer.  Our planet is tectonically (northern pole isolated from warmer marine currents) and atmospherically (CO2 of 400 ppm) configured for bipolar glaciation.  This has led to greater temperature swings for the planet primarily because of northern hemisphere glaciation.



Oh ... you're talking about weather then ... sorry ... yes, in science, words have specific meanings ... climate is the average over a long period of time of weather ... so when you use the word climate, I assume that's what you're talking about ... take a class or read a decent textbook ...

Do you agree you're talking about continentality? ... or is there something else you have in mind? ...


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I'm OK with people believing I am closed minded.  Do you have a teachers edition on using the "right words" or something?  Cause I don't think I could have been any clearer.  Our planet is tectonically (northern pole isolated from warmer marine currents) and atmospherically (CO2 of 400 ppm) configured for bipolar glaciation.  This has led to greater temperature swings for the planet primarily because of northern hemisphere glaciation.
> ...


No.  I'm talking about climate.  I would say that greenhouse worlds, icehouse worlds and the conditions that led to them  would be climate discussions. 

But if you want to keep playing silly games... why is it that you are so ignorant of the background conditions that led to true climate changes?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 6, 2021)

ding said:


> No.  I'm talking about climate.  I would say that greenhouse worlds, icehouse worlds and the conditions that led to them  would be climate discussions.
> But if you want to keep playing silly games... why is it that you are so ignorant of the background conditions that led to true climate changes?



Are you speaking about continentality? ... third time I've asked ... background conditions are found in the O-18 proxy or ice core data ...


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No.  I'm talking about climate.  I would say that greenhouse worlds, icehouse worlds and the conditions that led to them  would be climate discussions.
> ...


I'm really sorry you can't decipher what I am saying.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 6, 2021)

ding said:


> I'm really sorry you can't decipher what I am saying.



Try using normal words then ...


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really sorry you can't decipher what I am saying.
> ...


Try not playing games.  Vainglory sucks.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really sorry you can't decipher what I am saying.
> ...


You can't get more than one short line out of ding-bat.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2021)

abu afak said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That’s all I need to put your sorry ass down, dummy.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 19, 2021)

PredFan said:


> You actually said that Google wasn’t a biased political site? And you expect anyone to take you seriously?


And how should the 'unbiased' result should have come up?
With climate/sci expert Trump saying it's all a Chinese hoax?

`


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2021)

According to the IPCC. the unquestioned authority on climate change, the future climate cannot be predicted using computer models. Said it 30 years ago.

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Dont shoot the messenger


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 23, 2021)

skookerasbil said:


> According to the IPCC. the unquestioned authority on climate change, the future climate cannot be predicted using computer models. Said it 30 years ago.
> 
> IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> 
> Dont shoot the messenger



It in my signature:   *"The climate system is a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"* --- IPCC


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > According to the IPCC. the unquestioned authority on climate change, the future climate cannot be predicted using computer models. Said it 30 years ago.
> ...




That is the exact statement I am referring to........have posted it many times over the years. Completely ignored by the k00ks.

fakery is ghey


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > According to the IPCC. the unquestioned authority on climate change, the future climate cannot be predicted using computer models. Said it 30 years ago.
> ...


Quote Mining" (we see it alot by creationists to make it APPEAR people who believe in evolution don't do so)






						Quoting out of context - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Quoting out of context* (sometimes referred to as *contextomy* or *quote mining*) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]...
- -- --  - - - -





__





						Quote mining
					

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...




					rationalwiki.org
				




*Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote....​

`


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


This issue needs to STOP getting politicized.
1. It makes ZERO sense to exempt China from mass reforms, as the world's biggest pollution generators,  while penalizing the US and other economies to skew political control.

2. If people like liberals are motivated by these arguments, then you don't need to preach to the choir already convinced. Just invest in greener sustainable living, cooperative community development, energy and economy. And encourage others by example. No further debate needed.

3. For people NOT moved by these arguments: Just arguing for more cost effective sustainable self governing economy and production will make the same points about reducing pollution and emissions. The same solutions will reduce CO2 as well as other environmental damage. 

No need to argue this particular angle, trying to "prove a global impact on climate." 

Just agreeing on self sufficient means as more sustainable, healthy and cost effective for people and the planet leads to the same solutions.

Preserving clean air and water means stopping excess waste, emissions and consumption. Restoring forests, oceans and wildlife also means reducing unnatural consumption, destruction, and contamination of land from excess production.

4. Otherwise, if people arguing for these changes don't compel themselves or China to cut down on production and consumption, THAT is what people deny reject and object to. The politics behind this.

Get rid of that. Stick to conservative ideals of owning and taking care of land yourself. And promote equal responsibility for all people. Not just arguments and proposed solutions "politicized" to control SOME policies while attacking or punishing dissenters as part of the political strategy.

This detracts, demeans and discredits the real issue of environmental preservation where everyone can agree on clean air water and energy.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> ...


Well apparently there is a need to "politicize"... by the vast MAJORITY of posters in this section and on this overwhelming Con-Clown message board as the great majority do NOT believe in AGW.
Check the thread starts here. Look at THAT 'climate.'
I am not politicizing the great CONSENSUS that exists on the topic.
The "Koch Heads" are.

I agree on China, but why pressure them if the ***holes on the "fake news" Right are in denial we are warming it.
Including our last President.

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> I agree on China, but why pressure them if the ***holes on the "fake news" Right are in denial we are warming it.



If you're correct, pressure the Chinese despite any deniers.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 24, 2021)

Consider:


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2021)

Stryder50 said:
			
		

> [Exception graphs/SPAM



*Consider this UNBIASED search you cherry/sht-picking ***hole.

How many dead on Trackers do you want?











						co2 temperature - Google Search
					





					www.google.com
				



*


`


----------



## ding (Feb 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess it's OK for people who live in shit hole 3rd world middle eastern countries (like you) to want the planet to be colder but people who live in the the first world shouldn't want that.


----------



## ding (Feb 25, 2021)

FFS people... we are in an ice age and you want the planet to be colder?


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My, aren't you the classic example of civility. 
BTW, consider also pulling up your trousers, your brain is getting chilly~freezing.

Had you bothered to look through this link you present you'd notice a couple of things;

1) Some of those "*cherry/sht-picking*" charts/graphs I presented are on that search page list.
2) Most of those are also showing cherry picking of data slanted either way.
3) Many show what is more a case of coincidence rather than cause.
4) Many also show temperature increases preceded CO2 increases (could we then assume that it's more often temperature increases ~ allowing for more Life, flora and fauna ~ that results in CO2 increases ???)

NOTE that what I'm attempting to show in previous post is that on a planet that is 4+ BILLION years old, proper perspective of the atmospheric composition and temperature ranges over that time-span provide a better basis of information than some selectively stacked data representations only going back a century or two (100-200 years).

Now if you happen to be one of those loonies whom really buy$ into the $cam$ and $ham$ (follow the funding) of human-caused/anthropogenic Climate Change(ACC)/Global Warming(AGW) then show your strength of conviction and cease completely and 100% ALL Carbon Dioxide(CO2) emissions on your part, especially those respiratory exhalations you present.

BTW, your post provides so much material through that link, I may have to use it another time or two to provide further examples of the faulty non-science being used to drive ideological and political agendas.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 25, 2021)

ding said:


> FFS people... we are in an ice age and you want the planet to be colder?


Actually, that remains a bit debatable.  Per this chart, we may still be in an "inter-glacial"~'warm period', but as the chart shows, for the past half million years about 80-90 percent of the time spent in either trans-glacial (that 30-20 degree band) easing into or jumping out of the glacials=Ice Ages, or actually in a glacial=ice age.






Some of those warmer "inter-glacials" a bit short lived, about 5,000 years or so, and others a bit longer in the 20-40,000 years or so.  At the present, we've been in one of about 12-15,000 years duration, depending when and whom is doing the counting.  But we could easily be on the verge of a decline and sometimes the drop can happen within a life-time, century or so.
Climate Crash








						Climate Crash
					

As scientists carefully search for clues in the sun and storm patterns from our distant past, they are gradually writing a new history of...



					www.goodreads.com
				




Notice also that per this graph, three of the past four "inter-glacial" warm periods show temperatures that were higher~warmer than what the world is experiencing now.

However, your point is one for concern, as if we aren't careful and engage too much poorly conceived geo-engineering to counter the hypothesis of ACC/AGW we could trigger that sudden and rapid descent into another glaciation~ice age.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's an interesting excerpt from one of the charts on the link you provided;
...
I report here that proxies for temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration are generally uncorrelated across the Phanerozoic climate, showing that atmospheric CO2 did not drive the ancient climate. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a less-direct measure of its effect on global temperature than marginal radiative forcing, however, which is nonetheless also generally uncorrelated with temperature across the Phanerozoic. The present findings from the Phanerozoic climate provide possible insights into the role of atmospheric CO2 in more recent glacial cycling and for contemporary climate science and carbon policies. Finally, I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators. This finding suggests an urgent need for research aimed at quantifying the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and past mass extinctions. I conclude that that limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity. 
...




...
The present findings corroborate the earlier conclusion based on study of the Paleozoic climate that “global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.” [64] (p. 198). The present study shows further, however, that past atmospheric CO2 concentration oscillates on a cycle of 15–20 My and an amplitude of a few hundred to several hundreds of ppmv. A second longer cycle oscillates at 60–70 My. As discussed below, the peaks of the ~15 My cycles align closely with the times of identified mass extinctions during the Phanerozoic Eon, inviting further research on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and mass extinctions during the Phanerozoic. 
...








						The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
					

Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity requires an understanding of the relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and global temperature (T). Here I explore this relationship empirically using comprehensive, recently-compiled databases...




					www.mdpi.com


----------



## abu afak (Feb 25, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> *Here's an interesting excerpt from one of the charts on the link you provided;*
> ...


*I provided a HUGE amount of charts: a fair unbiased search term.*
 
*










						co2 temperature - Google Search
					





					www.google.com
				




Those look pretty damn consistent to any fair observer and Refute Stryder25. *

*At least the first 30 Confirmed you the Dishonest Cherry-picker you are.
AND Continue to be/do it again!
You got Crushed Flat Earth boy.
And cherry-picking a few more only proves MY point.*

*And No doubt you're going to see a Picture show below.
Trying to Bury/COMPENSATE the fact with Color and Volume... as Stryder12.5 did in his first group of crayolas.*

(thx for the page top)


*PS:* *WHY this warming is DIFFERENT than other 'cycles' (isn't a cycle) is also explained Multiple times in the OP.*




`


----------



## ding (Feb 25, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > FFS people... we are in an ice age and you want the planet to be colder?
> ...


The term ice age can refer to the period from ~2.7 million years ago until today which is when the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet.  There have actually been ~30 glacial / intergalcial cycles since that time.  The term ice age can also refer to a glacial cycle during the present ice age which is how you took it.  But I am really talking about is the bigger picture of how our planet is currently configured for bipolar glaciation.  It is literally idiotic to want to reduce atmospheric CO2 and make the planet colder.  

Most people think there have only been 4 glacial cycles or so but those are just the major ones of the past 400,000 years.   Clearly the trend has been towards bigger and more severe glacial cycles.   But they began happening ~2.7 million years ago.  It coincided with the planet becoming susceptible to bipolar glaciation which is a new thing for the planet.  The background conditions which led to it are isolated polar regions from the warmer marine waters, rise of panama isthmus, rise of the Himalayan mountains and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm.  Conditions which still exist today.  Extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south pole at ~600 ppm and 280 ppm at the north pole.  The different thresholds of glaciation is because the south pole has a continent parked on top of it whereas the north pole has an ocean which is mostly isolated from the warmer marine currents.  So it's harder for ice to form at the north pole than it is the south pole.  Not surprisingly, it is the northern hemisphere glaciation which drives the climate of the earth.  

Since becoming an ice house planet ~2.7 million years ago temperature swings have become more drastic and more frequent.  The planet is poised to become cold.  The planet is not poised to become hot.


----------



## ding (Feb 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > *Here's an interesting excerpt from one of the charts on the link you provided;*
> ...


Let's talk climate, dude.  Why you keep running away?


----------



## ding (Feb 25, 2021)

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/what-did-the-continents-look-like-millions-of-years-ago/279892/


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > *Here's an interesting excerpt from one of the charts on the link you provided;*
> ...


A "*HUGE amount of charts*  " from a range of sources and biases.
Actual, #24 (of those first 30) is this which I've provided a couple of times;




From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...llion-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391

Only one "crushed" is you by your ignorance, or delusions.
FWIW, I'm just the opposite of "*Flat Earth boy* " since I'm the one whom advocates that Earth is not a good metric for exobiology as being the only example of plate tectonics and near co-planetary orbiting satellite puts our wold in a very unique category. Such as the tidal hydrosphere with tidal based biosphere making such things like geoducs possible and a hot connoisseur item on Rigel 7 and Alpha-Centauri B 3.

Meanwhile you fail to prove how one molecule's IR retention cause the other 2,499 molecules in ratio to also become warmer.  You may want to refresh on basic sciences and maths.

As for: "(thx for the page top)" ~ anything to help you show how much a fool and flop you are.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 25, 2021)

ding said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


OK ~ Given that context I see what you meant and agree totally.
It's that undercurrent of warmer water at the North Pole which makes for a thin ice sheet which the USS Nautilus, first USN nuclear powered submarine, was able to punch through back about 1954ish.

Not only has Earth's surface~continents been in continual flux~change over the past 4+ billion years, but so has the corresponding atmosphere and climates.  
...
*Second atmosphere*

Outgassing from volcanism, supplemented by gases produced during the late heavy bombardment of Earth by huge asteroids, produced the next atmosphere, consisting largely of nitrogen plus carbon dioxide and inert gases.[41] A major part of carbon-dioxide emissions dissolved in water and reacted with metals such as calcium and magnesium during weathering of crustal rocks to form carbonates that were deposited as sediments. Water-related sediments have been found that date from as early as 3.8 billion years ago.[42]

About 3.4 billion years ago, nitrogen formed the major part of the then stable "second atmosphere". The influence of life has to be taken into account rather soon in the history of the atmosphere, because hints of early life-forms appear as early as 3.5 billion years ago.[43] How Earth at that time maintained a climate warm enough for liquid water and life, if the early Sun put out 30% lower solar radiance than today, is a puzzle known as the "faint young Sun paradox".

The geological record however shows a continuous relatively warm surface during the complete early temperature record of Earth – with the exception of one cold glacial phase about 2.4 billion years ago. In the late Archean Eon an oxygen-containing atmosphere began to develop, apparently produced by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria (see Great Oxygenation Event), which have been found as stromatolite fossils from 2.7 billion years ago. The early basic carbon isotopy (isotope ratio proportions) strongly suggests conditions similar to the current, and that the fundamental features of the carbon cycle became established as early as 4 billion years ago.

Ancient sediments in the Gabon dating from between about 2.15 and 2.08 billion years ago provide a record of Earth's dynamic oxygenation evolution. These fluctuations in oxygenation were likely driven by the Lomagundi carbon isotope excursion.[44]
...








						Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 25, 2021)

ding said:


> https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...nents-look-like-millions-of-years-ago/279892/


EXCELLENT graphic showing how Earth has transitioned over the eons.
I'll try to remember to "quote" again later so you can have those "top of the page" honors.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


Here's a good graphic you can use to illustrate the point.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 26, 2021)

ding said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



The arctic ocean is slated to mostly disappear in the future as the Canadian North will cover the region, then a similar permanent ice field will develop causing a probable permanent glaciation situation.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 26, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


So 29 out of 30 agree with AGW, not that the one you CHERRY PICKED doesn't.

You used the 'Berner' graph which is Not in conflict with current climate warming theory.
​Yale Obit: "...Arguably his broadest impact has been in the area of carbon cycling. For example, Bob spearheaded the quantitative interpretation of the CO2 content of the atmosphere over the last 600 million years of Earth history. *His work provided the basis for virtually all modern carbon cycling research going on today. This understanding of past CO2 levels and paleoclimates has provided an invaluable baseline of comparison for determining the impact of today’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the atmosphere and the associated climate change.”.."*​In memoriam: Robert Berner, a ‘giant of geology’​
That would be the same Yale in the OP!
*Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections 


What you stupidly or disingenuously picked was a scaling error.
A 600 Million year old graph to look at whether the CO2/GHGs from the 150 yr old Industrial revolution affected climate of the last thousands, tens/hundreds of Thousands! 
Like looking at a long distance astronomical photo of earth to decide if people are dying of bee stings in the 21st Century.*
A huge non-analogous comparison that doesn't show all the other Major conditions that affected temp over hundreds of millions of years: now irrelevant.

Like the two IDIOTIC posts of 'ding,' with' continental drift. (YOU thanked)
That does NOT go to CO2 or other GHGs warming the climate in the last century+.
It's Numb Nuts/Irrelevant unless I was claiming there are/were NO other factors in warming.. ever!

*That's why we can see the Co2 (other GHG) fantastic correlation on shorter scale/more analogous graphs of OUR age and those closer. The other 29 of 30 graphs (You ***hole).*

That answers you, Ding-bat and Tommy.

I must say Stryder6.25, since you aren't ignorant, you must understand the above, and see the overwhelming evidence of the Google Link Graphs, that you are being DISHONEST for argument sake (not ignorant) because you're a RW Partisan Hack/Blinded. 
But you're not smart enough to pull it off against me.

Gameover #8476.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


Yep, it's going to get colder.


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Hey dummy, CO2 has never driven climate change and the earth is uniquely configured to be colder.  That's why you don't want to debate me heads up.  In 50 years you will be arguing you knew all along the real risk was a colder planet.


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2021)

Let's talk climate abu afak


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2021)

abu afak you seem to be losing the debate on climate.  Would you like to tell me more about computer simulations?

Speaking of computer simulations?  What atmospheric CO2 concentration does extensive continental glaciation occur at at the south and north poles and why aren't the thresholds the same?  Hmmmmm?


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2021)

abu afak why does the coldest average temperature of the planet occur when the south pole receives the most sunlight?

Hmmm?  Do you know?


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2021)

abu afak why has there been increased climate fluctuation over the last 2.7 million years?

Do you know?


----------



## ding (Mar 4, 2021)

abu afak ?  Are you still there?


----------



## San Souci (Mar 5, 2021)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


Since there is no such thing ,who cares?


----------



## Rambunctious (Mar 7, 2021)




----------



## Flash (Mar 7, 2021)

The reason we know for certain that there is no AGW is because the idiot climate scientists that are saying there is have made up data.  Blatant fraudulent data manipulation.


----------



## Stryder50 (Mar 9, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > *Here's an interesting excerpt from one of the charts on the link you provided;*
> ...


Well "abu afugabuoy" your linked page shows about 340+ graphs, charts, and images and some show the doctored data to support ACC/AGW and many others show the opposite.  One excellent offering is this one;
*Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture *

*11/28/2018 16:11 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen*
   When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

The role of CO2 has been heavily disputed over the last century. In 1970, scientists were convinced CO2’s greenhouse effect was already saturated, even at concentrations measured at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1850) when CO2 was at around 300 parts per million. Saturation means that adding more CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures.
Later some climate scientists started to doubt that fact, so it’s important to include CO2 concentration measurements or proxies in this overview.


*The geological timescale – 570 million years*






On this timescale, we observe the largest climate fluctuations. Continents were formed and ocean currents changed in the process.
Temperatures were very high, 15 to 20 °C higher than now. During most parts of this period, no sub-zero temperatures were measured anywhere on Earth, so ice-caps were absent.
CO2 levels were very high, above 5,000 parts per million during most of this period. That’s 12 times the current levels. Live on Earth flourished, the continents were covered with thick woods and in the oceans, coral riffs started to grow. Carbon deposits were created in the form of deep ocean sediments, carbonaceous rocks and fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.


55 Million years ago, with CO2 levels still well above 1,000 ppm, global temperatures started to decline sharply. These CO2 levels are considered extremely dangerous by the IPCC and according to them, those concentrations could cause a runaway warming process. Real-world measurements, however, show us the contrary. Temperatures declined.
This contradicts the CO2 greenhouse gas hypothesis.

It’s very clear that seen on this timescale, both the modern temperatures and CO2 concentrations are extremely low. There is, however, no clear correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. Other factors like continent formation, volcanism and ocean currents ruled the climate changes. 

*The Quaternary timescale – 2.5 million years*




This timescale is marked by the latest and current ice age.  

Over 30 glacial periods have been defined in this period. These glacial periods are separated by interglacials, each one of them lasting around 10 thousand years. The Holocene is the current interglacial we’re living in.

In one complete glaciation cycle, worldwide average temperatures fluctuate around 12 °C between the deepest glacial minimum and the warmest interglacial optimum.

Over this whole period of 2.5 million years, both the Earth’s polar regions present permanent land ice. As a result of glaciations, the North Pole ice cap can reach as far south as the current locations of New York and London.

In the figure above, we observe the latest three glacial cycles.
Seen on this timescale, we currently live in a warm period that has enabled humans to develop. However, we observe that the current interglacial is not as warm as the previous ones. Current temperatures are not extreme in a Quaternary context. 
...
If we take the CO2-temperature relation the other way around, we obtain the following line of reasoning:


Milankovitch cycles
>
temperature fluctuations
>
CO2 concentration fluctuations

Now everything fits together.

The Milankovitch cycles are small alterations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, like the orientation of Earth’s axis (precession), eccentricity and variations in the axial tilt that create cyclical variations in the solar energy input. These external influences result in the cyclical temperature fluctuations known as glacials and interglacials, more or less the same way the Earth’s axial tilt creates the seasons but with a much longer cycle length.

Warm oceans can contain less CO2. So, when oceans warm, CO2 from the oceans is released into the atmosphere.

As CO2 levels are extremely low at the onset of each warming cycle, well below the saturation point of its greenhouse effect, there might be a small positive feedback of CO2-induced warming that helps the other natural factors to lift the Earth out of each glaciation. But when temperature CO2-concentration reaches a certain level the warming stops.

We must conclude that CO2 concentration trails temperature. Temperature fluctuations are the cause, CO2 level variations are the consequence. 
...
*The Holocene timescale – 10 thousand years*




Fifteen thousand years ago, global temperatures started to rise as Earth came out of the latest glacial period.

Welcome to the Holocene!

This interglacial has allowed the human race to develop like never before. 
The Holocene Optimum was reached 8 thousand years ago with temperatures around 4 °C higher than today. Since then, temperatures have steadily declined, with some ups and downs like the Minoan Warm Period (3,500 years ago) the Roman Warm Period (2,000 years ago), the Medieval Warm Period (1,000 years ago) and the Little Ice Age that ended 200 years ago. 

On this scale, we’re living in a cold period recovering from the extremes of Little Ice Age. Over 90% of the Holocene has been warmer than today.

CO2 levels have been rising over the last 8 thousand years to around 300 parts per million at the end of the Little Ice Age.
So, temperatures fell while CO2 concentration increased. This contradicts any claim that there is a positive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.

*Modern Warming – 200 years*




Temperatures are recovering from the coldest period of the Holocene, the Little Ice Age, so there has been some warming over the past 200 years. 

There have been intervals with a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature, but during two periods, from 1940 until 1975 and since 2000 until now, the correlation has been inversed. Rising CO2 concentrations coupled with falling temperatures.
This is in contradiction with the CO2-hypothesis.


*Conclusions*


Global temperatures are recovering from the _coldest period_ (Little Ice Age) of a _warm period_ (Holocene) within one of the _coldest periods_ (Quaternary) of Earth’s history
It is *not true* that we are breaking temperature records. Moreover, we’re much closer to breaking all-time cold records then all-time highs
It is *true* that CO2 concentration levels are the highest of the past 2.5 million years
It is *true* that rising CO2 levels are due to human carbon emissions
It is *not true* that these high CO2 levels are a threat to life on Earth. Life started and thrived at much higher global temperatures and CO2 levels
It is* not true* that CO2 concentration fluctuations are the main driver for temperature variation. None of the four timescales we've observed show evidence of a clear positive correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
So *the CO2-hypothesis is contradicted by real-world, empirical observations*.

_View the facts without prejudice._

Tom van Leeuwen, November 2018. 




__





						Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture | Holoceneclimate.com
					

When discussing 'Climate Change' it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference in order to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.




					holoceneclimate.com


----------



## Stryder50 (Mar 9, 2021)

That first chart in the above post only shows back to about 570 million years before the present. It' even more interesting if we show it as done going back even further;









__





						Blog chia sẻ kinh nghiệm cá cược online
					





					www.biocab.org
				



Confirming that over the history of this planet, CO2 levels are not linked nor drive the temperatures, that it likely is the other way around.


----------



## Stryder50 (Mar 9, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Your delusions run deep, and it's not about "pull it off against" you, so much as counter your disinformation.  I doubt you will change your stance since you are a true-believer in ACC/AGW but not enough to display integrity of your conviction to reduce your part of CO2 emissions to zero.

It's more about showing counter information and data, such as that through the history of the Earth, there is no evidence to show that CO2 levels in the past ever caused temperature increases, that if anything it's the opposite.

Laws of physics and chemistry didn't change in the past couple hundred of years due to the onset of the Industrial Age or human activity. Honest and objective data and evidence shows no proof of CO2 levels being a major-primary driver of average global temperatures.

"Game" is far from over, barely is afoot.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 9, 2021)

It has been known for many years that major CO2 changes FOLLOWS major Temperature changes with lag between 200-800 years, also known that CO2 is essential for Photosynthesis, and long known that more CO2 is essential for increased plant growth.

It is well known for many years that CO2 absorbs very little of the IR window, and contributes very little to the postulated heat budget, and that is nearly saturated at the 430 ppm level. The rise of 150 ppm added very little to the heat budget, this after 140 years!

Yet we see warmist/alarmists still cling to see the CO2 as a deadly molecule calling it a "pollutant", a threat to run away warming run this is incredibly stupid and irrational for obvious reasons, yet it eludes a class of people completely anyway. It is scary when such people are unaware of their irrational beliefs having been brainwashed so successfully by the media and lying scientists who have since been utterly discredited.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 9, 2021)

Flash said:


> *The reason we know for certain that there is no AGW is because the idiot climate scientists that are saying there is have made up data.  Blatant fraudulent data manipulation.*


Just to be clear as re the positions of *(Already refuted 600-million-year graph) Stryder* and SunsetTommy (reports posts of opponents), all deny CO2 *is* a Greenhouse Gas and Humans cause Any warming through not just that gas, but others like Methane/CH4.
Just to clarify how bad/Ignorant things are here.

Altho SunsetTommy usually just 'likes' those posts/cheers on the Deniers (GW AND AGW) he knows are Wrong.
*Correct Tommy?
Why don't you clarify your position precisely for your friends.* (Stryder et al)

(Post COPIED for reposting if removed, as all from now on will be)


----------



## ding (Mar 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > *The reason we know for certain that there is no AGW is because the idiot climate scientists that are saying there is have made up data.  Blatant fraudulent data manipulation.*
> ...


Just to be clear... why do you want the planet to get colder during an ice age?

Is it because you live in a shit hole middle eastern country or something?


----------



## Stryder50 (Mar 23, 2021)

Here's something that can apply here, and in other related threads;
*The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined*
*The sun radiates far more high-frequency light than expected, raising questions about unknown features of the sun’s magnetic field and the possibility of even more exotic physics.*
...








						The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined
					

The sun radiates far more high-frequency light than expected, raising questions about unknown features of the sun’s magnetic field and the possibility of even more exotic physics.




					getpocket.com


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2021)

If you're suggesting this as an alternative to AGW, you have a number of problems.  The solar gamma excess cycles in synch with the sun's 11-year cycle.  No such cycle is seen in warming.  And, this would not explain the outgoing IR observations.  And, of course, alternative energy sources are not required because excess GHG's in the atmosphere fully explain the observed warming.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 16, 2021)

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

We've been watching the monkeys.. and they aren't doing it.


----------



## Crick (Apr 16, 2021)

An isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere shows that an amount precisely equal to the extra 140ppm is the product of fossil fuel combustion.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 16, 2021)

Ah, c'mon. That's just one rather short, punchy sentence. Stryder50 wrote like pages above including this killer profundity, which was even shorter by the way:


Stryder50 said:


> The role of CO2 has been heavily disputed over the last century.


So take that, ya big meanie!


----------



## Stryder50 (Apr 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > *The reason we know for certain that there is no AGW is because the idiot climate scientists that are saying there is have made up data.  Blatant fraudulent data manipulation.*
> ...


In your delusional mind you think you refuted "A GRAPH", but that is only one of several others that provide the same data; that there has been natural climate change, between global warming and global cooling cycles, ever since Earth acquired an atmosphere over four billion years ago.

We have not denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, - that is a blanat lie on your part, but nothing new about  that, fits your MO.  

Our position is only that it is not the main/primary driver of global warming and that there is little data to support such a role over the past four+ billion years, especially over the past two billion years once CO2 volume drastically reduced to be replaced by O2.

CO2 is currently about 400 ppm(dry) parts per million in the dry(not counting water vapor) atmosphere, or a ratio of 1 part CO2 to the 2,499 other parts of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc. in the dry atmosphere.  And this is an average number which varies in different parts of the world.

Methane/CH4 is at best 2(1.8) parts ppm for a ratio of 1/500,000 compared to the rest of the atmosphere.

The absurd claim with regard to human caused global warming/climate change (AGW/ACC) is that these minute amounts of greenhouse gases(ghg) are what is heating the rest of the atmosphere of "non" greenhouse gases.  Ratios of 1/2,500 for CO2 and 1/500,000 for CH4.  To my knowledge, no one has replicated this effect in laboratory conditions so the fundamental non-science (nonsense) remains unproven.

Furthermore, water vapor/H2O, is also a  greenhouse gases(ghg) and it adds about 10-50,000 ppm on top of the dry atmopshere making it about a hundred times or more potent as a ghg, and the main driver of the atmospheric portion of climate change.



When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[19][_failed verification_]



*notes:*
(A) Water vapor strongly varies locally[27]
(B) The concentration in stratosphere. About 90% of the ozone in Earth's atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere.Compound
Formula
Concentration in
atmosphere[26] (ppm)Contribution
 (%)*Water vapor and clouds*H
2O10–50,000(A)*36–72%* *Carbon dioxide*CO
2~400*9–26%**Methane*CH
4~1.8*4–9%* *Ozone*O
32–8(B)*3–7%* 

In addition to the main greenhouse gases listed above, other greenhouse gases include sulfur hexafluoride, ...








						Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For further consideration, about 99+% of life biomass on this planet, the Flora-plants, require CO2 and at an average of about 300ppm.  These means that only about 100ppm, most of which MIGHT be caused by human activity, or the ratio of 1/10,000 of atmosphere content, is what AGW/ACC claims is harmful and would need to be reduced removed.

Main point is that the proof is not there to support major changes in human activities: economies and life styles, politics and social systems, etc.; to "fix" a natural process that should be adapted to rather than messed with, especially for such low numbers and factors which show there may not be a problem that can be "fixed".

Again, all those whom do believe in ACC/AGW are invited to do their part in personally reducing their own contributions of CO2 to zero, for sake of the greater good.


----------



## Crick (Apr 16, 2021)

1)  Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere ABOVE the 280 ppm that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is the result of fossil fuel combustion.
2)  ALL of the Earth's radiated IR is absorbed by CO2, water vapor, methane and other trace GHGs in the atmosphere long before escaping to space.  This is proof of the Greenhouse Effect.  
3)  The Greenhouse Effect HAS been demonstrated in the lab.  Ask Google or just search YouTube.  That you should think otherwise tells me you've never looked or have chosen to lie.
4)  The Earth's temperature has been rising at an unprecedented and accelerating rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  That point has been determined by more than half a dozen national and academic science institutions with almost identical results.
5)  The rise of sea level due to thermal expansion and ice melt primarily from Antarctica and Greenland is accelerating and is taking place at a rate that has not been seen since well before the rise of homo sapiens


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 16, 2021)

Yeah, but what about back before there were plants and animals? Didn't need no stinkin' climate scientist consensus and shit back then, huh! The Earth was just struttin' its stuff, hangin' tough!


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...





ding said:


> abu afak why were temperatures warmer in the past with less CO2?


Been there, done that. You lost then too.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
*One can probably find exceptions but Temperature and CO2 are super-highly correlated. *

Have a Party instead of asking an anomalous, exception, Misleading and DISHONEST question.

Inescapable:
I could make 100 posts out of the graphs in this search burying you but not necessary.
Gameover




			temperature co2 - Google Search
		



`


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Been there, done that. You lost then too.
> 
> Ding! Ding! Ding!
> *One can probably find exceptions but Temperature and CO2 are super-highly correlated. *
> ...


No you haven't been there done that.  You've been there and run away from it.  Like you are doing now.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> One can probably find exceptions but Temperature and CO2 are super-highly correlated.


Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years.  After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken.  It was warmer in the past with less CO2 than today.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> No you haven't been there done that.  You've been there and run away from it.  Like you are doing now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting a graph that refutes you!
ALL SHOW Temp and CO2 are in LOCK STEP with only tiny anomalies.
You blithering idiot.

I think I'm going to post more of them.
Once a day for 3 months.

`


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Thanks for posting a graph that refutes you!
> ALL SHOW Temp and CO2 are in LOCK STEP with only tiny anomalies.
> You blithering idiot.
> 
> ...


I already explained the correlation between CO2 and temperature.  Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years. After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken. It was warmer in the past with less CO2 than today.

The graph shows warmer temperatures with less CO2.  

Do you even understand your argument?


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> I think I'm going to post more of them.
> Once a day for 3 months.


Please do as it affords me the opportunity to potentially reach more people.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> *.  After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken...*


Really? *1880-2013 *(Columbia Climate and 100 others)


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years.  *After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken...*


Really?


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years.  *After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken,,,*


Really? 3






Who got "afforded the opportunity?"
and 100 more.

`


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Really? *1880-2013 *(Columbia Climate and 100 others)
> 
> View attachment 578108


You are confusing natural variations with CO2.  Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> You are confusing natural variations with CO2.  Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world.
> 
> View attachment 578116


It's game over
I showed lock step graphs POST-industrial revolution and could post 100 more.
(and you UNWITtingly posted an older one of hundreds showing 100K year Lock Steps).

You LOST Dingo.


`


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Really? 3
> 
> View attachment 578115
> 
> ...


Yes, really.  We are 2C below past climates with 120 ppm more CO2.  Again... You are confusing natural variations with CO2. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> It's game over
> I showed lock step graphs POST-industrial revolution.
> 
> You LOST Dingo
> ...


Feel free to quit anytime you want.  

Relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. There is no empirical evidence which quantifies the radiative forcing of CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm. CO2 has never been shown to drive climate change in the geologic record. In fact, the geologic record shows that CO2 trails temperature changes. So your implication that CO2 must be responsible for the current warming trend is false. It's more complicated than that.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

Within 30 years everything you believe will be proven wrong by colder temperatures.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> It's game over
> I showed lock step graphs POST-industrial revolution and could post 100 more.
> (and you UNWITtingly posted an older one of hundreds showing 100K year Lock Steps).
> 
> You LOST Dingo.`


You can lead a stubborn jackass to temperatures tracking right along with CO2 changes till the cows come home. Result will still be: deny, deny, deny!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2021)

Crick said:


> 1)  Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere ABOVE the 280 ppm that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is the result of fossil fuel combustion.
> 2)  ALL of the Earth's radiated IR is absorbed by CO2, water vapor, methane and other trace GHGs in the atmosphere long before escaping to space.  This is proof of the Greenhouse Effect.
> 3)  The Greenhouse Effect HAS been demonstrated in the lab.  Ask Google or just search YouTube.  That you should think otherwise tells me you've never looked or have chosen to lie.
> 4)  The Earth's temperature has been rising at an unprecedented and accelerating rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  That point has been determined by more than half a dozen national and academic science institutions with almost identical results.
> 5)  The rise of sea level due to thermal expansion and ice melt primarily from Antarctica and Greenland is accelerating and is taking place at a rate that has not been seen since well before the rise of homo sapiens








1)  Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere ABOVE the 280 ppm that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is the result of fossil fuel combustion.

How odd that shutting the economy down for a year and cutting CO2 by greater levels than ever imagined HAD NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON CO2


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> You can lead a stubborn jackass to temperatures tracking right along with CO2 changes till the cows come home. Result will still be: deny, deny, deny!


Science is never settled.  

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, *we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. *We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha​


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> It's game over
> I showed lock step graphs POST-industrial revolution and could post 100 more.
> (and you UNWITtingly posted an older one of hundreds showing 100K year Lock Steps).
> 
> ...



Is modern CO2 different from the CO2 in the ice cores showing a 1,000 year lag between temperature and CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Science is never settled.
> 
> Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, *we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. *We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.
> 
> ShieldSquare Captcha​


^ I have peer reviewed the above post and find it 100% accurate 

We have consensus!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 21, 2021)

Predatory publishing - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






Stop Predatory Journals​


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Predatory publishing - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've seen people with dementia make more sense than some of your posts.  

What is it that you are trying to say here exactly?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 21, 2021)

_----------WOOSH!------->




_


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

_----------WOOSH!------->




Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.










Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

_----------WOOSH!------->




_


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

_----------WOOSH!------->




_

“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales.”
Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China

“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception."
Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991

“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis."
Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy)

“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”
Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.)

“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term climate changes."
Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia

“The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”
Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.)

“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese."
WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK)


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 21, 2021)

I'm not clicking on your super suspicious links, dopey. Googling your first source sent me straight to that predatory publishing list. So sorry, not going there 'cause undoubtedly just propaganda paid for by Billionaires for Big Oil or some shit. You're just a childish willing tool and a moron. Give it up.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I'm not clicking on your super suspicious links, dopey. Googling your first source sent me straight to that predatory publishing list. So sorry, not going there 'cause undoubtedly just propaganda paid for by Billionaires for Big Oil or some shit. You're just a childish willing tool and a moron. Give it up.



"Big Oil" makes you sound like a mindless bot


----------



## the other mike (Dec 21, 2021)

The 'coldest winter ever' starts at 2:55....
"Where the fuck is global warming when you need it ?"


----------



## the other mike (Dec 21, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "Big Oil"


Big Fossil Fuels is more accurate....this way you include coal .


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> I think I'm going to post more of them.
> Once a day for 3 months.





ding said:


> Please do as it affords me the opportunity to potentially reach more people.



IMO?

I more useful graph, would be a pie-chart, showing the total amount of natural CO2, with the total broken down, with the percentage which was naturally released, and the percentage which produced by human activities, for say, a any specific year.

I believe either of you would have hard time finding such chart. It can be done, but, it is not easy. . . and?  That should, by itself, tell you something.

I have, at various times, found these charts, conveying the percentage of naturally produced CO2 versus CO2 produced by human activity, but?  Given how hard it is to find such pie-charts, and given what these pie-charts demonstrate?  These should, for any critical thinker, be all you should need to finish this discussion.

If it isn't?  The the monopolistic and powerful funding sources that corrupt the science of this planet and media have done on number on you, in most likelihood, and you are not using your critical faculties.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I'm not clicking on your super suspicious links, dopey. Googling your first source sent me straight to that predatory publishing list. So sorry, not going there 'cause undoubtedly just propaganda paid for by Billionaires for Big Oil or some shit. You're just a childish willing tool and a moron. Give it up.


If this were Oklahoma my argument would be arrested for sodomizing you.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> I'm not clicking on your super suspicious links, dopey. Googling your first source sent me straight to that predatory publishing list. So sorry, not going there 'cause undoubtedly just propaganda paid for by Billionaires for Big Oil or some shit. You're just a childish willing tool and a moron. Give it up.


You didn't need to click on the link.  Everything was explained in the post.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *
> 
> Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?


What are you?  Are you one o’ them *Static Climate Deniers*?!?


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 21, 2021)

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​
We don’t.

Here are some points to consider. If it is humankind that is “causing” climate change, then we need to see how STATIC the climate was before humans became technological.

It turns out that climate was never static. We can and do know this because ice ages came and went a couple of times at least before human technology came into being. We *couldn’t* have cause those things. We had an alibi. We weren’t here yet.

Therefore we KNOW beyond any doubt that climate change is the norm and climate variability isn’t dependent on human activity.

Now, I will say this. If your contention is that human technology (specifically pumping more CO2 into our atmosphere with other greenhouse gasses) might have some IMPACT on the direction and rate of climate variability, I’m willing to believe it’s possible.

The  data in support of that contention may or may not be crystal clear. So humanity should maybe proceed with caution. Ok. The caution doesn’t require the socialism proposed by the AGW alarmists, however.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> What are you?  Are you one o’ them *Static Climate Deniers*?!?



You caught me.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You caught me.


Come on man!  Everyone knows that the global climate is and has always been perfectly static.

Stop the denials!  Stop the MADNESS!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Come on man!  Everyone knows that the global climate is and has always been perfectly static.
> 
> Stop the denials!  Stop the MADNESS!



Come on man......even Cornpop knows that, and he's a bad dude.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> *I more useful graph, would be a pie-chart, showing the total amount of natural CO2, with the total broken down, with the percentage which was naturally released, and the percentage which produced by human activities, for say, a any specific year.*
> 
> I believe either of you would have hard time finding such chart. It can be done, but, it is not easy. . . and?  That should, by itself, tell you something.
> 
> ...


A specific year does NOT move the needle and would produce nothing but anomalous and useless numbers.
ie, If CO2 went down from 403 to 402 or 400 PPM or merely ie, stayed at 403 because of the pandemic, that does NOT at all stop the warming trend still in place by the 50% less (but still) addition creating a thicker GHG blanket 40, 80, or 160 years that parallels the Temperature rise.






ie, One idiot denying/crusading poster here thought because 2020 emissions were down significantly in the year 2020 pandemic it should have cooled!
NO!
It would take a decade of at least 50%? less GHGs to move the needle and affect the thickness of the blanket already in place and working/warming more.

And since not a single person read the OP links let me give a least my second synopsis of the links in it:
*Scientists (as well as emissions and the resulting PPM) have measured the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth and the amount leaving.
There is no more solar emissions hitting the earth in the last 50 years, but less and less is being reflected back out into space.
It is BEING blocked from reflecting back at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs like CH4, CO2, etc, etc.*

THAT IS ONE BIG REASON WE KNOW.

You all need to learn and read educated/expert opinion in the OP links from Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc. instead of making up ****.

RWers are just a giant anti-establishment, anti-expert, and oft conspiracYst bunch.

`


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 21, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> we KNOW beyond any doubt that climate change is the norm and climate variability isn’t dependent on human activity.


-- given humans haven't existed yet or have not yet advanced to the point where they could burn enough fossil fuels to have an impact. That being so bleeding obvious -- why would anyone bother suggesting or insinuating otherwise? To distract and insult, thereby impeding change. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that things are working out just fine for them and fuck everyone else. Many here even come right and say it, again and again. 

By contrast, the following tautological statement intellectually insults no one, yet will likely trigger multiple hardcore deniers:

We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability has resulted when humans have burnt enough fossil fuel to significantly increase the greenhouse gas effect of our atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability



We KNOW there is more variability? How do we know?


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 22, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? *
> 
> Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?


Is this some sort of satire or joke ???

Humans (homo sapiens sapiens) have only been on this planet about 200-300 thousand years at most.

Yet the various climates have been here for 4+ BILLION years ever since a hydrosphere and resulting biosphere were formed.

So what caused the many "climate changes" such as the Ice Ages, before humans appeared ??? !!!


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Is this some sort of satire or joke ???
> 
> Humans (homo sapiens sapiens) have only been on this planet about 200-300 thousand years at most.
> 
> ...


So your logic is Humans can't have caused climate change because it happened before without them?
(people died before guns/WMD too)

Do you realize how illogical that is?
The whole point of the OP and it many links (Read them) was to show why/How this last warming WAS caused by humans.
And you have no answer to that OP (or my last post just two above/bolded) just a really ridiculous 'deduction.'

`


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> So your logic is Humans can't have caused climate change because it happened before without them?
> (people died before guns/WMD too)
> 
> Do you realize how illogical that is?
> ...


Don’t be obtuse. The point is that since we KNOW that climate isn’t static, that it IS naturally variable and that the climate of the entire planet HAS changed from ice age to warmer and back to ice age again and then back to warmer AGAIN BEFORE humans had technology, that it ain’t necessarily true that human activity is the cause for recent evidence of climate “change.”  

Further, there is NO proof that humans have caused the recent warming. There is scientific theory. Science is governed by stricter rules than your language seems to believe.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 22, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> -- given humans haven't existed yet or have not yet advanced to the point where they could burn enough fossil fuels to have an impact. That being so bleeding obvious -- why would anyone bother suggesting or insinuating otherwise? To distract and insult, thereby impeding change. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that things are working out just fine for them and fuck everyone else. Many here even come right and say it, again and again.
> 
> By contrast, the following tautological statement intellectually insults no one, yet will likely trigger multiple hardcore deniers:
> 
> We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability has resulted when humans have burnt enough fossil fuel to significantly increase the greenhouse gas effect of our atmosphere.


*“We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability has resulted when humans have burnt enough fossil fuel to significantly increase the greenhouse gas effect of our atmosphere*.”

Wrong. You cannot use “anthropomorphic” as a premise when your desired conclusion is that same premise. Among other defects, you claim tautology. But it isn’t even a tautology.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Don’t be obtuse. The point is that since we KNOW that climate isn’t static, that it IS naturally variable and that the climate of the entire planet HAS changed from ice age to warmer and back to ice age again and then back to warmer AGAIN BEFORE humans had technology, that it ain’t necessarily true that human activity is the cause for recent evidence of climate “change.”
> 
> Further, there is NO proof that humans have caused the recent warming. There is scientific theory. Science is governed by stricter rules than your language seems to believe.


You're the Obtuse one, Joining Stryder.
Worse!!! you read my post and just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of it.

There is no reason that exploding population of 7 Billion humans with the technology and resource usage we've incorporated just since the industrial revolution, and especially the last 50 years, could not have changed the planet.

And indeed that IS the evidence.
We know (have measured) WE changed CO2/other GHG atmospheric blanket which is warming the planet.
Did you miss all the charts and lock step of Temp/CO2? (just read the last post/LOL).

Only complete science illiterates don't acknowledge that EVIDENCE.
And Science doesn't have 'proof,' but theories Affirmed/Confirmed over time that become facts.
Evolution is a theory and a fact.
AGW is a Fact.

`


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You're the Obtuse one, Joining Stryder.
> 
> 
> There is no reason that exploding population of 7 Billion humans with the technology and resource usage we've incorporated just since the industrial revolution, and especially the last 50 years, could not have changed the planet.
> ...


*“Worse!!! you read my post and just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of i*t.”

I acknowledge that your “logic” is indeed blindingly vacuous.

But no: AGW is *not* a “fact.”

Further, “science” *does* begin with facts that *are* proved. Indeed, you just claimed that AGW is an alleged “fact.”  It isn’t of course. But you are found to be contradicting yourself yet again.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Don’t be obtuse. The point is that since we KNOW that climate isn’t static, that it IS naturally variable and that the climate of the entire planet HAS changed from ice age to warmer and back to ice age again and then back to warmer,,, *Further, there is NO proof that humans have caused the recent warming*. There is scientific theory. Science is governed by stricter rules than your language seems to believe.


You're the obtuse one, Joining Stryder.
Worse!!! you read my post and just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of it.

*There is no reason that exploding population of 7 Billion humans with the technology and resource usage we've incorporated just since the industrial revolution, and especially the last 50 years, could not have changed the planet.

And indeed that IS the evidence.
We know (have measured) WE changed CO2/other GHG atmospheric blanket which is warming the planet.
Did you miss all the charts and lock step of Temp/CO2?* (just read the last post/LOL).

Only complete science illiterates don't acknowledge that EVIDENCE.
And Science doesn't have 'proof,' but theories Affirmed/Confirmed over time that become facts.
Evolution is a theory and a fact.
AGW is a Fact.

`


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 22, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> *“We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability has resulted when humans have burnt enough fossil fuel to significantly increase the greenhouse gas effect of our atmosphere*.”
> 
> Wrong. You cannot use “anthropomorphic” as a premise when your desired conclusion is that same premise. Among other defects, you claim tautology. But it isn’t even a tautology.


Don’t cry pumpkin. I was quoting your own imbecilic post.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Don’t cry pumpkin. I was quoting your own imbecilic post.


My post was quite coherent and you had no answer to it.
Zip.
Yours was inexcusably obtuse as it just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of Stryder that was already debunked.
And you have come up with no Rational reply TO it since, just your 'pumpkin' put down attempt/loss admission.
`


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> My post was quite coherent and you had no answer to it.
> Zip.
> Yours was inexcusably obtuse as it just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of Stryder that was already debunked.
> And you have come up with no Rational reply TO it since, just your 'pumpkin' put down attempt/loss admission.
> `


You *were* coherent when you inadvertently admitted that your logic was “vacuous.

You lost credibility completely after that. 

And I find it funny how immediately after I said you were being “obtuse” you were able to so quickly come back to claim that I was “obtuse.”


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> ......
> *Further, there is NO proof that humans have caused the recent warming. There is scientific theory.
> Science is governed by stricter rules than your language seems to believe.*


And you are spectacularly ignorant about science.
ie,
From *"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"*
Scientific American - 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
​*1. Evolution is 'only a theory.' It is not a fact or a scientific law.*​​Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific Theory is _“a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_​No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​​*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution.* The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”..."​​
Science doesn't deal in 'proof,' it deals in theories affirmed over time. Only math really has 'proof' in the absolute sense.
Monster cognitive/edu mismatch here.
`
`


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 22, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Don’t cry pumpkin. I was quoting your own imbecilic post.


No, that was my post. The one you clearly still don't get was indeed a deliberate tautology.. even after I explicitly described it as such.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> And you are spectacularly ignorant about science.
> ie,
> From *"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"*
> Scientific American - 2002
> ...


Way to duck it. I never said a single word about the theory of evolution. Nice straw man.

What I did deny was your incorrect assertion. Science does use FACTS as premises. I’ve never been confused about a theory vs the proper limits of scientific theory.  

Meanwhile, AGW Is simply NOT (as you incorrectly stated) a “fact.”


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 22, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> No, that was my post. The one you clearly still don't get was indeed a deliberate tautology.. even after I explicitly described it as such.


No. It wasn’t. You need to learn the meaning of terms.


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> So your logic is Humans can't have caused climate change because it happened before without them?
> (people died before guns/WMD too)
> 
> Do you realize how illogical that is?
> ...







What is illogical is your opinion that mankind is causing it, but you have no empirical data to support it.  The hallmark of science is UNIFORMITARIANISM.  That means that the processes that are in operation today, are the same that were in operation in the past, and are the same that will continue to operate into the future.  

Thus, if you wish to PROVE that mankind is altering climate, YOU must be able to provide MEASURABLE evidence that mankind is doing so.

Not computer models, not opinions, but ACTUAL MEASURABLE DETAILS, that show mankinds impact.

To date, not one climatologist has EVER done so.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You're the obtuse one, Joining Stryder.
> Worse!!! you read my post and just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of it.
> 
> *There is no reason that exploding population of 7 Billion humans with the technology and resource usage we've incorporated just since the industrial revolution, and especially the last 50 years, could not have changed the planet.
> ...


AGAIN...

_Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.











Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 22, 2021)

westwall said:


> What is illogical is your opinion that mankind is causing it, but you have no empirical data to support it.  The hallmark of science is UNIFORMITARIANISM.  That means that the processes that are in operation today, are the same that were in operation in the past, and are the same that will continue to operate into the future.
> 
> Thus, if you wish to PROVE that mankind is altering climate, YOU must be able to provide MEASURABLE evidence that mankind is doing so.
> 
> ...


So squawks our fake Phd. Of course the fact that every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger does not deter him from making such a fool of himself. Chemists have proven that GHGs raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Atmospheric Physicists have written many articles concerning how the longwave IR is absorbed by the GHGs and how that warms the atmosphere. And Geologists and Glaciologists have demonstrated how the temperature of the earth has varied with the effects of GHGs. But we are to trust an anonymous poster on a far rightwingnut poster board that he knows more than all these real scientists. LOL


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

westwall said:


> *What is illogical is your opinion that mankind is causing it, but you have no empirical data to support it.  *The hallmark of science is UNIFORMITARIANISM.  That means that the processes that are in operation today, are the same that were in operation in the past, and are the same that will continue to operate into the future.
> 
> Thus, if you wish to PROVE that mankind is altering climate, YOU must be able to provide MEASURABLE evidence that mankind is doing so.
> 
> ...


*MY post from the LAST PAGE you lying crackpot.*
You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND.
As well as Lying about being a Liberal for YEARS without having made single post of thousands to demonstrate it.

​Again Me from last page with Empirical and more case:​""A specific year does NOT move the needle and would produce nothing but anomalous and useless numbers.​ie, If CO2 went down from 403 to 402 or 400 PPM or merely ie, stayed at 403 because of the pandemic, that does NOT at all stop the warming trend still in place by the 50% less (but still) addition creating a thicker GHG blanket 40, 80, or 160 years that parallels the Temperature rise.​​

​ie, One idiot denying/crusading poster here thought because 2020 emissions were down significantly in the year 2020 pandemic it should have cooled!​NO!​It would take a decade of at least 50%? less GHGs to move the needle and affect the thickness of the blanket already in place and working/warming more.​​And since not a single person read the OP links let me give a least my second synopsis of the links in it:​*Scientists (as well as emissions and the resulting PPM) have MEASURED the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth and the amount leaving.*​*There is no more solar emissions hitting the earth in the last 50 years, but less and less is being reflected back out into space.*​*It is BEING blocked from reflecting back at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs like CH4, CO2, etc, etc.*​​THAT IS ONE BIG REASON WE KNOW.​​You all need to learn and read educated/expert opinion in the OP links from Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc. instead of making up ****.​
RWers are just a giant anti-establishment, anti-expert, and oft conspiracYst bunch.​​​
That's both Empirical and explained... and apparently way over your lab-mopping job.
You couldn't make a post with understanding like that in 50 years.. and haven't.
Not to mention the OP and 50 more pages.

You post NOTHING NOWHERE except short RW hackery and feedback.

`
`.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> *MY post from the LAST PAGE you lying crackpot.*
> You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND
> As well as Lying about being a Liberal for5 YEARS without having made single post ofr thousands to demonstrate it.
> You are deluded.
> ...


If more GHG leads to increased temperatures then why was it 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less CO2?


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> AGW is a Fact.


Science is never settled.

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, *we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. *We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha​


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> *MY post from the LAST PAGE you lying crackpot.*
> You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND.
> As well as Lying about being a Liberal for YEARS without having made single post of thousands to demonstrate it.
> 
> ...







Which means what?  CO2 LAGS temperature.  We have 800,000 years of ice core data that PROVE this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 22, 2021)

westwall said:


> Which means what?  CO2 LAGS temperature.  We have 800,000 years of ice core data that PROVE this.


Even a Geologist with only a BS knows that answer to that. As do you, it has been answered for you many times. However, you continue to post the drivel you post. You are a troll, no credibility in anything at all that you post.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

It's hard to believe that in this day and age that anyone with any knowledge whatsoever about science would believe that science should not always welcome challenges.  

I think those people are more motivated by politics than they are science.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Even a Geologist with only a BS knows that answer to that. As do you, it has been answered for you many times. However, you continue to post the drivel you post. You are a troll, no credibility in anything at all that you post.


The correlation between CO2 and temperature was broken after the industrial revolution.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

It's pretty obvious.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Ding is trolling the same debunked chart/claim every hour in several different threads.
> Trolling
> 
> IAC, he's Bumping up my threads and no one will eventually see all his trolling in the middle of them when they're over.
> ...


It's an awesome chart.  It proves that more greenhouse gas led to cooler temperatures.

See?


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Only a moron would argue that science is ever settled.  AGW isn't a scientific movement.  It's a political movement.  A religious movement.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

westwall said:


> Which means what?  CO2 LAGS temperature.  We have 800,000 years of ice core data that PROVE this.


First you were Lying that I didn't show empirical data.
I did and repeated for you.
UNTOUCHED

Second,* in a pure nature scenario it Both lags and then heavily contributes TO warming.
In AGW, we alone can and did start the Industrial Revolution cycle with CO2.*
Stick around I can teach you more even as your RW instincts **** your mind.

`


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> First you were Lying that I didn't show empirical data.
> I did and repeated for you.
> UNTOUCHED
> 
> ...


Isn't the greenhouse gas effect supposed to be practically instantaneous?  That if you could change the concentration magically from say 120 ppm to 580 ppm, that that effect would be practically instantaneous?  That you could literally feel the difference?


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> First you were Lying that I didn't show empirical data.
> I did and repeated for you.
> UNTOUCHED
> 
> ...







You showed a CO2 graph.  CO2 PROVABLY lags behind temperatures by hundreds of years.  This is not a guess, this is not a computer model, this is data that is PROVEN TO BE TRUE.  In a pure nature scenario it does nothing for global temps.  If it did then there would be NO period where temps were low but CO2 was high.

Yet there are.  Many, many, many of them.  Conversely there are also periods where CO2 levels were extremely high yet global temperatures were cool.  Thus breaking ANY correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.  

Period.

That is called science.

You don't understand science, you only understand science fiction.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

westwall said:


> You showed a CO2 graph.  CO2 PROVABLY lags behind temperatures by hundreds of years.  This is not a guess, this is not a computer model, this is data that is PROVEN TO BE TRUE.  In a pure nature scenario it does nothing for global temps.  If it did then there would be NO period where temps were low but CO2 was high.
> 
> Yet there are.  Many, many, many of them.  Conversely there are also periods where CO2 levels were extremely high yet global temperatures were cool.  Thus breaking ANY correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.
> 
> ...


You're LYING again.
I showed well more than a graph, I explained one of the main reasons we know it's AGW.
You are a shameless Liar.
and you Lied because you were not smart enough to answer what WAS posted.

*MY post to YOU from the LAST PAGE And the one before.*
You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND.
As well as Lying about being a Liberal for YEARS without having made single post of thousands to demonstrate it.


 Again Me from last page with Empirical and more case​
:​""A specific year does NOT move the needle and would produce nothing but anomalous and useless numbers.​ie, If CO2 went down from 403 to 402 or 400 PPM or merely ie, stayed at 403 because of the pandemic, that does NOT at all stop the warming trend still in place by the 50% less (but still) addition creating a thicker GHG blanket 40, 80, or 160 years that parallels the Temperature rise.​​

​​ie, One idiot denying/crusading poster here thought because 2020 emissions were down significantly in the year 2020 pandemic it should have cooled!​NO!​It would take a decade of at least 50%? less GHGs to move the needle and affect the thickness of the blanket already in place and working/warming more.​​And since not a single person read the OP links let me give a least my second synopsis of the links in it:​*Scientists (as well as emissions and the resulting PPM) have MEASURED the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth and the amount leaving.*​*There is no more solar emissions hitting the earth in the last 50 years, but less and less is being reflected back out into space.*​*It is BEING blocked from reflecting back at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs like CH4, CO2, etc, etc.*​​THAT IS ONE BIG REASON WE KNOW.​​You all need to learn and read educated/expert opinion in the OP links from Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc. instead of making up ****.​​RWers are just a giant anti-establishment, anti-expert, and oft conspiracYst bunch.​
- - - -​​​*That's both Empirical and explained*... and apparently way over your lab-mopping job.​You couldn't make a post with understanding like that in 50 years.. and haven't.​Not to mention the OP and 50 more pages.​​You post NOTHING NOWHERE except short RW hackery and feedback.​YOU CAN'T DEBATE ME!​It's a joke.​`​


----------



## westwall (Dec 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You're LYING again.
> I showed well more than a graph, I explained one of the main reasons we know it's AGW.
> You are a shameless Liar.
> and you Lied because you were not smart enough to answer what WAS posted.
> ...







You have provided NO evidence that man is doing anything.  You are spewing OPINION.  OPINIONS aren't facts.  Science, and the scientific method are very clear.  You have NO empirical data to support the claim that man is altering climates ANYWHERE.  Mankinds contribution to the global CO2 budget is less than 5%.  That is KNOWN.  The fact that stupid people think that a trace addition, to a trace gas has ANY effect whatsoever only proves that you are scientifically illiterate.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 22, 2021)

westwall said:


> You have provided NO evidence that man is doing anything.  You are spewing OPINION.  OPINIONS aren't facts.  Science, and the scientific method are very clear.  You have NO empirical data to support the claim that man is altering climates ANYWHERE.  Mankinds contribution to the global CO2 budget is less than 5%.  That is KNOWN.  The fact that stupid people think that a trace addition, to a trace gas has ANY effect whatsoever only proves that you are scientifically illiterate.


LYING again:
PART of my thrice repeated post.
​"And since not a single person read the OP links let me give a least my second synopsis of the links in it:​*Scientists (as well as emissions and the resulting PPM) have MEASURED the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth and the amount leaving.*​*There is no more solar emissions hitting the earth in the last 50 years, but less and less is being reflected back out into space.*​*It is BEING blocked from reflecting back at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs like CH4, CO2, etc, etc.*​​THAT IS ONE BIG REASON WE KNOW."​

So now you just continue LYING and remaining in denial
That is not 'opinion' that is measurement/Data.
Read the OP links from ie, NASA, Columbia, Yale, etc

You are not conversant nor coherent.

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Chemists have proven that GHGs raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Atmospheric Physicists have written many articles concerning how the longwave IR is absorbed by the GHGs and how that warms the atmosphere. And Geologists and Glaciologists have demonstrated how the temperature of the earth has varied with the effects of GHGs.



Don't forget, the US military is willing to spend more money and the insurance companies
are willing to raise your premiums.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> Isn't the greenhouse gas effect supposed to be practically instantaneous?  That if you could change the concentration magically from say 120 ppm to 580 ppm, that that effect would be practically instantaneous?  That you could literally feel the difference?


Only according to people as stupid as you. We have a huge amount of thermal inertia in our oceans. However, to dummies like you, that is irrelevant.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> You showed a CO2 graph.  CO2 PROVABLY lags behind temperatures by hundreds of years.  This is not a guess, this is not a computer model, this is data that is PROVEN TO BE TRUE.  In a pure nature scenario it does nothing for global temps.  If it did then there would be NO period where temps were low but CO2 was high.
> 
> Yet there are.  Many, many, many of them.  Conversely there are also periods where CO2 levels were extremely high yet global temperatures were cool.  Thus breaking ANY correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.
> 
> ...


And you are a liar, as usual.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 23, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't forget, the US military is willing to spend more money and the insurance companies
> are willing to raise your premiums.


Insurance companies have to raise premiums because the extreme weather events are increasing. Fires, floods, damaging storms, and heat waves have all been increasing in number decade by decade. An insurance company that is bankrupt does no one any good.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Only according to people as stupid as you. We have a huge amount of thermal inertia in our oceans. However, to dummies like you, that is irrelevant.


We are discussing the atmosphere, dum dum.  I am asking you if GHG immediately warm the surrounding air.  Well... does it immediately warm the surrounding air or not?


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

It's really odd because when I wake up on cloudy mornings versus clear mornings I can tell a 10 to 20 deg difference due to the GHG effect of clouds. I don't have to wait til Friday to feel the GHG effect of the clouds on Tuesday.  I can immediately feel the difference on Tuesday.

It's weird that @oldrocks believes there is a delayed reaction in the atmosphere.  Really weird.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> It's really odd because when I wake up on cloudy mornings versus clear mornings I can tell a 10 to 20 deg difference due to the GHG effect of clouds. I don't have to wait til Friday to feel the GHG effect of the clouds on Tuesday.  I can immediately feel the difference on Tuesday.
> 
> It's weird that @oldrocks believes there is a delayed reaction in the atmosphere.  Really weird.


LOL. a goofy/riDICKulous intra-day personal anecdote.
It means you LOST and couldn't play real Sci any more.

How long does it take to warm the 70% of the planet that are deep oceans with slightly more CO2 a year allowing them to absorb slightly more heat?
We have, OF COURSE, not yet reached equilibrium for our current 400 PPPM of CO2.
You have repeated and LOST the SAME point at least 10 times.
You are a Troll. (in case someone missed 95% of your 'repLIES.')

`


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> LOL. a goofy/riDICKulous intra-day personal anecdote.
> It means you LOST and couldn't play real Sci any more.
> 
> How long does it take to warm the 70% of the planet that are deep oceans with slightly more CO2 a year allowing them to absorb slightly more heat?
> ...


Whatever greenhouse effect there is has already been captured by the atmosphere.  Previous interglacial were 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2.  CO2 lagged temperature so the warming of previous interglacials were due to solar irradiance and albedo.  The same factors that drove our present interglacial.  The only difference between then and now is we have 120 ppm more CO2 and are 2C cooler.  Your explanation is as hollow as your head.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 23, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Insurance companies have to raise premiums because the extreme weather events are increasing. Fires, floods, damaging storms, and heat waves have all been increasing in number decade by decade. An insurance company that is bankrupt does no one any good.



*Insurance companies have to raise premiums because the extreme weather events are increasing.*

Hilarious!!!

*Fires, floods, damaging storms, and heat waves have all been increasing in number decade by decade.*

Not really.


----------



## elektra (Dec 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Really? *1880-2013 *(Columbia Climate and 100 others)
> 
> View attachment 578108


This is an awful purty picture.

And wow them there glaciers are all riled up


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> You have provided NO evidence that man is doing anything.  You are spewing OPINION.  OPINIONS aren't facts.  Science, and the scientific method are very clear.  You have NO empirical data to support the claim that man is altering climates ANYWHERE.  Mankinds contribution to the global CO2 budget is less than 5%.  That is KNOWN.  The fact that stupid people think that a trace addition, to a trace gas has ANY effect whatsoever only proves that you are scientifically illiterate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 23, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Insurance companies have to raise premiums because the extreme weather events are increasing.*
> 
> Hilarious!!!
> 
> ...













						Heat Waves And Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather Events – Are They Linked To Greenhouse Gases And Fossil Energies?
					

The cost to the US of such disasters is enormous and it is accelerating. It would be good to learn to deal with this before it gets worse – and it is getting worse.




					www.forbes.com
				
















						How is climate linked to extreme weather?
					

The practice of linking weather events to human-influenced climate change is called attribution studies.




					www.metoffice.gov.uk
				















						Climate Change Indicators: Heavy Precipitation | US EPA
					

This indicator tracks the frequency of heavy precipitation events in the United States.




					www.epa.gov


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 23, 2021)

PoliticalChic said:


> View attachment 578979


So here we have a pretend scientist that pretends to be a geologist, and then accuses virtually every other geologist in the world of lying and being a fraud. And some silly lady that pretends to be well educated and spout the fruitloop nonsense of the far right religious nuts. LOL The only evidence that you two have ever presented here is that you seem very deep into some alternative reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 23, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> View attachment 579219
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't forget, the military needs more money!!!


----------



## abu afak (Dec 24, 2021)

elektra said:


> The planet is melting? Yet you have no proof that what is happening, did not happen in the past, and is simply normal weather and climate eventsAnd again, the WSJ is hidden, how about at least, not being a lazy ass and actually present the study.



Why Yes, I do have evidence. Strong Evidence.
(Science does not deal in 'proof,' really only math does/can.)
(Science deals in theories affirmed over time)
You were in this thread and could NOT dent it.

The OP and many individual posts of mine and others throughout.
Much more extensive than your goofy Thwaites ANECDOTAL argument.

You faux-participated in it but it was way over your head, and you would rather keep your politics than learn the Truth.

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Why Yes, I do have evidence. Strong Evidence.
> (Science does not deal in 'proof,' really only math does/can.)
> You were in this thread and could NOT dent it.
> 
> ...



Any of those from Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Any of those from Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann?


Are you really that stupid? Mann's graph has been confirmed now more than a dozen times. 













						What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
					

<p>Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000...



					skepticalscience.com


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Are you really that stupid? Mann's graph has been confirmed now more than a dozen times.
> 
> View attachment 579615
> 
> ...





Confirmed false you meant to say.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Any of those from Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann?


'Tis the Season to be jealous and whiney, falalalala lalalalala!

Go Penn State!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Are you really that stupid? Mann's graph has been confirmed now more than a dozen times.
> 
> View attachment 579615
> 
> ...



Yeah, he's awesome.....why do you think he got the Nobel?
It wasn't for hiding the MWP or the LIA, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> 'Tis the Season to be jealous and whiney, falalalala lalalalala!
> 
> Go Penn State!



Don't molest that data.........or release it. DURR.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't molest that data.........or release it. DURR.


LOL So you are accusing all the scientists that did the other studies of fraud. Way to go, and prove you are an idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL So you are accusing all the scientists that did the other studies of fraud. Way to go, and prove you are an idiot.



Just questioning the Nobel winner.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Just questioning the Nobel winner.


No, you trying to use the animosity created by the right wing to discredit the further research that has been done by other scientists confirming Mann's hypothesis. Really doesn't fly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> No, you trying to use the animosity created by the right wing to discredit the further research that has been done by other scientists confirming Mann's hypothesis. Really doesn't fly.



Confirming? By adding back the MWP and the LIA?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Confirming? By adding back the MWP and the LIA?


Yes, and you might note that they were just little speed bumps compared to the changes in the last 100 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, and you might note that they were just little speed bumps compared to the changes in the last 100 years.



Oh, he left out little speed bumps, by mistake, right?


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 26, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Why Yes, I do have evidence. Strong Evidence.
> (Science does not deal in 'proof,' really only math does/can.)
> (Science deals in theories affirmed over time)
> You were in this thread and could NOT dent it.
> ...



The math says temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiance ... do you know how fourth root functions behave? ...

Like a hockey stick, with the blade down and the shaft horizontal ... 

Do you have "strong evidence" this is wrong ... then post a link to it ... and get yourself ready to meet the Queen of Sweden ...


----------



## abu afak (Dec 26, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> The math says temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiance ... do you know how fourth root functions behave? ...
> 
> Like a hockey stick, with the blade down and the shaft horizontal ...
> 
> Do you have "strong evidence" this is wrong ... then post a link to it ... and get yourself ready to meet the Queen of Sweden ...




The actual numbers say the numbers are goin up paralleling CO2 since the Industrial revolution. (and really forever with the CO2/temp link)
The 'fourth level of irradiance' must be your brand of THC.

IAC, I have already explained scientists have measured the incoming and outgoing radiation, and incoming has not changed, while outgoing/reflected is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs. Ergo AGW.

`


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 26, 2021)

abu afak said:


> The actual numbers say the numbers are goin up paralleling CO2 since the Industrial revolution. (and really forever with the CO2/temp link)
> The 'fourth level of irradiance' must be your brand of THC.
> 
> IAC, I have already explained scientists have measured the incoming and outgoing radiation, and incoming has not changed, while outgoing/reflected is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs. Ergo AGW.
> ...



NOAA numbers don't say anything like that ... temperature have been going up since 1980 ... but in the previous 40 years before that, temperature were going down ... global cooling ... see how CO2 level are increasing during this time interval, yet temperatures are going down ... that's the opposite of correlation ... 

I said "fourth root" ... that has a very specific meaning in mathematics ... 




__





						nth root - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




If you don't know what a fourth root function is, then you haven't been explaining incoming and outgoing radiation ... as you should know, this is measured at 1.8 W/m^2, as measured across _all_ wavelengths ... that's not enough power to change climate ...








						Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## abu afak (Dec 26, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> NOAA numbers don't say anything like that ... temperature have been going up since 1980 ... but in the previous 40 years before that, temperature were going down ... global cooling ... see how CO2 level are increasing during this time interval, yet temperatures are going down ... that's the opposite of correlation ...
> 
> I said "fourth root" ... that has a very specific meaning in mathematics ...
> 
> ...









More you Complete wipe out...
the two are in LOCK STEP Forever

WTF rookie.
Pick one!
 


			temperature co2 - Google Search
		



ie,







You know NOTHING
ZERO.

`


----------



## Innocynioc (Dec 26, 2021)

Q.  When did Antarctica have its coldest winter in recorded history?
A. 2021.  Look it up.
Q. In over 400 years of people observing Mars when did it get so warm that the northern ice cap melted down to separated plates as opposed to a continuous ice cap.
A. 2021.  Look it up.

I find the arguments for anthropogenic global warming theory to be far less than cogent.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 26, 2021)

Innocynioc said:


> Q.  When did Antarctica have its coldest winter in recorded history?
> A. 2021.  Look it up.
> Q. In over 400 years of people observing Mars when did it get so warm that the northern ice cap melted down to separated plates as opposed to a continuous ice cap.
> A. 2021.  Look it up.
> ...


Too bad we are talking GLOBAL climate, Not Regional.
LOL







Oooops

`


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 26, 2021)

The temperature traces in post #1038 and #1040 are different ... 

Can't you remember which side of your mouth you're lying out of ... 

"Fourth root" ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...


----------



## abu afak (Dec 26, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> The temperature traces in post #1038 and #1040 are different ...
> 
> Can't you remember which side of your mouth you're lying out of ...
> 
> "Fourth root" ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...


No they're not goofy.
the short term ones the same, the longer different time and scale of course.
And you are 1000% wrong about your claim of cooling
Not that on any given short period it could cool.
It's not going to up every year or even every ten.
Just that it will indeed be going up and be warmer than it was going to e due to the increasingly thick CO2/GHG Blanket

Go away 80 IQ boy.
`

`


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> No they're not goofy.
> the short term ones the same, the longer different time and scale of course.
> And you are 1000% wrong about your claim of cooling
> Not that on any given short period it could cool.
> ...



NOAA's data ...

You'll never be able to admit 1941 was 0.3ºC warmer than 1976 ... in spite CO2 levels having increased through that whole time interval ... sad ... God forbid you inflict that much harm to your own ego ... she bruises so easily ... _dT/dt_ < 0 ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

I do agree with you that these 40 year time intervals are too short ... I'm just pointing out this 40 year time interval is also too short for any claims of global warming ...


----------



## abu afak (Dec 27, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> NOAA's data ...
> 
> You'll never be able to admit 1941 was 0.3ºC warmer than 1976 ... in spite CO2 levels having increased through that whole time interval ... sad ... God forbid you inflict that much harm to your own ego ... she bruises so easily ... _dT/dt_ < 0 ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
> 
> I do agree with you that these 40 year time intervals are too short ... I'm just pointing out this 40 year time interval is also too short for any claims of global warming ...


You are an IDIOT
I'd be glad to admit any given year was warmer than one with more CO2/GHGs 35 yrs later.
WTF!
That's an anomaly, perhaps a year of high/peak solar activity, etc.
WTF!
It might even get colder for a number of years during a general uptrend. (solar minimum in app 2017) The sun has 11 yr cycles... and longer ones too.

All things remaining the same WE are warming the earth.

The GHG Blanket gets thicker (PPM) every year so whatever happens in the way of other cycles/anomalies, it was warmer than it would have been without the CO2.
The more CO2, the bigger the warming difference.
So you are seeing the general uptrend expected, over 150 years, over 500,000 years.

Can YOU Admit that OUR huge CO2/CH4 emissions is making it warmer. AGW.
Yes or No.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Why Yes, I do have evidence. Strong Evidence.
> (Science does not deal in 'proof,' really only math does/can.)
> (Science deals in theories affirmed over time)
> You were in this thread and could NOT dent it.
> ...



Strong evidence = ignore any and all questions

"The truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged”

“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth." -- Daniel Kahneman Sounds like he's talking about all the "science" behind Manmade Global Climate Warming Change


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You are an IDIOT
> I'd be glad to admit any given year was warmer than one with more CO2/GHGs 35 yrs later.
> WTF!
> That's an anomaly, perhaps a year of high/peak solar activity, etc.
> ...



CO2 is making it "warmer" but has stage fright whenever we ask it to show the temperature increase in a laboratory


----------



## abu afak (Dec 27, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *CO2 is making it "warmer" but has stage fright whenever we ask it to show the temperature increase in a laboratory*


You can do it/prove it at home goofy.

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?​https://news.climate.columbia.edu › 2021/02/25 › carbo...
Feb 25, 2021 — A better _experiment_ would be to have 3 large containers – one containing earth's atmosphere with no _CO2_, one with atmosphere of 0.025% _CO2_ and ...

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect - American Institute of ...​https://history.aip.org › climate › co2
Arrhenius brought up the possibility of future _warming_ in an impressive scientific ... The early _experiments_ that sent radiation through gases in a tube, ...
‎The Theory Restored (1950... · ‎Carbon Dioxide: Key to... · ‎Evidence from the Ice


Global warming and climate change – an experimental ...​http://www.carboeurope.org › CS_Materials › Ber...

_Experiment_ 3. Radiation determines temperature (3). Aim: to demonstrate how _CO2_ gas absorbs _heat_ rays more than normal "air": _CO2_- gas is "thermally darker" ...
24 pages


Climate Change Inquiry Labs: CO2 and Air Temperature​https://gpm.nasa.gov › files › lesson_plan_files

NOTE: The plastic wrap is representing _carbon dioxide_ in the model used for the _experiment_. Greenhouse gases don't hold in _heat_ exactly the same way as the ...
2 pages


Demos & Experiments | NOAA Climate.gov​http://www.climate.gov › teaching › demos-experiments
Results 1 - 10 of 88 — Summary: This is a short _experiment_ to demonstrate the concept of ... an analogy to thermal expansion of oceans due to global _warming_.

Millennium time-scale experiments on climate-carbon cycle ...​https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com › articles
by T Hajima · 2020 · Cited by 1 — Thus, in the BGC2 × _CO2 experiment_, there was no global _warming_ induced by CO2 concentration increase, and direct stimulation of CO2 ...

Global Warming Experiment thermal propeties carbon dioxide ...​https://www.picotech.com › library › global-warming
_Experiment_ setup · Prepare plastic pop bottles by removing the labels and drilling holes in the tops big enough to allow the temperature probes to go through.

The Greenhouse Effect Experiment and Lesson for Kids​https://www.steampoweredfamily.com › activities › the-gr...
In this _experiment_ we are trapping the _carbon dioxide_ gas in the jar. When _heat_ is applied, the _carbon dioxide_ traps more _heat_ in the jar ...


Basically you are all STUPID.
You can't even use google, which is why you have wrong opinions and a 95% Info deficit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You can do it/prove it at home goofy.
> 
> How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?​https://news.climate.columbia.edu › 2021/02/25 › carbo...
> Feb 25, 2021 — A better _experiment_ would be to have 3 large containers – one containing earth's atmosphere with no _CO2_, one with atmosphere of 0.025% _CO2_ and ...
> ...



All that "science" and not one test of varying CO2 from 280 to 400

“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth." -- Daniel Kahneman Sounds like he's talking about all the "science" behind Manmade Global Climate Warming Change


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You can do it/prove it at home goofy.
> 
> How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?​https://news.climate.columbia.edu › 2021/02/25 › carbo...
> Feb 25, 2021 — A better _experiment_ would be to have 3 large containers – one containing earth's atmosphere with no _CO2_, one with atmosphere of 0.025% _CO2_ and ...
> ...



Squid Ink response, just post dozens of off topic links


----------



## Oddball (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> It might even get colder for a number of years during a general uptrend. (solar minimum in app 2017) The sun has 11 yr cycles... and longer ones too.
> 
> All things remaining the same WE are warming the earth.
> 
> ...


----------



## abu afak (Dec 27, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> All that "science" and not one test of varying CO2 from 280 to 400
> 
> “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth." -- Daniel Kahneman Sounds like he's talking about all the "science" behind Manmade Global Climate Warming Change


AGAIN you low IQ Heel-nipper, That's an idiotic DEMAND DETAIL FALLACY that cannot be done due to the myriad of other factors in Gigantic multi-faceted system.

Of course and again we have actual data from Millions of years of earth's history showing the relationship/LOCK STEP CORRELATION of temp and CO2.
And of course (in the shorter term) it would make a big difference whether you were at the beginning of a cycle/gaining CO2, middle/stable, or end/losing CO2 as to what the temperature is relative to a given amount of CO2.

And also again we know from BOTH Lab experiments and RL CO2 traps heat.
The more CO2, the more trapping. 

You lost TROLL.

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> And also again we know from BOTH Lab experiments and RL CO2 traps heat.
> The more CO2, the more trapping.



CO2 levels are up about 50% since the mid 1700s.
Is the atmosphere trapping 50% more?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> AGAIN you low IQ Heel-nipper, That's an idiotic DEMAND DETAIL FALLACY that cannot be done due to the myriad of other factors in Gigantic multi-faceted system.
> 
> Of course and again we have actual data from Millions of years of earth's history showing the relationship/LOCK STEP CORRELATION of temp and CO2.
> And of course (in the shorter term) it would make a big difference whether you were at the beginning of a cycle/gaining CO2, middle/stable, or end/losing CO2 as to what the temperature is relative to a given amount of CO2.
> ...


So you basically said that there are too many variables to control for a change in CO2.

You see that, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> AGAIN you low IQ Heel-nipper, That's an idiotic DEMAND DETAIL FALLACY that cannot be done due to the myriad of other factors in Gigantic multi-faceted system.
> 
> Of course and again we have actual data from Millions of years of earth's history showing the relationship/LOCK STEP CORRELATION of temp and CO2.
> And of course (in the shorter term) it would make a big difference whether you were at the beginning of a cycle/gaining CO2, middle/stable, or end/losing CO2 as to what the temperature is relative to a given amount of CO2.
> ...


The CO2 and temperature dataset to which you refer shows CO2 LAGGING temperature by 800 to 1,000 years.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 27, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you basically said that there are too many variables to control for a change in CO2.
> 
> You see that, right?


We have the climate record which is beyond clear, it's Over-******-whelming and and parallel.

Take your pick you stupid Piece of ****.

temperature co2 - Google Search 

What does that demonstrate to any sane person?


`


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> We have the climate record which is beyond clear, it's Over-******-whelming and and parallel.
> 
> Take your pick you stupid Piece of ****.
> 
> ...


The climate record overwhelmingly shows that CO2 never drove climate change.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 is making it "warmer" but has stage fright whenever we ask it to show the temperature increase in a laboratory


That's a good one.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

You are just going to have to take their word that if they ever did do an experiment the published report would match their claim perfectly.  The actual recorded temperatures, not so much.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 27, 2021)

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




A *greenhouse gas* (*GHG* or *GhG*) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.[1]
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3).

Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5] The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse gases.

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021.[6]

The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this high was over 3 million years ago.[7] This increase has occurred despite the absorption of more than half of the emissions by various natural carbon sinks in the carbon cycle.[8][9]......

`


----------



## Oddball (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nobody here thought that the goalposts were going to move themselves.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 27, 2021)

`
Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, C-Frank) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you are going to argue that an increase in CO2 of a 120 parts per million is going to bake the planet in 1000 years, the least you could do would be to conduct an experiment to prove the associated temperature increase empirically.  Because scientists come to an opposite conclusion depending upon which datasets are used.


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

Especially since...


----------



## abu afak (Dec 27, 2021)

ding said:


> If you are going to argue that an increase in CO2 of a 120 parts per million is going to bake the planet in 1000 years, the least you could do would be to conduct an experiment to prove the associated temperature increase empirically.


We have the climate record... not just empirical, but actual Data on CO2, Temp, and Sea level
Doesn't look good you one-line Troll.

I've decided not to put you on Ignore even tho your one line trolls are Illogical, stupid and repetitive baits/maybe two charts.

*So, as just now/most of the time, I'll just use maybe one in 4 or 5 of them to underline my points... while you UNWITtingly bump my threads to the top with your hundreds of non sequiturs.*

See you later down the page after you troll up another 4 or 5 in a row saying nothing.

BTW, One can hardly find your 10 word posts in that huge sig (I've never read either).
Bye
`



`


----------



## ding (Dec 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> We have the climate record... not just empirical, but actual data on CO2, temp, and sea level
> Doesn't look you one-line Troller.
> 
> I've decided not to put you on Ignore even tho your one line trolls are Illogical, stupid and repetitive baits/maybe two charts.
> ...


The climate record a shows that CO2 does not drive the earth's climate.  CO2 lagged temperature by at least 800 years, dummy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 28, 2021)

ding said:


> You are just going to have to take their word that if they ever did do an experiment the published report would match their claim perfectly.  The actual recorded temperatures, not so much.



And American CO2 is worse of all because it's ejected into the atmosphere on a per capita basis making it far far far deadlier than CO2 from India or the world's largest CO2 emitter by far - the AGW HQ - China


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 28, 2021)

ding said:


> Especially since...
> 
> View attachment 580504



Ancient, fossilized CO2 is different and far less powerful than modern CO2 which now drives the climate


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And American CO2 is worse of all because it's ejected into the atmosphere on a per capita basis making it far far far deadlier than CO2 from India or the world's largest CO2 emitter by far - the AGW HQ - China


Yes, CO2 from China and India is good for nature.  

It's so weird how science works.


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Ancient, fossilized CO2 is different and far less powerful than modern CO2 which now drives the climate


100%.  Clearly America is evil.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Ancient, fossilized CO2 is different and far less powerful than modern CO2 which now drives the climate



The only safe CO2 is from burning wood.
 At least that's how Crick feels.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 28, 2021)

ding said:


> Yes, CO2 from China and India is good for nature.
> 
> It's so weird how science works.



Well China, on a per capita, basis, emits far less CO2 than even Micronesia and Guam, and even thought they used more concrete in 5 years, largely to build vacant cities, than the US used in our entire history and they have a robust space program, AND they fund most of the AGW "research", but come on, man!  They have no impact on the planet


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 28, 2021)

Who gives a flying fuck if it is humans fault or not?  We are not going to change what we are doing.  

One thing anyone with a brain can agree on is that the climate is changing.  

Instead of having a pissing contest over it we should start working to adapt to those changes and make the most of them.   The climate is going to keep changing no matter how much time all you people spend pissing over who is to blame


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2021)

Ah yes, let us adapt to this;





Yes, by God, let's adapt, dedicate more land for cemetaries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, let us adapt to this;
> 
> View attachment 580848
> 
> Yes, by God, let's adapt, dedicate more land for cemetaries.



No tornadoes before global warming.......durr


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, let us adapt to this;
> 
> View attachment 580848
> 
> Yes, by God, let's adapt, dedicate more land for cemetaries.



You can stop tornadoes and hurricanes?  Really?  And you haven't chained yourself to the Chinese Embassy?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No tornadoes before global warming.......durr



We never even had a storm before 1850, not one!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 29, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No tornadoes before global warming.......durr


Average December tornadoes in the US, 23. This December, 150+ and counting. That kind of answer is indicative of basic dishonesty. We have seen very abnormal heat waves creating huge fires this year. We have seen record floods and wind storms. Now we are seeing record tornadoes and number of tornadoes in December. Yes, we have had tornadoes before, we have had fires before, we have had floods before, and we still have far to many lying idiots like you still with us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 29, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We never even had a storm before 1850, not one!


We never had idiots before you, not one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> We never had idiots before you, not one.



Tell us again how modern CO2 can drive temperature while pre-1850 CO2 lagged it by 1,000 year


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 29, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Tell us again how modern CO2 can drive temperature while pre-1850 CO2 lagged it by 1,000 year


That has been done many times on this board. That you are just plain too stupid and too far into your crazy hollow moon and other insane conspiracy theories to understand science is clearly evident.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> That has been done many times on this board. That you are just plain too stupid and too far into your crazy hollow moon and other insane conspiracy theories to understand science is clearly evident.



Modern CO2 is different?  Why would temperatures DROP when CO2 is at a peak? Doesn't that invalidate your Cult's "theory"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Average December tornadoes in the US, 23. This December, 150+ and counting. That kind of answer is indicative of basic dishonesty. We have seen very abnormal heat waves creating huge fires this year. We have seen record floods and wind storms. Now we are seeing record tornadoes and number of tornadoes in December. Yes, we have had tornadoes before, we have had fires before, we have had floods before, and we still have far to many lying idiots like you still with us.



*Average December tornadoes in the US, 23. *

Over what time frame?

*We have seen very abnormal heat waves creating huge fires this year. *

Abnormal? 

*Yes, we have had tornadoes before, we have had fires before, we have had floods before, and we still have far to many lying idiots like you still with us.*

Aww, shucks, am I making you sad?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Dec 30, 2021)

How do we Know Humans are Causing Climate Change?

Even the best paid deniers ran completely out of new material decades ago. We should feel sad for them. They are so pitiful and pathetic.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2021)

The global warming effects of CO2 has have been known since the mid to late 1800s. Now the effects of all that anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere is warming the planet as predicted by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. What is so hard to understand  about that.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 30, 2021)

@spotthedummy.com

China Fires Up New Giant Coal Power Plant In Face Of Calls For Cuts | ZeroHedge



Only the climate nutters never get the big picture...it's is quite beyond them!


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 30, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021.[6]
> 
> 
> `


*Trustfundie Treehuggers*

Before the Industrial Revolution, societies were totalitarian aristocracies with no chance to get out of miserable poverty for all the people who weren't born into the tiny hereditary clique.  That is the real motivation for our own decadent HeirHead guillotine-fodder to shut economic growth down.

The uninhibited development of Nature's bountiful resources has been the only cause of class mobility.  It is the story of America. Those who inherited their wealth rather than earned it fear being replaced by earners.  That desperate fear is transferred to their fake fear of global warming, making them sound passionately sincere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2021)

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​
By performing lots and lots of acience. Then, collecting all of it and letting it show us what is causing climate change.


The result? The determinations of the IPCC.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​
> By performing lots and lots of acience. Then, collecting all of it and letting it show us what is causing climate change.
> 
> 
> The result? The determinations of the IPCC.


You mean the same organization who has a mandate to speak from one voice?  That's not how science works.  

Why hasn't there been a lab experiment quantifying the associated temperature for various CO2 concentrations?  That would be science.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> How do we Know Humans are Causing Climate Change?
> 
> Even the best paid deniers ran completely out of new material decades ago. We should feel sad for them. They are so pitiful and pathetic.


<ahem>






						ShieldSquare Captcha
					






					iopscience.iop.org
				




AND.... there have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).


----------



## abu afak (Jan 1, 2022)

ding said:


> <ahem>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Note the use of the subjective/Nothing word "Many."
Actually, when compared with pro-AGW articles it's not 'many,' it's TINY.

`

`


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> PLAGIARIZED LIST above, and use of the subjective/Nothing word "Many."
> Actually, when compared with pro-AGW articles it's not 'many,' it's TINY.
> 
> `
> ...


So you didn't see the link?  And the words for example?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 1, 2022)

ding said:


> So you didn't see the link?  And the words for example?


I had eliminated 'Plagiarized' just corrected the Misleading "Many."

In fact, the list is from a study written including at least one author "Soon" (I googled) who is actually citing himself/ some of his Own studies (3) and who is Funded by the America Petroleum Institute and Koch Bothers.
LOL

*and again Note the use of the subjective/Nothing word "Many."
Actually, when compared with pro-AGW articles it's not 'many,' it's 'TINY.'*

`


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I corrected the 'Plagiarized just corrected the Misleading "Many."
> 
> In fact, the list is from a study written including at least author "Soon" who is actually citing (himself) his Own studies and who is Funded by the America Petroleum Institute and Koch Bothers.
> 
> `


Again... did you not see the words, for example, and understand what they mean?

Science is science.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 1, 2022)

II`

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, Cru-Frank, Rainy) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 1, 2022)

ding said:


> You mean the same organization who has a mandate to speak from one voice? That's not how science works.


IPCC isn't one voice. It is 100s of 1000s of voices.  The working groups, the researchers, down to the grad students. It is the presented summary of the work of 100s of 1000s of people. And they sign off on it, and every major scientific society across every field of science (naturally, as they contributed their work to it) endorsed the IPCC summaries and proudly show how they contributed to them, if you care to look.

Let's compare that to...whatever it is you think you found on Google or came up with yourself.

All day.

How do we compare?

Well, we could start by you composing an email to a climate scientist. I can send it for you.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> IPCC isn't one voice. It is 100s of 1000s of voices.  The working groups, the researchers, down to the grad students. It is the presented summary of the work of 100s of 1000s of people. And they sign off on it, and every major scientific society across every field of science (naturally, as they contributed their work to it) endorsed the IPCC summaries and proudly show how they contributed to them, if you care to look.
> 
> Let's compare that to...whatever it is you think you found on Google or came up with yourself.
> 
> ...


Since its establishment as a global science-policy interface in 1988, the IPCC proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication, and eventually, climate governance. The Panel is the top layer of a “climate knowledge infrastructure” [Edwards, 2010] with global temperature indicators and global climate models as essential components of consensus-making [Hulme, 2010, p. 562]. By ‘speaking with one voice for global climate science’ — combining highly diverse climate-related knowledge and including expertise from all over the world — the IPCC’s assessment and knowledge synthesis gained legitimacy and authority for policy advice [Beck, Borie et al., 2014; Hulme, 2013].

Science isn't a popularity contest.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 2, 2022)

ding said:


> Since its establishment as a global science-policy interface in 1988, the IPCC proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication, and eventually, climate governance. The Panel is the top layer of a “climate knowledge infrastructure” [Edwards, 2010] with global temperature indicators and global climate models as essential components of consensus-making [Hulme, 2010, p. 562]. By ‘speaking with one voice for global climate science’ — combining highly diverse climate-related knowledge and including expertise from all over the world — the IPCC’s assessment and knowledge synthesis gained legitimacy and authority for policy advice [Beck, Borie et al., 2014; Hulme, 2013].
> 
> Science isn't a popularity contest.


*Science is Science, and 90-something percent of scientists and 100% of International Science orgs say the current warming is AGW.
And science* (unlike math which deals in proofs) *deals in theories affirmed over time.
So it IS in good part a long-running 'popularity contest'/affirmation by ongoing observation: Consensus.*

`


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Science is Science, and 90-something percent of scientists and 100% of International Science orgs say the current warming is AGW.
> And science* (unlike math which deals in proofs) *deals in theories affirmed over time.
> So it IS in good part a long-running 'popularity contest'/affirmation by ongoing observation: Consensus.*
> 
> `


Changing any minds, dipshit???😂


----------



## abu afak (Jan 10, 2022)

Dale Smith said:


> Changing any minds, dipshit???😂


I imagine with 37,000+ Views, probably well more than half non-board members, I have indeed changed many minds.

You and your Chemtrails crusade OTOH can't be going well. What with _'the Govt starting COVID so they could plant chips in us with the vaccines'_ you Conspiratorial mental defectives are peddling.

But thanks for the unwitting bump up. More readers yet.

`


----------



## jc456 (Jan 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I imagine with 37,000+ Views, probably well more than half non-board members, I have indeed changed many minds.
> 
> You and your Chemtrails crusade OTOH can't be going well. What with _'the Govt starting COVID so they could plant chips in us with the vaccines'_ that you Conspiratorial mental defectives are peddling.
> 
> ...


name a prediction that has come true.

is there such a word as consensus in science?

Why can't you fks ever publish anything that has come true?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

Johnlaw said:


> *The global warming effects of CO2 has have been known since the mid to late 1800s. Now the effects of all that anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere is warming the planet as predicted by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. What is so hard to understand  about that.*


I keep asking the deniers to merely define 'Greenhouse Gas.'
They can't/won't do it.
Not one. 
Cognitive dissonance classic.

`


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I keep asking the deniers to merely define 'Greenhouse Gas.'
> They can't/won't do it.
> Not one.
> Cognitive dissonance classic.
> ...


No such thing in my world


----------



## abu afak (Jan 13, 2022)

V.

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, Cru-Frank, Rainy) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`


----------



## jc456 (Jan 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> V.
> 
> Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, Cru-Frank, Rainy) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?
> 
> ...


No such thing, they can’t tell you about what doesn’t exist. Gas exists, what suits your fancy


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> II`
> 
> Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, Cru-Frank, Rainy) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?
> 
> ...


The presence of an atmosphere, dummy.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 15, 2022)

Wiki
[....]

 Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​
"Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[33] No longer does ANY national or international Scientific body reject the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.[32][34]


Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.
They have concluded that almost All climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]
[......]
[......]

`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 21, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> How do we Know Humans are Causing Climate Change?
> 
> Even the best paid deniers ran completely out of new material decades ago. We should feel sad for them. They are so pitiful and pathetic.


That and the FACT the last 7 years were the warmest 7 years on record. (or 7 of 8)
Right through Skookerasbil (with jc456 assists) ridiculous thread/BLOG, the delusional "the skeptics are winning" BLOG.
No shame or no brains. They're, in fact, getting crushed.
The skeptics are losing/have lost.

`


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That and the FACT the last 7 years were the warmest 7 years on record. (or 7 of 8)
> Right through Skookerasbil (with jc456 assists) ridiculous thread/BLOG, the delusional "the skeptics are winning" BLOG.
> No shame or no brains. They're, in fact, getting crushed.
> The skeptics are losing/have lost.
> ...


warmer where?  explain how you get an entire planet's temperature?  you fking have no idea how warm or cold the planet has been.  No one does.  Stop looking the fool fool.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jan 21, 2022)

Thankfully, climate scientists have largely remained immune to these divisive attempts to politically corrupt their work product. Not that being a dedicated nerd is some great accomplishment, but they deserve lots of credit for marching steadily on through all the shitstorms.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 21, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> It in my signature:   *"The climate system is a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"* --- IPCC


QUOTE MINING, just like the Evolution deniers!

"....In his response to us, Monckton provides an argument that is based on quote-mining the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report and *taking a single sentence out of context - the first sentence in the quote below.*  The context of the quote is provided in the following sentences (emphasis added):



> "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. * Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.  *Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of newmethods of model diagnosis, but such statistical informationis essential."



""In short, *the IPCC is saying that we cannot precisely predict the future climate state; however, we can produce a probability distribution of possible future climate states, which is precisely what the IPCC report proceeds to do.  
Monckton has misrepresented the IPCC report by selecting a single sentence that serves a convenient purpose out of context, and choosing to ignore the text immediately following, not to mention essentially entire sections of the IPCC report* where they do indeed detail the probabilities of future climate states from model ensembles.".."





__





						Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
					





					skepticalscience.com
				




`


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 21, 2022)

abu afak said:


> My post was quite coherent and you had no answer to it.
> Zip.
> Yours was inexcusably obtuse as it just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of Stryder that was already debunked.
> And you have come up with no Rational reply TO it since, just your 'pumpkin' put down attempt/loss admission.
> `


I find your attempted response quite amusing and vacant.

Consider getting an adult to help you try to communicate whateverthefuck it is you think you’re “saying.”


----------



## Rogue AI (Jan 21, 2022)

Global climate is a complex system that is influenced by numerous forces, both terrestrial and non-terrestrial. Attempting to distill it down to something as simple as CO2 is beyond idiotic.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2022)

abu afak said:


> QUOTE MINING, just like the Evolution deniers!
> 
> "....In his response to us, Monckton provides an argument that is based on quote-mining the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report and *taking a single sentence out of context - the first sentence in the quote below.*  The context of the quote is provided in the following sentences (emphasis added):
> 
> ...


A probability that they haven’t got right once since they were formed


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I keep asking the deniers to merely define 'Greenhouse Gas.'
> They can't/won't do it.
> Not one.
> Cognitive dissonance classic.
> ...



Water vapor covers about 2/3's the greenhouse effect ... carbon dioxide about 1/4 ... and the rest is at wavelengths that both are reactive at ... the satellites in orbit aren't sensitive enough to pick up any contribution from methane or other species ... 

My understanding is the definition works the other way ... we state which gases are NOT contributing to the greenhouse effect and define these as non-greenhouse gases (oxygen, nitrogen and argon) ... and the rest are greenhouse gases by default ...

What's interesting is that water vapor is the primary GHG as it interacts with the radiative transfer of energy through the atmosphere ... it's also the primary species acting in the convective transfer of energy ... AND carries _four times_ the specific heat capacity as any other species in our atmosphere with latent heats at the insane level ... 

Just more exotic properties of a rather mundane substance ...


----------



## abu afak (Jan 22, 2022)

Dale Smith said:


> Here is your (snicker) "Climate change".


Dale Smith is a CHEMTRAILS ConspiracYst who tries to post his conspiracy pictures in Climate threads.
Reported again.

This place is a loony bin.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2022)

Seems like a lot of adults immediately get confused when they see the word "consensus".

Let's be clear: There is not just "consensus of belief" among the scientific community regarding ACC. There is complete consensus of _the evidence_.

Mountains and mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, all pointing in the same direction.


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Global climate is a complex system that is influenced by numerous forces, both terrestrial and non-terrestrial. Attempting to distill it down to something as simple as CO2 is beyond idiotic.


No, it's not.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jan 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> View attachment 592759


Yeah it is. Any number of events, none of which humans participate in, can alter the climate at a moment's notice. Making any alleged human activity moot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 26, 2022)

abu afak 

It's amazing  how spot on scientists were about this over 40 years ago.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 2, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak
> 
> It's amazing  how spot on scientists were about this over 40 years ago.


Yes we see alot of silly Anecdotes about wrong predictions that are not Mainstream science and made before the tools w have now. (like weather satellite data)
`


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak
> 
> It's amazing  how spot on scientists were about this over 40 years ago.


Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider. 






						ShieldSquare Captcha
					






					iopscience.iop.org
				




Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation. Wake the fuck up


----------



## abu afak (Feb 2, 2022)

ding said:


> Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Already refuted Several times with Links.
You're a knowing harassment Troll.
SWAT!/bye


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Already refuted Several times with Links.
> You're a knowing harassment Troll.
> SWAT!/bye


Incorrect.  Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation. Wake the fuck up


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> View attachment 592759



Water Vapor isn't on your chart.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 3, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak
> 
> It's amazing  how spot on scientists were about this over 40 years ago.


You mean the ice age we’re now freezing through?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 5, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Water Vapor isn't on your chart.


Good news.
Even though it wasn't addressed to me, I finally found your 6 word post in that 20 line, 1000 word signature of yours.
And yes, water vapor is a major GHG.
`


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 5, 2022)

Were not climate change natural  we'd all be dinosaurs. 

Now, tell me about a possible downside to that.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 5, 2022)

HenryBHough said:


> Were not climate change natural  we'd all be dinosaurs.
> 
> Now, tell me about a possible downside to that.


Dinosaurs are grazers that wake up and wander daily,
If sea level goes up 5 or 50 feet they just move a bit further from the coast that month, year or century.
They didn't have cities on waters edge, or very near, that would displace 1 or 2 billion of their buddies.


----------



## Mac-7 (Feb 5, 2022)

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​
We dont


----------



## Crick (Feb 7, 2022)

We do.  Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere shows that virtually every molecule above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level is the result of the combustion of fossil fuel.  That number is matched by simple bookkeeping estimates based on the amount of fossil fuel known to have been burned.  If you have some other explanation for those empirical observations, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> We do.  Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere shows that virtually every molecule above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level is the result of the combustion of fossil fuel.  That number is matched by simple bookkeeping estimates based on the amount of fossil fuel known to have been burned.  If you have some other explanation for those empirical observations, I'd love to hear it.



Now you are just lying because that is all you have left to run with.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 7, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Now you are just lying because that is all you have left to run with.


I had heard that as well.
How long does it take one to look up if what he says is true ?
Why didn't YOU do it?
You ostensibly look up all this obscure 'raw data' and you didn't know and couldn't look this up?
15 seconds.

""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is *70% larger* than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, *and it occurred 100-200 times faster.*

In addition, *fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old.* These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."...""






						How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?
					

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.




					www.climate.gov
				




`


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> ""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is *70% larger* than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, *and it occurred 100-200 times faster.*


And yet the planet is roughly at the same temperature as it was 7,000 years ago, dummy.  Which is still 2C below the temperature of previous interglacial cycles.  

You have falsely attributed the recent warming trend to atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2022)

ding said:


> And yet the planet is roughly at the same temperature as it was 7,000 years ago, dummy.  Which is still 2C below the temperature of previous interglacial cycles.
> 
> You have falsely attributed the recent warming trend to atmospheric CO2.


To what do you attribute the trend?


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

Crick said:


> To what do you attribute the trend?


Primarily the sun, urban heat island effect and the reduced albedo of an interglacial cycle. 

Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

One would think the planet being on the precipice of extensive northern hemisphere glaciation would be the starting point of every climate discussion. We can see signs of it every winter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2022)

ding said:


> Primarily the sun, urban heat island effect



What about the heat island effect of solar arrays?


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What about the heat island effect of solar arrays?


Offset by converting solar radiation into electricity.  The net effect is cooling.  



> We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

ding said:


> And yet the planet is roughly at the same temperature as it was 7,000 years ago, dummy.  Which is still 2C below the temperature of previous interglacial cycles.
> 
> You have falsely attributed the recent warming trend to atmospheric CO2.



Just because it was warmer in a/some periods than it is now, does not mean GHGs are not causing the current warming.
That's fallacious reasoning and/or *the usual ding repeat trolling/stalking the same fallacies regularly.*

One could easily find the reason in any of the OP links or by googling.
This cycle unlike the other is not orbital/solar-force caused (and then contributed by CO2 et al) but rather near uniquely driven by man's GHG forcing which in the usual natural situation would become mere contributors.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Just because it was warmer in a/some periods than it is now, does not mean GHGs are not causing the current warming.
> That's fallacious reasoning and/or *the usual ding repeat trolling/stalking the same crap regularly.*
> 
> One could easily find the reason in any of the OP links or by googling.
> ...


And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> This cycle unlike the other is not orbital/solar-force caused (and then contributed by CO2 et al) but rather near uniquely driven by man's GHG forcing which in the usual natural situation become mere contributors.


Orbital forcing coupled with increased albedo with the northern hemisphere at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation is what triggers the glacial cycle.  Solar variability coupled with decreased albedo and orbital forcing is what slowly brings us out of glacial cycles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2022)

ding said:


> Offset by converting solar radiation into electricity.  The net effect is cooling.



Offset?
The heat island effect showed it absolutely wasn't offset.
If it was neutral, it would be cooler at the array and warmer where the electricity was used.


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I just expalined why you Trolling POS
> Here's a more official version
> 
> Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting. In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
> ...


None of that disputes anything I just wrote, dummy.


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Offset?
> The heat island effect showed it absolutely wasn't offset.
> If it was neutral, it would be cooler at the array and warmer where the electricity was used.


Entirely different thing.  That's the concrete jungle.  Not your silly belief that electricity usage is warming the planet.  Electricity usage is the same in both cases; electricity generated from non-solar sources and electricity generated from solar sources.  So whatever heat you think is being returned to the planet from using electricity is in both cases.  But only one case reduces the solar radiation that strikes the surface of the planet.  So incrementally the widespread use of solar power will have a cooling effect on the planet because the decreased albedo of the panel itself is more than offset by the solar radiation converted to radiation.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

> ding said:
> And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.


I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

*NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago*

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. *These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. *The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

*In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.*

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
> Here's a more official version.
> 
> *NOAA
> ...


Still not seeing anything that disputes what I said....

Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

Orbital forcing coupled with increased albedo with the northern hemisphere at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation is what triggers the glacial cycle. Solar variability coupled with decreased albedo and orbital forcing is what slowly brings us out of glacial cycles.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions depending upon which data sets they use.  You have mistakenly attributed the recent warming trend with CO2 when it is entirely a product of natural causes; specifically the sun.


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated planet.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 8, 2022)

ding said:


> Primarily the sun, urban heat island effect and the reduced albedo of an interglacial cycle.
> 
> Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.
> 
> One would think the planet being on the precipice of extensive northern hemisphere glaciation would be the starting point of every climate discussion. We can see signs of it every winter.



Here you go from Watts Up With That? 2012 post,

LINK

Bond et al. 2001, “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene,” Science.



> Excerpt from Bond: “Over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and, overall, reduced solar output.”



Neff et al. 2001, “Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago,” Nature.



> Finding from Neff: Correlation coefficients of .55 and .60.



Usoskin et. al. 2005, “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?” Proc. 13th Cool Stars Workshop.



> Excerpt from Usoskin: “The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.”



Shaviv and Veizer, 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today.



> Excerpt from Shaviv: “We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF [Cosmic Ray Flux] variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy.” [Not strictly due to solar activity, but implicating the GCR, or CRF, that solar activity modulates.]



Plenty of anti-CO2 alarmists know about this stuff. Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich, for instance, in their 2007 paper: “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature” (Proc. R. Soc. A), began by documenting how “[a] number of studies have indicated that solar variations had an effect on preindustrial climate throughout the Holocene.” In support, they cited 17 papers, the Bond and Neff articles from above, plus:



> Davis & Shafer 1992; Jirikowic et al. 1993; Davis 1994; vanGeel et al. 1998; Yu&Ito 1999; Hu et al. 2003; Sarnthein et al. 2003; Christla et al. 2004; Prasad et al. 2004; Wei & Wang 2004; Maasch et al. 2005; Mayewski et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005a; Bard & Frank 2006; and Polissar et al. 2006.



The correlations in most of these papers are not directly to temperature. They are to temperature proxies, some of which have a complex relationship with temperature, like Neff 2001, which found a correlation between solar activity and rainfall. Even so, the correlations tend to be strong, as if the whole gyre is somehow moving in broad synchrony with solar activity.

Some studies do examine correlations between solar activity proxies and direct temperature proxies, like the ratio of Oxygen18 to Oxygen16 in geologic samples. One such study (highlighted in Kirkby 2007) is Mangini et. al. 2005, “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.”



> Excerpt from Mangini: “… a high correlation between δ18O in SPA 12 and D14C (r =0.61). The maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300). This correlation indicates that the variability of δ18O is driven by solar changes, in agreement with previous results on Holocene stalagmites from Oman, and from Central Germany.”


And that’s just old stuff. Here are four random recent papers.

Ogurtsov et al, 2010, “Variations in tree ring stable isotope records from northern Finland and their possible connection to solar activity,” JASTP.



> Excerpt from Ogurtsov: “Statistical analysis of the carbon and oxygen stable isotope records reveals variations in the periods around 100, 11 and 3 years. A century scale connection between the 13C/12C record and solar activity is most evident.”



Di Rita, 2011, “A possible solar pacemaker for Holocene fluctuations of a salt-marsh in southern Italy,” Quaternary International.



> Excerpt from Di Rita: “The chronological correspondence between the ages of saltmarsh vegetation reductions and the minimum concentration values of 10Be in the GISP2 ice core supports the hypothesis that important fluctuations in the extent of the salt-marsh in the coastal Tavoliere plain are related to variations of solar activity.”



Raspopov et al, 2011, “Variations in climate parameters at time intervals from hundreds to tens of millions of years in the past and its relation to solar activity,” JASTP.



> Excerpt from Raspopov: “Our analysis of 200-year climatic oscillations in modern times and also data of other researchers referred to above suggest that these climatic oscillations can be attributed to solar forcing. The results obtained in our study for climatic variations millions of years ago indicate, in our opinion, that the 200- year solar cycle exerted a strong influence on climate parameters at those time intervals as well.”



Tan et al, 2011, “Climate patterns in north central China during the last 1800 yr and their possible driving force,” Clim. Past.



> Excerpt from Tan: “Solar activity may be the dominant force that drove the same-phase variations of the temperature and precipitation in north central China.”



Saltmarshes, precipitation, “oscillations.” It’s all so science-fair. How about something just plain scary?

Solheim et al. 2011, “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24,” submitted astro-ph.



> Excerpt from Solheim: “We find that for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 30-90% of the temperature increase in this period may be attributed to the Sun. For the average of 60 European stations we find ≈ 60% and globally (HadCRUT3) ≈ 50%. The same relations predict a temperature decrease of ≈ 0.9°C globally and 1.1−1.7°C for the Norwegian stations investigated from solar cycle 23 to 24.”



Those two dozen there are just the start. Scafetta hasn’t even been mentioned. (Sorry Nicola.) But there is a lot in those 24.


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2022)

Let's ham and egg them!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2022)

ding said:


> Entirely different thing.



Nope.
Your claim is that the energy converted into electricity isn't available to heat the Earth.
But the area around the solar array is hotter, not cooler. When you add that to the heat given off when the electricity is used, it's net warming, not net cooling. 

*Not your silly belief that electricity usage is warming the planet. *

I never claimed that. Not even once.

*But only one case reduces the solar radiation that strikes the surface of the planet.*

You mean the case where the albedo of the solar panel is lower than the albedo of the planet?
Tell me again how that cools anything.

*the decreased albedo of the panel itself*

Glad you finally figured that one out. 

*is more than offset by the solar radiation converted to radiation.*

Tell me the efficiency of your theoretical "cooling panel" and I'll be glad to show you your error.


----------



## task0778 (Feb 8, 2022)

IMHO, the question should be how much do we know about climate change and how much change is due to anthropogenic causes.  Currently, we do not know how, much warming is due to humanity and we also do not know how much effect any of the solutions pushed by the GWers would have.  IOW, would we be wasting our money on projects and program that will have a miniscule effect AND what would the effect be on our society and that of the rest of the world.  IMHO, anybody who says they know the answers to these questions is lying.


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2022)

task0778 said:


> IMHO, the question should be how much do we know about climate change and how much change is due to anthropogenic causes.  Currently, we do not know how, much warming is due to humanity and we also do not know how much effect any of the solutions pushed by the GWers would have.  IOW, would we be wasting our money on projects and program that will have a miniscule effect AND what would the effect be on our society and that of the rest of the world.  IMHO, anybody who says they know the answers to these questions is lying.


I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about



www.ipcc.ch


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Here you go from Watts Up With That? 2012 post,
> 
> LINK
> 
> ...


And how does this post (WTFUWT copy/paste) contradict mine in any way?
The steady increase in GHG warming doesn't preclude cycles within the longer term warming trend.

In fact, YOU count on them for you 'cooling' and "pause' claims.
ie, 2017's Solar minimum was the basis for what you called 'cooling,' but in fact the temp recovered and ascended again. 18, 19 with 2020 app tied with 2016 for highest.
Thus "Going down the up escalator." Mini-cycles within steady AGW uptrend.
`


`


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope.
> Your claim is that the energy converted into electricity isn't available to heat the Earth.
> But the area around the solar array is hotter, not cooler. When you add that to the heat given off when the electricity is used, it's net warming, not net cooling.
> 
> ...


Actually that wasn't my claim, dummy.  Try reading it again and see if you can state it properly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Actually that wasn't my claim, dummy.  Try reading it again and see if you can state it properly.



*Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.*


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.*


Now you are getting it.  Good boy.  

Just don't screw up the next part and everything will be fine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Now you are getting it.  Good boy.
> 
> Just don't screw up the next part and everything will be fine.



I've gotten your error since you first posted it.

If all those panels are cooling the vicinity, why is the vicinity warmer?


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I've gotten your error since you first posted it.
> 
> If all those panels are cooling the vicinity, why is the vicinity warmer?


The modeling from the paper I linked showed a regional cooling of 2C.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2022)

ding said:


> The modeling from the paper I linked showed a regional cooling of 2C.



Actual measurements show actual heating.

_As with the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, large PV power plants induce a landscape change that reduces albedo so that the modified landscape is darker and, therefore, less reflective. Lowering the terrestrial albedo from ~20% in natural deserts12 to ~5% over PV panels13 alters the energy balance of absorption, storage, and release of short- and longwave radiation14,15.  _









						The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures - Scientific Reports
					

While photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy production has surged, concerns remain about whether or not PV power plants induce a “heat island” (PVHI) effect, much like the increase in ambient temperatures relative to wildlands generates an Urban Heat Island effect in cities. Transitions to PV...




					www.nature.com
				




Check out the lower albedo.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Actual measurements show actual heating.
> 
> _As with the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, large PV power plants induce a landscape change that reduces albedo so that the modified landscape is darker and, therefore, less reflective. Lowering the terrestrial albedo from ~20% in natural deserts12 to ~5% over PV panels13 alters the energy balance of absorption, storage, and release of short- and longwave radiation14,15.  _
> 
> ...


And like I said before there's been contradicting studies and I choose to believe the one that results in something which makes sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2022)

ding said:


> And like I said before there's been contradicting studies and I choose to believe the one that results in something which makes sense.


Right. Your study was theoretical, the one I posted took actual measurements.

If your study was correct, *ignoring lower panel albedo,* total warming should be the same, some shifted away from the panels and to the point of usage.

_In the second simulation, the one in which global thermostat regulation is significantly increased, the large amount of power consumed actually produced an urban heat island effect, in which human energy use releases heat into the environment and causes the regional temperature to warm up. _

See?

_In this scenario, the warming from the heat island effect essentially compensated for the cooling caused by the solar panels._

Essentially compensated. LOL!

Now show me you understand what the lower panel albedo does.
In a way that makes sense.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. Your study was theoretical, the one I posted took actual measurements.
> 
> If your study was correct, *ignoring lower panel albedo,* total warming should be the same, some shifted away from the panels and to the point of usage.
> 
> ...


It's a little more complicated than that.  Read your own paper.  Did you see where your paper mentioned sensible heat?  

So recognizing all of your arguments, I still chose to believe the paper that lets me say the best way to usher in the next glacial cycle is widespread use of solar.  And there's not fuck all you can do about that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2022)

ding said:


> It's a little more complicated than that.  Read your own paper.  Did you see where your paper mentioned sensible heat?
> 
> So recognizing all of your arguments, I still chose to believe the paper that lets me say the best way to usher in the next glacial cycle is widespread use of solar.  And there's not fuck all you can do about that.



*Did you see where your paper mentioned sensible heat?*

Sensible heat doesn't make your confusion about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics any smaller.

*I still chose to believe the paper that lets me say the best way to usher in the next glacial cycle is widespread use of solar. *

Of course you do, because theoretical cooling beats actual warming.






Damn! About 4C warmer at midnight.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Did you see where your paper mentioned sensible heat?*
> 
> Sensible heat doesn't make your confusion about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics any smaller.
> 
> ...


Sensible heat is about frequencies.  Not all heat is created equal apparently.  

Let's just say that I am having more fun with cooling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Sensible heat is about frequencies.  Not all heat is created equal apparently.
> 
> Let's just say that I am having more fun with cooling.



IR emitted from very dark solar panels has magical properties that IR emitted from the planet's surface doesn't?

What about the IR emitted when electricity is consumed?
Does solar generated electricity emit different IR than other electricity?

*Let's just say that I am having more fun with cooling.  *

And I'm having fun showing your error.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IR emitted from very dark solar panels has magical properties that IR emitted from the planet's surface doesn't?
> 
> What about the IR emitted when electricity is consumed?
> Does solar generated electricity emit different IR than other electricity?
> ...


Yes.

It's in both cases, silly.  So why even go there  

Everything is choice.  Sort of like believing widespread use of solar panels will help cool the planet.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2022)

Are you under the impression that people put up solar panels to cool the planet by making shade?


----------



## ding (Feb 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Are you under the impression that people put up solar panels to cool the planet by making shade?


No.  



			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2022)

Good source.  Do you take from this that solar panels will do more harm than the fossil fuel energy production they replace?


----------



## ding (Feb 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Good source.  Do you take from this that solar panels will do more harm than the fossil fuel energy production they replace?


I don't buy the gloom and doom projections of AGW and I don't believe it's wise to try to make the planet cooler in the middle of an ice age.  So what do you think?

You'd think with significant portions of North America, Europe and Asia being covered in ice and snow every winter people would make the connection to the ice house world we have been living in for the past 3 million years but not so much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 10, 2022)

ding said:


> I don't believe it's wise to try to make the planet cooler in the middle of an ice age.



Maybe we should cover the planet with low albedo solar panels?


----------



## ding (Feb 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe we should cover the planet with low albedo solar panels?


That's brilliant.  Then we can answer the question if it ushers in an ice age or a greenhouse.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 10, 2022)

ding said:


> That's brilliant.  Then we can answer the question if it ushers in an ice age or a greenhouse.



Lower albedo = warmer


----------



## ding (Feb 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Lower albedo = warmer


Yes, and higher albedo = colder is why northern hemisphere is so sensitive to extensive continental glaciation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 10, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes, and higher albedo = colder is why northern hemisphere is so sensitive to extensive continental glaciation.



And that's why solar installations won't cool the planet.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And that's why solar installations won't cool the planet.


Pretty sure the planet's propensity to be cooler stands on it's own but the trigger for negative feedback is a different matter all together.  

As for the albedo of solar panels more than offsetting the reduction in solar radiation converted into energy that is still under dispute.


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> I don't buy the gloom and doom projections of AGW and I don't believe it's wise to try to make the planet cooler in the middle of an ice age.  So what do you think?
> 
> You'd think with significant portions of North America, Europe and Asia being covered in ice and snow every winter people would make the connection to the ice house world we have been living in for the past 3 million years but not so much.


We are not in the middle of an ice age and we should be trying to make the planet cooler because we have been warming much faster than at any point in the history of our species, demonstrably from our own actions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> As for the albedo of solar panels more than offsetting the reduction in solar radiation converted into energy that is still under dispute.



Lower albedo means it's warmer at the panel. If 100 watts hits the earth, about 30 watts is bounced back to space. If 100 watts hits a panel, only about 5 watts is bounced back. 25 fewer watts.

If the panel is 20% efficient, 19 watts is converted to electricity.  
Even if you don't understand conservation of energy or entropy,,...76 watts of heat is more than 70.


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2022)

Don't forget that virtually everything we might do with that electricity will eventually culminate in the production of heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> Don't forget that virtually everything we might do with that electricity will eventually culminate in the production of heat.



Ding was ignoring that half of the equation.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> We are not in the middle of an ice age and we should be trying to make the planet cooler because we have been warming much faster than at any point in the history of our species, demonstrably from our own actions.


The ice age began three million years ago.  Or if you prefer you can say the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet from a green house planet 3 million years ago.  Some people - you apparently being one of the - mistakenly call a glacial cycle an ice age.





D-O events - of which there were many -  warmed and cooled from near glacial to near interglacial temperatures (5C swings) in as few as several decades.  So, no, the claim that the recent warming trend is unprecedented is false. 

You have mistakenly attributed increased climate fluctuations of a bipolar glaciated planet with CO2.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)




----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Ice age - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Lower albedo means it's warmer at the panel. If 100 watts hits the earth, about 30 watts is bounced back to space. If 100 watts hits a panel, only about 5 watts is bounced back. 25 fewer watts.
> 
> If the panel is 20% efficient, 19 watts is converted to electricity.
> Even if you don't understand conservation of energy or entropy,,...76 watts of heat is more than 70.


Yeah, I get what lower and higher albedo means.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> The ice age began three million years ago.  Or if you prefer you can say the earth transition to an icehouse planet from a green house planet 3 million years ago.  Some people - you apparently being one of the - mistakenly call a glacial cycle and ice age.
> 
> View attachment 600066
> 
> ...



Disingenuous and Useless as usual.
You have to look at whether we are breaking a shorter term cycle than millions of years to get at the AGW issue.
I'd say disingenuous as well as obtuse.
Always repeating your fallacious nonsense posts and graphics.

(probably to be followed by idiotic one line multi-posts)
`


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> Don't forget that virtually everything we might do with that electricity will eventually culminate in the production of heat.


Sure and that's in all cases of electrical generation, right?  So no difference there.  The difference is only solar reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet and the other technologies don't.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ding was ignoring that half of the equation.


Actually I am relying on a more recent published paper by a reputable source.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Disingenuous and Useless as usual.
> You have to look at whether we are breaking a shorter term cycle than millions of years to get at the AGW issue.
> I'd say disingenuous as well as obtuse.
> Always repeating your fallacious nonsense posts and graphics.
> ...


The transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is well documented and understood.  The same conditions which led to that transition still exist today and should be the starting point for any discussion concerning earth's climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> Yeah, I get what lower and higher albedo means.



Apparently, you don't understand the result of lower albedo.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> Actually I am relying on a more recent published paper by a reputable source.



If that guy actually believes that solar power results in net cooling, he must be ignoring albedo and entropy. Doesn't sound very reputable.

Any follow up papers that claim cooling, or is he all by himself?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> The difference is only solar reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet



By increasing albedo and reducing the energy immediately reflected back into space. LOL!


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> The ice age began three million years ago.  Or if you prefer you can say the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet from a green house planet 3 million years ago.  Some people - you apparently being one of the - mistakenly call a glacial cycle an ice age.
> 
> View attachment 600066
> 
> ...


Do you reject the accepted absorption spectra of CO2?


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> Sure and that's in all cases of electrical generation, right?  So no difference there.  The difference is only solar reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet and the other technologies don't.


The difference is that solar PV doesn't produce CO2 that would otherwise warm the planet's surface by slowing the escape of IR from the atmosphere to space.  Or do you reject the standard absorption spectra of CO2?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Apparently, you don't understand the result of lower albedo.


I think it's more likely that you are having a hard time comprehending what I have already told you.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If that guy actually believes that solar power results in net cooling, he must be ignoring albedo and entropy. Doesn't sound very reputable.
> 
> Any follow up papers that claim cooling, or is he all by himself?


So you believe the authors, Aixue Hu, Samuel Levis and Gerald A. Meehl - who work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and SLevis Consulting LLC - fubar'd their modeling?  

You do realize their paper was published after the paper you linked to was published, right?  Is it also your belief they didn't know about that paper?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> I think it's more likely that you are having a hard time comprehending what I have already told you.



You told me that you don't understand conservation of energy.

Or that lower albedo means more heat at the Earth's surface.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> By increasing albedo and reducing the energy immediately reflected back into space. LOL!


No.  Try again.  I've only explained it about a dozen times.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> So you believe the authors, Aixue Hu, Samuel Levis and Gerald A. Meehl - who work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and SLevis Consulting LLC - fubar'd their modeling?
> 
> You do realize their paper was published after the paper you linked to was published, right?  Is it also your belief they didn't know about that paper?



You mean the error filled theoretical work was published after the one with actual measurements?

Maybe you can explain why power moved from A to B would be anything better than a wash?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You told me that you don't understand conservation of energy.
> 
> Or that lower albedo means more heat at the Earth's surface.


Nope.  Can you show me that quote?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You mean the error filled theoretical work was published after the one with actual measurements?
> 
> Maybe you can explain why power moved from A to B would be anything better than a wash?


You should write a rebuttal paper and get that published.  It might make you feel a little bit better about this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> No.  Try again.  I've only explained it about a dozen times.



Yes, I've seen your humorous attempts to back up your silly claim.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you reject the accepted absorption spectra of CO2?


I reject the lack of a controlled laboratory experiment quantifying it.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, I've seen your humorous attempts to back up your silly claim.


You mean the published paper that states large solar arrays will have a regional cooling effect and alter circulation?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you reject the accepted absorption spectra of CO2?


Do you reject the conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet ~3 million years ago?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> Nope.  Can you show me that quote?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> The difference is that solar PV doesn't produce CO2 that would otherwise warm the planet's surface by slowing the escape of IR from the atmosphere to space.  Or do you reject the standard absorption spectra of CO2?


That's a separate argument.  Let's look at each phenomenon on it's own.  Do you agree with the result of the model or are you like todd and reject it?



			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> You should write a rebuttal paper and get that published.  It might make you feel a little bit better about this.



Pointing out your errors is enough for me.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 600135


Right, the net effect is cooling.  Do you understand what net means?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pointing out your errors is enough for me.


You aren't doing a very good job.  Please don't take it out on those you love.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> You mean the published paper that states large solar arrays will have a regional cooling effect and alter circulation?



The ones that ignore albedo? Yeah, they were funny as well.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The ones that ignore albedo? Yeah, they were funny as well.


You know this how exactly?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> Right, the net effect is cooling.  Do you understand what net means?



Yes, it means you don't understand conservation of energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> You know this how exactly?



Quote the section in your paper that uses the lower albedo of the solar panels in their math.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, it means you don't understand conservation of energy.


No.  It means you don't understand net.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Quote the section in your paper that uses the lower albedo of the solar panels in their math.


Quote the section that said they ignored albedo.  See what I did there?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> Quote the section that said they ignored albedo.  See what I did there?



If they mentioned the lower albedo of the panels and still said net cooler, they're dumber than you are.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If they mentioned the lower albedo of the panels and still said net cooler, they're dumber than you are.


This is so easy...

"... Climate change may aﬀect the amount of solar radiation reaching
the Earth’s surface. For example, reduced sea ice, snow and ice
sheet coverage will increase the absorption of solar radiation at
the surface, but the increased cloudiness induced by an enhanced
hydrologic cycle may reflect more solar radiation. Here we find
that solar panel electricity generation will redistribute the energy
from the sun, thus aﬀecting regional and global climates. Without
the solar panels, solar radiation reaching the surface is partitioned
into absorption and reflection. The transmission part of the solar
radiation is eventually either reflected or absorbed by the Earth’s
surface in the annual mean, thus it is not explicitly considered
here. With the solar panels, a portion of absorbed solar radiation
is diverted to electricity generation. In the regions with solar panels
installed, the direct shortwave radiation incident on the solar panels
increases slightly in all experiments relative to the Control owing
to a reduction of cloudiness (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).
However, local absorption of direct shortwave radiation decreases
by up to 19% in the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, with an
increase of 4% in the SPDLess experiment (Supplementary Table 2).
The reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44% in the
SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, but by 77% in the SPDLess
experiment. Therefore, the total solar panel power production in
the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments is from the reduction of
both reflected and absorbed direct incident solar (about 50% each)
in comparison to the Control. In the SPDLess experiment, this
power production is entirely from reduced reflection, because the
absorption is slightly increased.

In general, the changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
directly aﬀect the regional and global climate, but the changes in
absorbed solar radiation do. Reduced absorption of solar radiation
leads to a significant local cooling by more than −2◦ C relative to
Control averaged in the desert regions with installed solar panels
in the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments (Fig. 1 and Supplemen-
tary Tables 1 and 2). In contrast, the temperature in these regions
is projected to increase by 1∼2.5◦ C in the four RCP scenarios
(RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5) in CCSM4. ..."


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

You really should have read the paper first.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> This is so easy...
> 
> "... Climate change may aﬀect the amount of solar radiation reaching
> the Earth’s surface. For example, reduced sea ice, snow and ice
> ...



*The reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44% in the
SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, but by 77% in the SPDLess
experiment.*

DURR

Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> You really should have read the paper first.



What happens to the temperature of the Earth when the reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44%?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44% in the
> SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, but by 77% in the SPDLess
> experiment.*
> 
> ...


You are welcome. 

So.... the best way to usher in the next glacial cycle is widespread use of solar.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What happens to the temperature of the Earth when the reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44%?


You have to read the whole thing, silly.  But I think it's great that you believe you have discovered a major modeling flaw in a published paper based on modeling.  

In general, the changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
directly aﬀect the regional and global climate, but the changes in
absorbed solar radiation do. Reduced absorption of solar radiation
leads to a significant local cooling by more than −2◦ C relative to
Control averaged in the desert regions with installed solar panels
in the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments (Fig. 1 and Supplemen-
tary Tables 1 and 2). In contrast, the temperature in these regions
is projected to increase by 1∼2.5◦ C in the four RCP scenarios
(RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5) in CCSM4. ..."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> You are welcome.
> 
> So.... the best way to usher in the next glacial cycle is widespread use of solar.


Happy to light a candle in the darkness of your ignorance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> You have to read the whole thing, silly.  But I think it's great that you believe you have discovered a major modeling flaw in a published paper based on modeling.
> 
> In general, the changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
> directly aﬀect the regional and global climate, but the changes in
> ...



*You have to read the whole thing, *

When the errors are so comprehensive, you really don't.

*Reduced absorption of solar radiation leads to a significant local cooling by more than −2◦ C*

Lower albedo means increased absorption of solar radiation.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Happy to light a candle in the darkness of your ignorance.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You have to read the whole thing, *
> 
> When the errors are so comprehensive, you really don't.


It's because you take it out of context that you pereive there are errors.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

I'm fifty moves ahead of you.  That van is going to rear end that taxi.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> It's because you take it out of context that you pereive there are errors.







What's the proper context here?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Actual measurements show actual heating.
> 
> _As with the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, large PV power plants induce a landscape change that reduces albedo so that the modified landscape is darker and, therefore, less reflective. Lowering the terrestrial albedo from ~20% in natural deserts12 to ~5% over PV panels13 alters the energy balance of absorption, storage, and release of short- and longwave radiation14,15.  _
> 
> ...


Check out measurements which refute this.  December 2021



			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 600257
> 
> What's the proper context here?


You'd have to read the paper.  Parsing is how you take things out of context.

Tell me, what were their findings exactly?  That solar panels induce a regional coopling effect?  So is your point that you believe you have discovered an error and think I'm the guy you should be trying to convince?

The thing is the study you posted was old and wrong.  I just posted another study from Dec 2021 which measured reduced longwave radiation.  So if you want to look for some flaws you should probably look at the study you posted as I have refuted it with TWO more recent studies.

Like I said... I'm 50 moves ahead of you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> You'd have to read the paper.  Parsing is how you take things out of context.
> 
> Tell me, what were their findings exactly?  That solar panels induce a regional coopling effect?  So is your point that you believe you have discovered an error and think I'm the guy you should be trying to convince?
> 
> ...



*You'd have to read the paper. Parsing is how you take things out of context.*

When the portion you selected says "_changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
directly aﬀect the regional and global climate_", is there really a chance they can redeem themselves after that huge fucking error?

_but the changes in absorbed solar radiation do. _

Well, if you reduce the_ "reflected solar radiation" _you're increasing the_ "absorbed solar radiation"._

Did the fuller context help the claim?

*So is your point that you believe you have discovered an error*

You don't believe their claim that "a lower albedo causes local cooling" is an error?

*and think I'm the guy you should be trying to convince?*

You're the guy pointing to their study. If they post here, I'll be glad to show them too.

*The thing is the study you posted was old and wrong. *

What was wrong? Their temperature measurements?


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You'd have to read the paper. Parsing is how you take things out of context.*
> 
> When the portion you selected says "_changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
> directly aﬀect the regional and global climate_", is there really a chance they can redeem themselves after that huge fucking error?
> ...


What was wrong in your study?  That there was increased longwave radiation.

Like I said before I think it's cute that you believe you have discovered a major ommission in a published paper.  I've posted two studies that were more recent than yours.  But you keep believing what you want to believe.


----------



## ding (Feb 11, 2022)

11 generations 


50 steps ahead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> What was wrong in your study?  That there was increased longwave radiation.
> 
> Like I said before I think it's cute that you believe you have discovered a major ommission in a published paper.  I've posted two studies that were more recent than yours.  But you keep believing what you want to believe.



*What was wrong in your study? That there was increased longwave radiation.*

Post the portion that was wrong. Post the refutation.

*Like I said before I think it's cute that you believe you have discovered a major ommission in a published paper.  *

It's cute that you think lower albedo makes the area cooler.

_ Zhang & Xu (2020) used the MODIS Land 
90 Surface Temperature and Emissivity Product Collection-6 to analyze 23 solar farms over the globe. 
91 They concluded that both daytime and nighttime LST over the solar farm had decreased because 
92 of the energy conversion to electricity and enhanced convective heating. Such notion of cooler 
93 surfaces over solar farms, however, is not consistent with evidence from in-situ measurements. 
94 Using in-situ measurements obtained from a variety of positions ranging from inside the soil to 95 6.3 m above the surface, Broadbent et al. (2019) showed that, *during the daytime, the solar module 
96 is significantly hotter than the ground of the reference site without solar panels except at noon 
97 when the temperatures of both surfaces are similar. The upward longwave radiative flux measured 
98 at 5.7 meters above the surface is indeed smaller over the solar farm than over the reference site, 
99 suggesting that the longwave emissivity, not, LST, of the solar farm is smaller than its counterpart *
100 of the original barren surface (i.e., the surface at the reference site). Broadbent et al. (2019) further 
*101 estimated the broadband longwave emissivity of the solar panel to be 0.83, in contrast to the *_
*102 broadband emissivity of reference barren sand surface of 0.92. *

The module is "*significantly hotter than the ground of the reference site without solar panels*"

 And* "the broadband longwave emissivity of the solar panel to be 0.83, in contrast to the broadband emissivity of reference barren sand surface of 0.92" *

Hotter panels, lower emissivity. Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2022)

ding said:


> 11 generations
> 
> 
> 50 steps ahead.



As long as you ignore the physics.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What was wrong in your study? That there was increased longwave radiation.*
> 
> Post the portion that was wrong. Post the refutation.
> 
> ...





			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As long as you ignore the physics.


Do you remember when you thought you had me with that generations question and I answered and then crickets from you.  Good times.


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2022)

Speaking of crickets, what do you think of these data?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> Speaking of crickets, what do you think of these data?
> 
> View attachment 600512


I think you should learn how to use the reply feature.


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2022)

Do you understand what I just asked you?  Do you believe the absorption spectrum of CO2 that can be found at a hundred different sites across the internet is accurate?  It's a simple yes or no question that can be answered with far less mental effort than what must be required for you to come up with something you believe to be wittily non-responsive.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you understand what I just asked you?  Do you believe the absorption spectrum of CO2 that can be found at a hundred different sites across the internet is accurate?  It's a simple yes or no question that can be answered with far less mental effort than what must be required for you to come up with something you believe to be wittily non-responsive.



We gee you fail to notice that you didn't post a link or talk about the chart from YOUR point of view why did you post it in the first place?

It isn't data until you post the source for it.

Your science illiteracy is easy to see.


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> We gee you fail to notice that you didn't post a link or talk about the chart from YOUR point of view why did you post it in the first place?
> 
> It isn't data until you post the source for it.
> 
> Your science illiteracy is easy to see.


Do you believe the widely available data describing the absorption spectrum of CO2 is accurate?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you believe the widely available data describing the absorption spectrum of CO2 is accurate?



Since you didn't post the link to the alleged data, I can't take it seriously.

Your head is made of Swiss cheese for memory since I have posted numerous times about the well-known CO2 absorption spectra and far better ones than your unsourced chart.

​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Do you remember when you thought you had me with that generations question and I answered and then crickets from you.  Good times.



You mean when you agreed when I showed that a beneficial mutation could spread very quickly
through a group?

What about it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation



Yes, your link that showed panels made an area hotter.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You mean when you agreed when I showed that a beneficial mutation could spread very quickly
> through a group?
> 
> What about it?


No. I mean I shut you up when I did your math for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> No. I mean I shut you up when I did your math for you.



You agreed when I showed your claim was weak.

Was that a win for you? LOL!


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You agreed when I showed your claim was weak.
> 
> Was that a win for you? LOL!


Incorrect.  Try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  Try again.



It was a loss for you. ok.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It was a loss for you. ok.


As I recall it went something like this...



ding said:


> Punctuated equilibrium addresses the fossil record as it is.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Then we should use that one.


And then I laughed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> As I recall it went something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would you laugh? Had I changed my position on punctuated equilibrium?










Or, was it that 11 generations was too long for a mutation to spread in significant numbers?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would you laugh? Had I changed my position on punctuated equilibrium?
> 
> View attachment 600628
> 
> ...


I don't believe you know what you believe as you seem to be arguing against punctuated equillibrium and natural selection.  Are you a fundie per chance?  Tell you what, have a think and get back to me when you know what you believe.  Fair enough?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

But I shall always have this...



> Toddsterpatriot said:
> Then we should use that one.



And for that I will be eternally thankful.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> I don't believe you know what you believe as you seem to be arguing against punctuated equillibrium and natural selection.



There you go, letting your feelings show again.

*Are you a fundie per chance? *

What have I posted anywhere that would give you that impression?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> But I shall always have this...
> 
> 
> 
> And for that I will be eternally thankful.



I suppose, in your mind, that makes up for me pointing out your ignorance of even basic physics.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> There you go, letting your feelings show again.
> 
> *Are you a fundie per chance? *
> 
> What have I posted anywhere that would give you that impression?


Your arguing against punctuated equilibrium?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Your arguing against punctuated equilibrium?



Where?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I suppose, in your mind, that makes up for me pointing out your ignorance of even basic physics.


And yet I have two recent published studies supporting my belief.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where?


Where do you think?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Where do you think?



Where can you show?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where can you show?


You just copied a post from there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> You just copied a post from there.



I copied a post where I argued against it?

I don't believe you.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I copied a post where I argued against it?
> 
> I don't believe you.


No, YOU literally took a snip from another thread and posted that image here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> No, YOU literally took a snip from another thread and posted that image here.



If you can show a post from that thread where I argued against it, I can't stop you.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you can show a post from that thread where I argued against it, I can't stop you.


Dude, the thread you were arguing against punctuated equillibrium - like a fundie would - was the thread you took the snip from.  So you know where.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Dude, the thread you were arguing against punctuated equillibrium - like a fundie would - was the thread you took the snip from.  So you know where.



Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
I'll just wait for you to show a post from that thread where I argued against it.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
> I'll just wait for you to show a post from that thread where I argued against it.


So until your beliefs are clearly stated otherwise, you talk like a fundie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> So until your beliefs are clearly stated otherwise, you talk like a fundie.



You can't find me arguing against it on that thread?

That's funny.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You can't find me arguing against it on that thread?
> 
> That's funny.


How old do you think the earth is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> How old do you think the earth is?



About 4.5 billion years.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> About 4.5 billion years.


That's an odd belief for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> That's an odd belief for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.



Why do you feel I don't believe in evolution?

Was it because of this post?





__





						Haw!  ANOTHER "missing link" discovered!
					

These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?  https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/archaeologists-discover-missing-link-in-human-evolution-in-israel-1.10584884  About 1.5 million years ago, a child died near the Sea of Galilee. All that remains of the...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you feel I don't believe in evolution?
> 
> Was it because of this post?
> 
> ...


Because you argued against punctuated equilibrium before you changed your mind and then changed it back again.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

It's all good now though as you agree with me.  So we are good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Because you argued against punctuated equilibrium before you changed your mind and then changed it back again.



*Because you argued against punctuated equilibrium *

Cool story. Now show a post where I did that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> It's all good now though as you agree with me.  So we are good.



You were wrong? LOL!


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Because you argued against punctuated equilibrium *
> 
> Cool story. Now show a post where I did that.


Or you could just say what you believe.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You were wrong? LOL!


Thus proving you don't believe in punctuated equilibrium.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Thus proving you don't believe in punctuated equilibrium.



You said I argued against it, you're wrong.
You said I didn't believe in evolution, you're wrong.
You said I talked like a fundie, you're wrong.

You're more confused than usual. Bump your head recently?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said I argued against it, you're wrong.
> You said I didn't believe in evolution, you're wrong.
> You said I talked like a fundie, you're wrong.
> 
> You're more confused than usual. Bump your head recently?


We will never klnow until you actually state what you believe rather than criticize what others believe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> We will never klnow until you actually state what you believe rather than criticize what others believe.



That's weird. You sounded so sure of what I believed.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's weird. You sounded so sure of what I believed.


Given that you have yet to go on record it can be anything I infer from your criticisms.  Such as you seem like you are making the argument of a fundie.  You have given your power to me.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

I should be charging for this.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

3-2-1....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Given that you have yet to go on record it can be anything I infer from your criticisms.  Such as you seem like you are making the argument of a fundie.  You have given your power to me.



*And then I laughed.*

DURR


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 12, 2022)

SSDD said:


> I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
> 
> Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.


As if you're an expert and the world hangs in every word you utter.


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And then I laughed.*
> 
> DURR


Me too.  This has been fun.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> I don't believe you know what you believe as you seem to be arguing against punctuated equillibrium and natural selection.  Are you a fundie per chance?  Tell you what, have a think and get back to me when you know what you believe.  Fair enough?


Actually it's YOU who's the Fundie (according to your god/designer posts in the Religion and Sci sections) and believes in a designer not real evolution.
ergo you also abuse Punctuated Equilibrium as per my signature of four years elaborates just below.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Actually it's YOU who's the Fundie (according to your god/designer posts in the Religion and Sci sections) and believes in a designer not real evolution.
> ergo you also abuse Punctuated Equilibrium as per my signature of four years elaborates just below.
> `


You must be confusing me for someone else, unlike Todd I have clearly stated my beliefs, so there is no room for doubt. 

With respect to speciation, punctuated equilibrium matches the observations of the fossil record where Darwinism doesn't.  Stop being a DarwinFundie.


----------



## Crick (Feb 14, 2022)

Punctuated equilibrium matches the record better than non-punctuated equilibrium.  Both operate on Darwinian evolution.


----------



## ding (Feb 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Punctuated equilibrium matches the record better than non-punctuated equilibrium.  Both operate on Darwinian evolution.


Do they really though?  Or does natural selection just operate on an existing species and not speciation which is based upon genetic mutations?


----------



## Crick (Feb 14, 2022)

You're going to have to try a little bit harder to form a meaningful question.  All speciation is caused by genetic mutation.  Natural selection operates on all life.  So, try again to say whatever it was you were trying to say.


----------



## ding (Feb 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> You're going to have to try a little bit harder to form a meaningful question.  All speciation is caused by genetic mutation.  Natural selection operates on all life.  So, try again to say whatever it was you were trying to say.


Actually I don't.  You just admitted that natural selection doesn't drive speciation, genetic mutations do.  That's the basis for punctuated equilibrium.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2022)

ding said:


> Actually I don't.  You just admitted that natural selection doesn't drive speciation, genetic mutations do.  That's the basis for punctuated equilibrium.



Natural selection doesn't work when mutations are involved?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Natural selection doesn't work when mutations are involved?


Natural selection - which is effectively based upon breeding - is always going on but it is not the cause of genetic mutation.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> *Natural selection - which is effectively based upon breeding - is always going on but it is not the cause of genetic mutation.*



Once Again your claims show a complete MISunderstanding of the process.
You're so G-D stupid one thinks it's trolling/Thread-*******.
Hard to tell when it not the latter pastime due to your obnoxious little nature.

*NS is not "the cause of mutation," the reverse tho is part of the case: ongoing mutations gives natural selection more and larger choices than just genetic drift in the evolution of both subspecies and species.*

You are such a Contrary  and confused godist.
One wonders if your whacked god ideas are the basis fort your anti-AGW position since you probably feel the big guy is controlling it's pre-"designed" and self-correcting,
The more you post, the more I figure out your issues. (beside being a little heel-nipping/last-wording prlck)
`
`


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Once Again your claims show a complete MISunderstanding of the process.
> You're so G-D stupid one thinks it's trolling/Thread-*******.
> Hard to tell when it not the latter pastime due to your obnoxious little nature.
> 
> ...


You are upset.  Try eating a snickers.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

abu afak said:


> NS is not "the cause of mutation


I'm glad you agreed with me.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm glad you agreed with me.


And corrected your wild misunderstanding again.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And corrected your wild misunderstanding again.


I don't see how.  Natural selection - which is effectively based upon breeding - is always going on but it is not the cause of genetic mutation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Natural selection - which is effectively based upon breeding - is always going on but it is not the cause of genetic mutation.



Who said natural selection causes mutation?
When a mutation occurs, is it subject to natural selection?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who said natural selection causes mutation?
> When a mutation occurs, is it subject to natural selection?


I said natural selection does not cause mutations.  I am so happy you agree with me.  Again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I said natural selection does not cause mutations.  I am so happy you agree with me.  Again.



You're arguing a strawman again, no one claimed natural selection causes mutations.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're arguing a strawman again, no one claimed natural selection causes mutations.


I am arguing that with respect to speciation natural selection is not supported by the fossil record because the fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation.  To say that natural selection does not cause genetic mutations is in support of that statement.  I don't have to have someone say natural selection causes mutations to state that natural selection does not cause mutations.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

What was the title of Darwin's book again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I am arguing that with respect to speciation natural selection is not supported by the fossil record because the fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation.  To say that natural selection does not cause genetic mutations is in support of that statement.  I don't have to have someone say natural selection causes mutations to state that natural selection does not cause mutations.



*I am arguing that with respect to speciation natural selection is not supported by the fossil record because the fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation.*

I see your argument.

*To say that natural selection does not cause genetic mutations is in support of that statement. *

Since no one ever said "natural selection causes genetic mutations therefore natural selection with respect to speciation is supported by the fossil record"........so what?

Once a mutation occurs, do you agree that the mutation is then subject to natural selection?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I am arguing that with respect to speciation natural selection is not supported by the fossil record because the fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation.*
> 
> I see your argument.
> 
> ...


Darwin literally argued that new species were created by slight successive changes to the herd due entirely to breeding.  He literally expected that there should be intermediate fossils showing slight successive changes.  Darwin had no idea of genetics which is why his basis for how new species emerge is wrong.  News species don't emerge because of breeding within the species.  New species emerge because of genetic mutations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> What was the title of Darwin's book again?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Once a mutation occurs, do you agree that the mutation is then subject to natural selection?


Only if there is a sufficient number of the new species to take root.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 601690


That's my point.  His theory does not work for the origin of a new species.  At least that is what the fossil record shows anyway.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Only if there is a sufficient number of the new species to take root.



If the mutations were favorable, why wouldn't there (eventually) be a sufficient number?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Darwin literally argued that new species were created by slight successive changes to the herd due entirely to breeding.  He literally expected that there should be intermediate fossils showing slight successive changes.  Darwin had no idea of genetics which is why his basis for how new species emerge is wrong.  News species don't emerge because of breeding within the species.  New species emerge because of genetic mutations.



You're saying that we literally have new information in the 160+ years since some guy wrote a book?

That's crazy!


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If the mutations were favorable, why wouldn't there (eventually) be a sufficient number?


Because it's genetics.  If it's a random mutation then I wouldn't expect there to be a significant number of the same random mutations.  If it is a stress driven mutation (something like a change in diet brought on by changing conditions to their habitat) then I can see it occurring across a herd at the same time.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're saying that we literally have new information in the 160+ years since some guy wrote a book?
> 
> That's crazy!


Technically he knew about the lack of intermediate fossils in the geologic record.  And the work by Mendel was published about the same time as Darwin's book, but Darwin had no knowledge of Mendel's work.  Mendel's work wasn't widely recognized until like 50 years later when two guys were arguing over which one of them would be called the father of genetics when someone found Mendel's works and showed it to them and they agreed that Mendel was the father of genetics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> If it's a random mutation then I wouldn't expect there to be a significant number of the same random mutations.



You only need it once. And, because it's random, you most likely only ever get it once.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You only need it once. And, because it's random, you most likely only ever get it once.


I don't think so.  Adam and Eve situations wouldn't have the necessary gene pool to keep the lineage from excessive inbreeding.  Which is why I believe it must occur across a herd.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Another thing - which is totally unrelated to this but worth mentioning - is that at birth it probably wouldn't be apparent that it was a new species at all.  It would most likely only become obvious as it developed from adolescence into young adulthood.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Another thing - which is totally unrelated to this but worth mentioning - is that at birth it probably wouldn't be apparent that it was a new species at all.  It would most likely only become obvious as it developed from adolescence into young adulthood.



Are you claiming a single mutation results in a new species?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you claiming a single mutation results in a new species?


No.  The exact opposite.  I don't believe a new species would take unless there were numbers significant enough for the new species to take root and not result in excessive inbreeding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> No.  The exact opposite.  I don't believe a new species would take unless there were numbers significant enough for the new species to take root and not result in excessive inbreeding.



*at birth it probably wouldn't be apparent that it was a new species at all. *

Sounds like you're saying mother and child are not the same species.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *at birth it probably wouldn't be apparent that it was a new species at all. *
> 
> Sounds like you're saying mother and child are not the same species.


That is exactly what I am saying, yes.  But at birth it wouldn't be obvious to the mother.  Only later would it become obvious that it was a different species and by then it would be able to survive on its own and find a mate so that natural selection could work then.  This phenomenon would also explain why there are no transitional fossils of an intermediate species.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> That is exactly what I am saying, yes. But at birth it wouldn't be obvious to the mother.



How did the new species come to be in a single generation?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How did the new species come to be in a single generation?


The same genetic mutation in significant enough numbers across a herd.

This would explain long periods of stasis followed by an abrupt change which is what the fossil record shows.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> The same genetic mutation in significant enough numbers across a herd.
> 
> This would explain long periods of stasis followed by an abrupt change which is what the fossil record shows.



1000 members of a herd.

Suddenly the same mutation appears in 200 of them?

Why the same mutation?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 1000 members of a herd.
> 
> Suddenly the same mutation appears in 200 of them?
> 
> Why the same mutation?


Don't know what the right number is.  Maybe it's 10 or 20.   Whatever that number is there is probably some minimum where it's not enough to propagate without significant inbreeding.

Why the same mutation?  Because it's literally a new species.    Think about the very first humans who had a different number of chromosomes than chimps or apes or whatever species we branched from.  They needed mates with the same number of chromosomes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Don't know what the right number is.  Maybe it's 10 or 20.   Whatever that number is there is probably some minimum where it's not enough to propagate without significant inbreeding.
> 
> Why the same mutation?  Because it's literally a new species.    Think about the very first humans who had a different number of chromosomes than chimps or apes or whatever species we branched from.  They needed mates with the same number of chromosomes.



Why is a herd of 1000 in danger of inbreeding?

*Why the same mutation?  Because it's literally a new species. *

What single mutation has ever created a new species?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why is a herd of 1000 in danger of inbreeding?
> 
> *Why the same mutation?  Because it's literally a new species. *
> 
> What single mutation has ever created a new species?


I didn't say a herd of 1000 was in danger of inbreeding.  I said the new species was in danger of inbreeding if they did not have a deep enough gene pool to propagate the species.  I would think 1 male and 1 female would not be enough.

Humans would be as good example.  So the question is how many humans did the species start with.  My belief is that the humans didn't start in just one geographic location in Africa but in multiple geographic locations across a region of Africa.  Where ever there was a significant enough number of mutations that made humans take at each location.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I didn't say a herd of 1000 was in danger of inbreeding.  I said the new species was in danger of inbreeding if they did not have a deep enough gene pool to propagate the species.  I would think 1 male and 1 female would not be enough.
> 
> Humans would be as good example.  So the question is how many humans did the species start with.  My belief is that the humans didn't start in just one geographic location in Africa but in multiple geographic locations across a region of Africa.  Where ever there was a significant enough number of mutations that made humans take at each location.



Where did you ever see that a single mutation can create a new species?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where did you ever see that a single mutation can create a new species?


Again... humans.  It just didn't happen in one birth but across some number at roughly the same time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Again... humans.  It just didn't happen in one birth but across some number at roughly the same time.



Which single mutation created the human species?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which single mutation created the human species?







__





						Chromosome fusion
					

Demonstration that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes



					www.evolutionpages.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link.

Where did it say that this mutation/fusion created the human species?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Where did it say that this mutation/fusion created the human species?


It didn't.  Do you think natural selection is responsible?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> It didn't.  Do you think natural selection is responsible?



Which single mutation did?

Which single mutation created any new specie?

There must be thousands of examples......millions even.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which single mutation did?
> 
> Which single mutation created any new specie?
> 
> There must be thousands of examples......millions even.


Hold up.  Do you think natural selection will cause chromosomes to fuse?  I don't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Hold up.  Do you think natural selection will cause chromosomes to fuse?  I don't.



Nope. Not even a little bit.

You think one mutation can create a new specie?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. Not even a little bit.
> 
> You think one mutation can create a new specie?


One mutation?  As in one animal was born with the mutation?  No.  

One mutation as in the same mutation across the herd producing 10 or 20 animals born with the mutation?  Yes.

Are you a fan of Sherlock Holmes?  When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.   The degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record.  Which means that however improbable it seems that genetic mutations are responsible for driving speciation, it's the only theory that matches the observed data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> One mutation?  As in one animal was born with the mutation?  No.
> 
> One mutation as in the same mutation across the herd producing 10 or 20 animals born with the mutation?  Yes.
> 
> Are you a fan of Sherlock Holmes?  When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.   The degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record.  Which means that however improbable it seems that genetic mutations are responsible for driving speciation, it's the only theory that matches the observed data.


*
One mutation? As in one animal was born with the mutation? No.*

Excellent!

*One mutation as in the same mutation across the herd producing 10 or 20 animals born with the mutation?  Yes.*

What would cause the same mutation to arise independently, in 10 or 20 animals, at the same time, in the same herd?

Explain it like your name was Sherlock.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *One mutation? As in one animal was born with the mutation? No.*
> 
> Excellent!
> 
> ...


Stress.  At least that's one theory that has been proposed.  But I suspect it may be food related.  There's some interesting work being done on how we are altering our genes based upon the things we eat.  It's possible the two are linked.  Food shortage leading to stress resulting in a different food source.  But again... it all starts with the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record so it must be something else.

I think it's important to remember that Darwin did not know about genes.  If he had he may have proposed a different theory that matched the observed fossil record.  Darwinism has taken on an almost religious fervor.  I think 100 years from now people won't be as emotional as they are today about honoring a bad theory that isn't based on genetics and doesn't match the observed data of the fossil record.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Stress.  At least that's one theory that has been proposed.  But I suspect it may be food related.  There's some interesting work being done on how we are altering our genes based upon the things we eat.  It's possible the two are linked.  Food shortage leading to stress resulting in a different food source.  But again... it all starts with the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record so it must be something else.
> 
> I think it's important to remember that Darwin did not know about genes.  If he had he may have proposed a different theory that matched the observed fossil record.  Darwinism has taken on an almost religious fervor.  I think 100 years from now people won't be as emotional as they are today about honoring a bad theory that isn't based on genetics and doesn't match the observed data of the fossil record.



Stress can cause a mutation? Diet? Any links to those theories?

*But again... it all starts with the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record so it must be something else.*

There should be trillions of fossil examples of intermediate species, if a single mutation 
can create a new species. Right? I mean, what's more gradual than one mutation?


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stress can cause a mutation? Diet? Any links to those theories?
> 
> *But again... it all starts with the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record so it must be something else.*
> 
> ...


I'll have to look.  Not sure I saved it. 

You don't have to believe it.  I'm cool with that.  Are you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I'll have to look.  Not sure I saved it.
> 
> You don't have to believe it.  I'm cool with that.  Are you?



I'm cool with all your imagined science. 

Let me know when you find it.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm cool with all your imagined science.
> 
> Let me know when you find it.


I'm cool with you thinking that about it too.  I'm satisfied with the record of our conversation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm cool with you thinking that about it too.  I'm satisfied with the record of our conversation.



No kidding.

A new species is a single mutation away.

You should publish.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No kidding.
> 
> A new species is a single mutation away.
> 
> You should publish.


It's already out there.  

I guess you weren't good with it after all.  

Are we done yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> It's already out there.



New species from one mutation? 

That's your silliest claim yet.

*Are we done yet?*

I doubt it.


----------



## ding (Feb 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> New species from one mutation?
> 
> That's your silliest claim yet.
> 
> ...


That's because you can criticize what you don't believe without ever actually stating what you do believe for like forever.  It doesn't require defining what something is which is harder.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2022)

ding said:


> That's because you can criticize what you don't believe without ever actually stating what you do believe for like forever.  It doesn't require defining what something is which is harder.



Tell me more about identical mutations appearing multiple times, simultaneously.
And the food one.
And stress.
Man, you should write for late night.
That's some funny shit right there.


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

^he mad


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2022)

I'm laughing.


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

I can tell by how hard you are pursuing this.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2022)

> ding said:
> And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.


AGAIN:
I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

*NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago*

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. *These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. *The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

*In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.*

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2022)

AGAIN:

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is *70% larger* than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, *and it occurred 100-200 times faster.*

In addition, *fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old.* These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."...""
`
How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov​Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

abu afak said:


> AGAIN:
> 
> How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.
> 
> ...


Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending upon which datasets they consider.


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

abu afak said:


> AGAIN:
> 
> How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.
> 
> ...


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

I'm glad grumblenuts can appreciate how funny it is that our planet is 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.


----------



## Crick (Feb 16, 2022)

ding said:


> View attachment 602239


Given the age of homo sapiens and of human culture with infrastructure, here is a far more pertinent dataset:





And before arguing that the current warming is not unprecedented in its rapidity, I suggest you read the article and its discussion of the import of actual climate sensitivity.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Feb 16, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm glad grumblenuts can appreciate how funny it is that our planet is 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.


I can appreciate both how desperate one must be to keep posting that animated crap chart and how stupid one must be to convince themself that the current global temperature anomaly has remained that low.


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> Given the age of homo sapiens and of human culture with infrastructure, here is a far more pertinent dataset:
> 
> View attachment 602375
> 
> And before arguing that the current warming is not unprecedented in its rapidity, I suggest you read the article and its discussion of the import of actual climate sensitivity.


That's hilarious.  The beauty of that prediction is that it will be so easy to see how wrong it really was.


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> I can appreciate both how desperate one must be to keep posting that animated crap chart and how stupid one must be to convince themself that the current global temperature anomaly has remained that low.


Desperate?  It's actually quite fun.  Desperate would be more like what true believers like yourself feel when global carbon emissions increase every year by 1 billion tons.  

Within 30 years everything you believe will be proven wrong by colder temperatures.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Feb 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Within 30 years everything you believe will be proven wrong by colder temperatures.


So your wish that things not be as they are is fulfilled by your speculations about what will come. How perfectly circular and distracting of you as usual. Bubbye again.


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> So your wish that things not be as they are is fulfilled by your speculations about what will come. How perfectly circular and distracting of you as usual. Bubbye again.


Nope.  That's what you are doing.  I see things as they are.  Climate fluctuations are as hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world.  It's only a matter of time.


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

Bold move coming in heavy like that.  

By my estimate that's an expected increase of 2.5C over 78 years.

That works out roughly to a 0.3C increases every decade for EIGHT straight decades. 

You guys are linear thinkers in a cyclical physical world.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2022)

ding said:


> View attachment 602431
> 
> Bold move coming in heavy like that.
> 
> ...



HE nailed it, you tried to ambiguate it with a nonsense objection.

You gratuitously Troll every post, never coherently reply.



``


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

abu afak said:


> HE nailed it, you tried to ambiguate it with a nonsense objection.
> 
> You Troll every post, never coherently reply.
> 
> ...


So you believe the earth will warm by 2.5C in 78 years?


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

For a quick reference the last 40 years produced about a 0.5C increase.  If that trend holds the 2.5C projection would miss it's mark by 1.5C.  But I believe that even a 1.5C increase in 80 years is unlikely.


----------



## ding (Feb 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> And before arguing that the current warming is not unprecedented in its rapidity, I suggest you read the article and its discussion of the import of actual climate sensitivity.


I created a thread especially for that discussion


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2022)

There was a spike in the 30's (air temp too) but that just an anomaly on a long Warming chart before that GHG blanket got too heavy.








`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

Crick said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> View attachment 592759


And after scientists determined/measured it's NOT increased Solar Radiation (wobble, etc) one has to find another reason.
Wasn't that difficult.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And after scientists determined/measured it's NOT increased Solar Radiation (wobble, etc) one has to find another reason.
> Wasn't that difficult.
> `


Not counting climate fluctuations brought on by orbital forcing, the geologic record is littered with climate fluctuations (up and down) and not one of them was due to CO2.  So how is it that you ignore all of that data to arrive at it must be CO2?


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> There was a spike in the 30's (air temp too) but that just an anomaly on a long Warming chart before that GHG blanket got too heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haven't the oceans been getting warmer for 20,000 years?


----------



## Crick (Feb 17, 2022)

I thought you argued that the Earth had been getting colder for many thousands of years.  Not easy to get the land and the sea going in opposite directions.


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

Crick said:


> I thought you argued that the Earth had been getting colder for many thousands of years.  Not easy to get the land and the sea going in opposite directions.


Maybe this will help you understand my position better.


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

That's just like abu afuk to argue against a PBS documentary on the science of earth's climate.  He probably calls PBS climate deniers.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

ding said:


> That's just like abu afuk to argue against a PBS documentary on the science of earth's climate.  He probably calls PBS climate deniers.


Ran out of words huh?
Thanks tho!
*That youtube does NOT preclude AGW.
In fact, there are four Lines immediately under it for Context:*

"Climate change​United Nations​*Climate change refers to Long-term shifts in Temperatures and weather patterns, Mainly CAUSED by HUMAN Activities, especially the Burning of Fossil fuels."*​​
Nice find goofy!!!
*You can't debate me/anyone, you can only Troll them with Multi-posts and nonsense 'replies.'*
(and backfires like this one)
`


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Ran out of words huh?
> Thanks tho!
> That youtube does NOT preclude AGW.
> In fact, there are four Lines immediately under it for Context:
> ...


If pictures are worth a thousand words, videos must be worth a billion.  You do realize you are in an ice age, right?


----------



## Stann (Feb 18, 2022)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter how much proof you show some of these people; they're not going to admit it's the truth until all the coastal cities of the world are flooded and we have millions of immigrants over-running our borders. Then they might believe the truth.


----------



## ding (Feb 18, 2022)

Stann said:


> It doesn't matter how much proof you show some of these people; they're not going to admit it's the truth until all the coastal cities of the world are flooded and we have millions of immigrants over-running our borders. Then they might believe the truth.


When do you believe all the coastal cities of the world will be flooded and millions of immigrants over-running our borders will happen?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 18, 2022)

Stann said:


> It doesn't matter how much proof you show some of these people; they're not going to admit it's the truth until all the coastal cities of the world are flooded and we have millions of immigrants over-running our borders. Then they might believe the truth.


Exactly.
Like the post/ding just below yours
It's not an answer, it's a last-wording wise crack/Troll.
A detail no one could possibly know.
`


----------



## Crick (Feb 18, 2022)

ding said:


> When do you believe all the coastal cities of the world will be flooded and millions of immigrants over-running our borders will happen?


You need to worry about millions of dyed-in-the-wool US citizens flooded out and looking for someplace to live.


----------



## ding (Feb 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> You need to worry about millions of dyed-in-the-wool US citizens flooded out and looking for someplace to live.


Fake news.  3 mm/yr.  

Given your belief that temperatures will rise by 3C in 78 years how high do you believe the sea level will rise in 78 years?


----------



## ding (Feb 18, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Exactly.
> Like the post/ding just below yours
> It's not an answer, it's a last-wording wise crack/Troll.
> A detail no one could possibly know.
> `


How high do you believe sea levels will rise in 78 years?


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2022)

Looks like somewhere between 0.6 and 1.4 meters.


----------



## ding (Feb 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> Looks like somewhere between 0.6 and 1.4 meters.
> 
> View attachment 603458


I think it's more like a foot.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 19, 2022)

Scientists Forecast U.S. Sea Levels Could Rise a Foot by 2050​Sea levels are forecast to rise rapidly over the next 30 years, bringing more frequent and more destructive floods​WSJ- Feb. 15, 2022 (more/most recently)

"Sea levels on U.S. coastlines are forecast to rise on average by about a foot by 2050, surging with meltwater from ice sheets and glaciers as a result of climate change, federal scientists said Tuesday.

The estimates were released in a report from the *National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other federal and academic institutions.*

Globally, sea levels rose about 0.55 feet between 1920 and 2020, according to the report. Across the U.S. coast on average, in the last 100 years, sea levels rose about 0.9 feet.

....Along the East Coast, the water will rise a few more inches compared with shorelines on the West Coast and Hawaii...

"''...The report proposed five different paths for sea level rise through the next decades. From the least to most severe outcomes, these reflect variability in the contributors to sea level rise, such as ice sheet melt, thermal expansion of oceans and land movement.

*At the Low end, by 2050 compared with 2000, the report projects an average rise along the U.S. coastline of about a Foot. At the highest end, the report estimates an average rise across the U.S. coast of 1.7 feet...

Farther into the future, by 2100, average sea levels could rise by between 2 and 7 feet compared with 2000,* the report estimates..."
[..........]









						Scientists Forecast U.S. Sea Levels Could Rise a Foot by 2050
					

Sea levels are expected to rise rapidly over the next 30 years, bringing more frequent and more destructive floods.




					www.wsj.com
				




`


----------



## ding (Feb 19, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Scientists Forecast U.S. Sea Levels Could Rise a Foot by 2050​Sea levels are forecast to rise rapidly over the next 30 years, bringing more frequent and more destructive floods​WSJ- Feb. 15, 2022 (more/most recently)
> 
> "Sea levels on U.S. coastlines are forecast to rise on average by about a foot by 2050, surging with meltwater from ice sheets and glaciers as a result of climate change, federal scientists said Tuesday.
> 
> ...


I absolutely love it when they take flyers like that.  Swing for the fences I say.  Let's see that's 304.8 mm in 28 years.  That's equal to an annual rise of 10.89 mm/yr.   How much of that should we expect to see in 2022 to be on schedule?

Do you see why I like it when you guys take flyers?  I can laugh at you this year when this ridiculous tripling of the current rate doesn't happen.  It's like you people don't even think.  Of course I suppose you have to take flyers if you are going to sell your imminent disaster narrative to the masses, eh?


----------



## ding (Feb 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> Looks like somewhere between 0.6 and 1.4 meters.
> 
> View attachment 603458


Why is it that they don't show the temperature, atmospheric CO2 and emissions forecasts with the sea level rise forecast?  That's not very transparent of them.  I guess it's because people like you aren't very demanding and are happy to give them wiggle room.


----------



## beautress (Feb 20, 2022)

I've often wondered if H2O molecules cling together and float around the universe, unseen and undetected by us. After all our magnetic earth has ways of beconing things we don't know about in order to clean herself up a little. And it could account for why some extra water comes to the earth in unmeasured cycles, enough to make the sea levels rise if such a thing could be. Just a thought, not even a theory.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 20, 2022)

> I absolutely love it when they take flyers like that. *Swing for the fences I say.  Let's see that's 304.8 mm in 28 years.  That's equal to an annual rise of 10.89 mm/yr. *  How much of that should we expect to see in 2022 to be on schedule?
> 
> Do you see why I like it when you guys take flyers?  I can laugh at you this year when this ridiculous tripling of the current rate doesn't happen.  *It's like you people don't even think. * Of course I suppose you have to take flyers if you are to sell your imminent disaster narrative to the masses, eh?
> .


You should ask yourself why you've lost every debate we've ever had.

1. You're always wrong.
2. You're a juvenile last-wording troll.
3. You're a Rabid Designer-god-boy.
leading to....

your reading problem/math screw up.
Article says:
*""At the Low end, by 2050 Compared with 2000, the report projects an average rise along the U.S. coastline of about a Foot. At the highest end, the report estimates an average rise across the U.S. coast of 1.7 feet...*​​*Farther into the future, by 2100, average sea levels could rise by between 2 and 7 feet Compared with 2000, the report estimates..."*​​​OUCH #738 for Clown - Ding dong![/INDENT]
​​So sad for you.[/INDENT]
You really think you're smarter than NASA/NOAA et al? Really, I-D clown?​think you caught them now?​(and you realize app 1+' could even happen overnight with a Thwaites crack off)​​SWAT!/bye​(keep multi-posting tho)​


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Why is it that they don't show the temperature, atmospheric CO2 and emissions forecasts with the sea level rise forecast?  That's not very transparent of them.  I guess it's because people like you aren't very demanding and are happy to give them wiggle room.



What I wonder is why don't THEY show climate denialism vs incidence of ignorant science blunders















AND


----------



## beautress (Feb 21, 2022)

The earth was here before human beings came to be created by the Almighty. People can manipulate coincidences and numbers to seem like humans are to blame. So far, nobody among us has developed a motor that would scooch us to safety from a monstrously huge comet twice our size halfway through the universe we know, limited by our viewing equipment, to get us out of the way. We're not so powerful as some think, imho.


----------



## beautress (Feb 21, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Scientists Forecast U.S. Sea Levels Could Rise a Foot by 2050​Sea levels are forecast to rise rapidly over the next 30 years, bringing more frequent and more destructive floods​WSJ- Feb. 15, 2022 (more/most recently)
> 
> "Sea levels on U.S. coastlines are forecast to rise on average by about a foot by 2050, surging with meltwater from ice sheets and glaciers as a result of climate change, federal scientists said Tuesday.
> 
> ...


Abu, I've been online for over 25 years. I've heard that argument that we're going to be submerged on one side of the continent or another drivelously and frequently, and so far, that hasn't happened. In time, though, 25 years isn't even a visible speck. *sigh* I'm not gonna worry myself to death, but I do wish we'd focus on clearing the ocean of our plastics strewn overboard by thoughtless ships' sinking, garbage disposing geniuses, and cities shipping their crud out to the middle of the ocean around the world. If we allow this to go forward, we will lose an important protein: fish. It's a footshoot if we neglect cleaning our messes up, and blaming cow or elephant farts in the middle of the land masses just doesn't do it for my reckoning. We need to get what started on land back to land to dispose of it in an acceptable way. Throwing our stuff into the ocean is just plain stupid, but I don't think we've put enough in the water to cause the tides to overlap the beaches of the world. Pardon me for saying so, but we have a former vice president who is banned from speaking to the children of Europe over what was determined to be junk science by the society of professional scientists.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> What I wonder is why don't THEY show climate denialism vs incidence of ignorant science blunders
> 
> View attachment 604399
> View attachment 604400
> ...


Seems like they should be able to show their forecasts on one graph.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You should ask yourself why you've lost every debate we've ever had.
> 
> 1. You're always wrong.
> 2. You're a juvenile last-wording troll.
> ...


Dude, time will prove me right.  

It's hilarious that you edited out my name in the reply so I wouldn't get a notification.  Too funny.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2022)

I suppose they have to make ridiculous forecasts if they are going to sell their imminent disaster narrative to the masses, but it's going to backfire on them.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 21, 2022)

beautress said:


> Abu, I've been online for over 25 years. I've heard that argument that we're going to be submerged on one side of the continent or another drivelously and frequently, and so far, that hasn't happened. In time, though, 25 years isn't even a visible speck. *sigh* I'm not gonna worry myself to death, but I do wish we'd focus on clearing the ocean of our plastics strewn overboard by thoughtless ships' sinking, garbage disposing geniuses, and cities shipping their crud out to the middle of the ocean around the world. If we allow this to go forward, we will lose an important protein: fish. It's a footshoot if we neglect cleaning our messes up, and blaming cow or elephant farts in the middle of the land masses just doesn't do it for my reckoning. We need to get what started on land back to land to dispose of it in an acceptable way. Throwing our stuff into the ocean is just plain stupid, but I don't think we've put enough in the water to cause the tides to overlap the beaches of the world. Pardon me for saying so, but we have a former vice president who is banned from speaking to the children of Europe over what was determined to be junk science by the society of professional scientists.


Um.. we've already lost Fish.
70% of the fish we eat is Farmed vs app none 30 years ago. It isn't plastics, it's overfishing.
You missed it happening then and you're missing the fact that we are losing the atmospheric balance and the melt is accelerating as we speak.
You won't be worried about that until you're ankle deep, or people are leaving the coast for where you live.
Everyone hates plastics, but it's the number of humans and their needs (fish, beef/methane, fertilizer) and waste products: gases/liquids galore, that is unsustainable for the oceans and atmosphere.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> What I wonder is why don't THEY show climate denialism vs incidence of ignorant science blunders



Or versus Nobel Prizes?


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2022)

That wouldn't be particularly meaningful.  How about climate denialism vs dropping out before graduating high school?  How about climate denialism vs earning less than minimum wage?  How about climate denialism vs children out of wedlock?  How about climate denialism vs believing Trump's Big Lie?  How about climate denialism vs knows no one who completed four or more years of college?  How about climate denialism vs vaccinated against COVID-19, climate denialism vs wears a mask and socially distances and the correlate: climate denialism vs has caught COVID-19?


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2022)

So 3C warmer in 78 years and a 1 foot rise in sea level by 2050.  Swing big or go home I say.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2022)




----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

> Grumblenuts said:
> How do we Know Humans are Causing Climate Change?
> 
> Even the best paid deniers ran completely out of new material decades ago. We should feel sad for them. They are so pitiful and pathetic.


That and the FACT the last 7 years were the warmest 7 years on record. (or 7 of 8)
Right through Skookerasbil (with jc456 assists) ridiculous thread/BLOG, the delusional "the skeptics are winning" BLOG.
No shame or no brains. They're, in fact, getting crushed.
The skeptics are losing/have lost.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That and the FACT the last 7 years were the warmest 7 years on record. (or 7 of 8)
> Right through Skookerasbil (with jc456 assists) ridiculous thread/BLOG, the delusional "the skeptics are winning" BLOG.
> No shame or no brains. They're, in fact, getting crushed.
> The skeptics are losing/have lost.
> ...


Actually it was 2C warmer during the last interglacial with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Actually it was 2C warmer during the last interglacial with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.


Yawn.
That's seven posts/Trolls in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.

You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Yawn.
> That's seven posts/Trolls in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
> I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.
> 
> ...


Keeping you honest is a full time job. I usually don't need more than a sentence or two to do it. 

With respect to the recent warming trend, why don't you believe it is relevant that it was 2C warmer during the last interglacial with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Keeping you honest is a full time job. I usually don't need more than a sentence or two to do it.
> 
> With respect to the recent warming trend, why don't you believe it is relevant that it was 2C warmer during the last interglacial with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?


*I've already answered it specifically many times even though it's an overall non sequitur since we don't know the circumstance or Anomaly that may have caused it.
You're not very good on logic.

You're a troll.
I think Formally ignoring you would be better
Can't decide.
I'll let you know. *


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *I've already answered it specifically many times even though it's an overall non sequitur since we don't know the circumstance or Anomaly that may have caused it.
> You're not very good on logic.
> 
> You're a troll.
> ...


No.  You allege you answered it but we both know that's not true.  You posted some links that didn't address the question at all.  But feel free to put your answer into a few simple words that make sense.  Thumbnail it for me.  

With respect to the recent warming trend, why don't you believe it is relevant that it was 2C warmer during the last interglacial with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?

Doesn't that imply it's NOT CO2?


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *I've already answered it specifically many times even though it's an overall non sequitur since we don't know the circumstance or Anomaly that may have caused it.
> You're not very good on logic.
> 
> You're a troll.
> ...


Nope. Our pal ding is ok!  As a wise character once observed:  “Lighten up, Francis.”


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 22, 2022)

First, babu hits me up with almost a dozen laughter smileycons. Then, I hit him up with a bunch.  Then babu deletes most of the laughter thingies but changes a couple to the downvote “disagree” emoticon.  I’d say he’s stalking me; but frankly, I can’t get that worked up over his ego.  Just thought it might be a good idea to note his weird behavior.

😆


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

Lighten up....


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 22, 2022)

ding said:


> View attachment 604993


🤣😂😂🤣😂🤣


----------



## abu afak (Mar 3, 2022)

ding said:


> Actually it was 2C warmer during the last interglacial with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.



SIXTH TIME
Including a few pages back in this thread.

Feb 16, 2022



> ding said:
> And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.


AGAIN:
I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

*NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago*

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. *These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. *The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

*In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.*

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf


`


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> [sizer=6]
> SIXTH TIME
> Including a few pages back in this thread.
> 
> ...


And doesn't explain why the planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2, dummy.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 3, 2022)

ding said:


> And doesn't explain why the planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2, dummy.


*Yes it does.
Troll/last-word away.
(and odd you didn't deny it the other 5 times!!)*

`


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Yes it does.
> Troll/last-word away.
> (and odd you didn't deny it the other 5 times!!)*
> 
> `


In 25 words or less tell me how.


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


Hell no, humanity could torch the atmosphere, kill all mammals, blow up every single nuclear plant and still…

No, climate changes anyway. Don’t blame the humans.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 3, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *When you say "man" is responsible,  you mean mistly Chinese man, right?*


Yes, absolutely!
We are doing a MUCH better job at cutting emissions and use energy much more efficiently.
Of course, we are still second.
Just as long as you acknowledge that is the problem.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Yes, absolutely!
> We care doing a MUCH better job at cutting emissions and use energy much more efficiently.
> Of course, we are still second.
> Just as long as you acknowledge that is the problem.
> ...


Credit where due!

Crick and Old Rocks always give China a pass


----------



## abu afak (Mar 3, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Credit where due!
> 
> Crick and Old Rocks always give China a pass


In fact, the infamous/controversial "GND" that AOC wanted legislated is in FULL SWING by private industry!
92% of New Power generation renewable last year, and EVs exploding.
TEXAS number ONE in adding renewable capacity in 2021.
`

`


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2022)

abu afak I guess that's a no, you can't tell me how in 25 words or less.


----------



## whoisit (Mar 3, 2022)

I really don't know why it is going on. 
I do know that fresh water is only 2% of the earths water and that it is being polluted and over used.


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2022)

ErikViking said:


> Hell no, humanity could torch the atmosphere, kill all mammals, blow up every single nuclear plant and still…
> 
> No, climate changes anyway. Don’t blame the humans.


Yes, the climate changes.  And, recently, it has been changing due to human GHG emissions.  We have to blame the humans because they're responsible.


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> Yes, the climate changes.  And, recently, it has been changing due to human GHG emissions.  We have to blame the humans because they're responsible.


Inept species will do what inept species do.


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2022)

ErikViking said:


> Inept species will do what inept species do.


Fatalism helps no one.


----------



## ErikViking (Mar 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> Fatalism helps no one.


Quite true. But you needed to spot the irony in the first post you responded to.


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2022)

And do you think it's irony should have stopped me from responding to it?


----------



## ding (Mar 4, 2022)

Crick said:


> Yes, the climate changes.  And, recently, it has been changing due to human GHG emissions.  We have to blame the humans because they're responsible.


_Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.










Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## abu afak (Mar 4, 2022)

ding said:


> _Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another Trolling Repeat I already busted.
Ding is a Droning REPEAT TROLL with a very limited inventory he pisses up daily.
He is non-conversant on the Climate topic.
Just one line quips and repeats of maybe 6 Charts/studies.[/SIZE]

- - -  - - -

Feb 1, 2022
#222



> ding said:
> _Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> 
> ...


*You've posted that stupid denier paper many times. (Connoly/Soon)*
*The overwhelming majority of scientists and ALL the world's scientific orgs acknowledge AGW.*

It's rather funny in that:

*Some observations about Connolly et al (2021) “How much has the sun influenced northern hemisphere temperature trends”*​*Test article Test Article The Connolly et al paper can be found at: https://iopscience.iop.*

Among the many problems in the infamous POS paper/authors are:

*1. It only deals with the Northern Hemisphere, Not GW. :^)

2. The Lockwood paper referenced by Connolly doesn't support what he is saying.

3. The most cited person BY FAR in the Connolly/Soon Paper is... Soon himself. 149 Times!*
who is he?
Wiki:
*“Willie Wei-Hock Soon*

Soon is a climate change denier,[4][6] disputing the scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity.[7][8] *He co-wrote a paper whose methodology was widely criticised by the scientific community.*[9] *Climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies have Refuted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions. *He is nonetheless frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[4][6]
[.....]

*From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work”*

Wiki:
*Opposing *(The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..






Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

Little TrollTwerp Ding tried more than one line with his worn out, Refuted, and renegade paper.
Busted.

.


----------



## ding (Mar 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Another Trolling Repeat I already busted.
> Ding is a Droning REPEAT TROLL with a very limited inventory he pisses up daily.
> He is non-conversant on the Climate topic.
> Just one line quips and repeats of maybe 6 Charts/studies.[/SIZE]
> ...


there have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).


----------



## abu afak (Mar 11, 2022)

Wiki Greenhouse Gas


A *greenhouse gas* (*GHG* or *GhG*) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.[1]
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3).

*Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).*[3][4][5] The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse gases.

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021.[6]

The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this high was over 3 million years ago.[7] This increase has occurred despite the absorption of more than half of the emissions by various natural carbon sinks in the carbon cycle.[8][9]......​
`

`

`​


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2022)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Yes, the climate changes.  And, recently, it has been changing due to human GHG emissions.  We have to blame the humans because they're responsible.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 27, 2022)

*NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago*

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. *These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. *The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

*In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.*

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *NOAA
> Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago*
> 
> ""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
> ...



*In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.*

And the planet survived? That's a relief.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.*
> 
> And the planet survived? That's a relief.











						Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach - Scientific Data
					

An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available. We applied five different statistical methods to reconstruct the GMST of...




					www.nature.com
				




An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available. We applied five different statistical methods to reconstruct the GMST of the past 12,000 years (Holocene). Each method used different approaches to averaging the globally distributed time series and to characterizing various sources of uncertainty, including proxy temperature, chronology and methodological choices. The results were aggregated to generate a multi-method ensemble of plausible GMST and latitudinal-zone temperature reconstructions with a realistic range of uncertainties. The warmest 200-year-long interval took place around 6500 years ago when GMST was 0.7 °C (0.3, 1.8) warmer than the 19th Century (median, 5th, 95th percentiles). Following the Holocene global thermal maximum, GMST cooled at an average rate −0.08 °C per 1000 years (−0.24, −0.05). The multi-method ensembles and the code used to generate them highlight the utility of the Temperature 12k database, and they are now available for future use by studies aimed at understanding Holocene evolution of the Earth system.

This says that the warmest period in the past 12,000 years was a "200 year long interval" that was 0.3C - 1.8C warmer than the median temperature of the 19th century.  That is NOT warmer than  "today".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach - Scientific Data
> 
> 
> An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available. We applied five different statistical methods to reconstruct the GMST of...
> ...



That's some fine precision you've got there.

Did the warmest 200 years end at 2:00 am or 2:00 pm?


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

If you have an argument with the article Todd, address the authors.  I suspect his ability to identify the temperature within that time span is well supported in the text.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Yes, the climate changes.  And, recently, it has been changing due to human GHG emissions.  We have to blame the humans because they're responsible.


I've asked before, where has climate changed in your lifetime?


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

I've asked before, where has climate changed in your lifetime?


jc456 said:


> I've asked before, where has climate changed in your lifetime?


Earth.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> I've asked before, where has climate changed in your lifetime?
> 
> Earth.


Where on earth? Funny, you never answer.


----------



## ding (Apr 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach - Scientific Data
> 
> 
> An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available. We applied five different statistical methods to reconstruct the GMST of...
> ...


And yet the planet is cooler than past interglacial cycles.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Where on earth? Funny, you never answer.


In even the shortest of long runs, climate is a global characteristic.  And what is this "you never answer" bullshit?  I have never been asked this question before and I am answering it.  Waiting two-and-a-half hours at dinnertime and then claiming I'm unresponsive is pretty fucked up.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2022)

ding said:


> And yet the planet is cooler than past interglacial cycles.


Again (and again and again and again): our concern is rapid deviations from the climate range under which human culture evolved.  I don't care that it was really hot or really cold a hundred million years ago.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

ding said:


> And yet the planet is cooler than past interglacial cycles.



And that means, exactly, what?  The key is that past interglacials were driven by natural forcings (specifically and chiefly the Milankovich Cycles).  The current interglacial, regardless of human activity is whatever temperature it is.  The key is that:

1. We should be heading back into another glacial advance and we should be seeing cooling.  But we are NOT.  We are, instead, warming.  

2. Anthropogenic Global Warming will be expected to have the biggest impact on our societies in general.  Our agricultural infrastructure, our land-usage and our economies.  Something that we didn't have in the last interglacial


----------



## ding (Apr 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Again (and again and again and again): our concern is rapid deviations from the climate range under which human culture evolved.  I don't care that it was really hot or really cold a hundred million years ago.


There is no rapid deviation.  We are still within the normal range for interglacials. Call me when the planet warms another 3C. Then the planet will be outside of the normal range.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

ding said:


> There is no rapid deviation.  We are still within the normal range for interglacials. Call me when the planet warms another 3C. Then the planet will be outside of the normal range.



What is causing the current warming?  We know a great deal about what causes warming and cooling, so why is it warming since 1850?  If it is simply "natural variation" it would seem to be pretty one-directional (warming) and if we are just catching up to the peak of the last interglacial _why is it happening so late in this interglacial?_

We should be heading into a new glacial advance per Milankovich Cycles but we aren't cooling.  Why are warming?


----------



## ding (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> And that means, exactly, what?  The key is that past interglacials were driven by natural forcings (specifically and chiefly the Milankovich Cycles).  The current interglacial, regardless of human activity is whatever temperature it is.  The key is that:
> 
> 1. We should be heading back into another glacial advance and we should be seeing cooling.  But we are NOT.  We are, instead, warming.
> 
> 2. Anthropogenic Global Warming will be expected to have the biggest impact on our societies in general.  Our agricultural infrastructure, our land-usage and our economies.  Something that we didn't have in the last interglacial


Not exactly.  Milankovich Cycles trigger ice ages not interglacial cycles.

The last eccentric orbital forcing was nearly circular, so no, we shouldn’t be headed for another glacial cycle. There’s a longer 400,000 year cycle which the planet just experienced.

Scientist reach opposite conclusions on the cause of the recent warming trend depending on the datasets they use. Specifically, urban temperature dataset and the low variability solar output dataset versus the rural temperature dataset and high variability solar output dataset used by NASA.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

ding said:


> Not exactly.  Milankovich Cycles trigger ice ages not interglacial cycles.



How, exactly, do you think _cycles_ operate



ding said:


> Scientist reach opposite conclusions on the cause of the recent warming trend depending on the datasets they use. Specifically, urban temperature dataset



Urban heat island effects are shown to NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL DATASET.  

"Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions."

SOURCE:








						Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found
					

Abstract All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by...




					journals.ametsoc.org
				






ding said:


> and the low variability solar output dataset versus the rural temperature dataset and high variability solar output dataset used by NASA.



Solar output is not currently able to account for the warming we've seen over the last 50 years.

There is not that much disagreement among the actual scientists in this area.  Sure there are a few outliers, folks who don't agree with all of the science, but that is to be expected as it occurs in all the sciences.  But among the actual professionals involved in this research there is a general agreement that human activity is largely to blame for the warming we are seeing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> What is causing the current warming?  We know a great deal about what causes warming and cooling, so why is it warming since 1850?  If it is simply "natural variation" it would seem to be pretty one-directional (warming) and if we are just catching up to the peak of the last interglacial _why is it happening so late in this interglacial?_
> 
> We should be heading into a new glacial advance per Milankovich Cycles but we aren't cooling.  Why are warming?


As it turns out, the uneducated slobs on USMB have not yet outsmarted the global scientific community. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> We should be heading back into another glacial advance and we should be seeing cooling.



Cooling with advancing glaciers would be better? Why?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cooling with advancing glaciers would be better? Why?



Not saying better or worse, just that _if this is nothing more than an interglacial_ then why are we WARMING instead of cooling given that by most rights we should be heading back into a cooling phase?

We can't control the earth's orbital obliquity but we SURE can control our own actions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> by most rights we should be heading back into a cooling phase?



I think cooling would be worse. What do you think?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As it turns out, the uneducated slobs on USMB have not yet outsmarted the global scientific community. Who'da thunk it?



There's no shame in lacking education in this area.  It's pretty specialized.  One can understand the basic science with minimal training but it still requires some.  Not all are meant to be scientists.

I agree that often we see people without any training whatsoever making claims about the "errors" they've found in science they don't understand.  It's a pretty common sight.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think cooling would be worse. What do you think?



Given that another glaical advance will take thousands upon thousands of years to happen vs warming which we are doing in _record time_ will have a nearly immediate (within the next century ) and devastating effect on our economies and our societies I'm going to say this warming is worse than not.


----------



## ding (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> How, exactly, do you think _cycles_ operate



This is the best video I’ve seen on the subject.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> Given that another glaical advance will take thousands upon thousands of years to happen



But the cooling would be happening now.
How do our crops do during periods of cooling?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But the cooling would be happening now.
> How do our crops do during periods of cooling?


You tell us. It's your point to make.

Let me help:

The cooling to which you refer is about 5degC over 20,000 years.

And....go


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You tell us. It's your point to make.
> 
> Let me help:
> 
> ...



*The cooling to which you refer is about 5degC over 20,000 years.*

That's the fasting cooling ever happens? Link?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The cooling to which you refer is about 5degC over 20,000 years.*
> 
> That's the fasting cooling ever happens? Link?


Oops, another idiot non sequitur. To be expected.

I don't suppose we will get treated to you actually making your point any time soon.

I will check back.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 2, 2022)

*Fight as hard as you may, climate change began when our planet was struck by a huge meteor that caused our planet to tilt about 3 degrees which caused our planet to wobble. This wobbling causes a change in air flow and sea currents. These changes created unstable weather patterns.*

*In the Beginning earth was a molten blob of rock with* a high concentration of oxygen and hydrogen gas and a few others like nitrogen & argon.
The nitrogen and oxygen gases were heated up by an external force until a spontaneous combustion reaction took place.
In the process a great deal of heat was released. This heat energy began cooling and as it cooled the water molecules clung to each other producing ice. This Ice originally covered our plant.






*Snowball Earth:* *There are times our planet was covered in ice*
Ancient rocks suggest that *ice entirely covered our planet on at least two occasions.* This theory may help explain the rise of complex life that followed.
Published: Friday, April 5, 2019
The story of Snowball Earth | Astronomy.com

*The Snowball Earth hypothesis* proposes that, *during one or more of Earth's icehouse climates, the planet's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen.* It is believed that this occurred sometime before 650 Mya during the Cryogenian period. Wikipedia
The story of Snowball Earth

*Snowball Earth*
Introduction​*Our planet is thought to have been completely frozen over during the Neoproterozoic.* From space, Earth would have looked like a big snowball.
Callan Bentley art

*The “Snowball Earth” glaciations were a series of ice ages during the Neoproterozoic era of geologic time*, mainly confined to the Cryogenian period, but perhaps also into the Ediacaran period, too. These ice ages were thought to have been so profound that perhaps the entire surface of the planet froze over, all the way from the poles to the equator. In a 1992 paper, Caltech geophysicist Joe Kirschvink quipped that from a vantage point in outer space, the planet would have looked like a giant snowball. The evocative name stuck, and there has been an avalanche of scientific studies investigating the Snowball Earth glaciations ever since.

*I believe what we are seeing above is our “climate” in action.*

Earth's atmosphere is composed of about *78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases*. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent
https://tinyurl.com/bdz5fkyp

*In today’s world, can a grown-up adult, deny climate change?
-
Today we are in a warming cycle
Ice caps are melting*
​


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Fight as hard as you may, climate change began when our planet was struck by a huge meteor that caused out planet to tilt about 3 degrees which caused our planet to wobble. This wobbling causes a change in air flow and sea currents. These changes created unstable weather patterns.*
> 
> *In the Beginning earth was a molten blob of rock with* a high concentration of oxygen and hydrogen gas and a few others like nitrogen & argon.
> The nitrogen and oxygen gases were heated up by an external force until a spontaneous combustion reaction took place.
> ...



Again, the reason you know about any of the past earth's climate changes is because of the same research that tells us that the _current warming_ is best explained by human activity.

The field of paleoclimatology exists and has helped to better understand what *natural forcings* do to the climate.  And we have a reasonable handle on the usual natural causes of warming or cooling.  The problem is that the current warming _doesn't line up enough with natural forcings or cycles sufficient to explain the warming _*but human forcings explain it quite well!*

So anytime someone tries to tell you that AGW can't be real because the earth's climate has changed before; that's not what the actual science tells us.  The actual science tells us that YES the earth's climate has changed before and that helps us understand that the current climate change is *likely not predominantly natural*.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> Again, the reason you know about any of the past earth's climate changes is because of the same research that tells us that the _current warming_ is best explained by human activity.


^^


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> And that means, exactly, what?


Don't sweat it. ding distracts for attention. Best to virtually pat his head and move on.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> Again, the reason you know about any of the past earth's climate changes is because of the same research that tells us that the _current warming_ is best explained by human activity.


I’m on your side for a different reason. If screaming *burning oil is causing climate change,* causes us to stop using fossil fuels then great, the ultimate outcome will be the same.

The world is running out of oil. We have two options—

Wait until we burn up all the oil and a great world panic ensues.
Start switching to renewables in a safe and timely manner
*Summary Table as of 2017
Oil Reserves
1,650,585,140,000 barrels
Oil Consumption
35,442,913,090
barrels per year
97,103,871 barrels per day
Reserves/Consumption
47 (years left)*
World Oil Statistics - Worldometer
*What do you believe we should do-?*
Wait, I will be dead in 47 years, so why should I care?
-


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> I’m on your side for a different reason. If screaming *burning oil is causing climate change,* causes us to stop using fossil fuels then great, the ultimate outcome will be the same.
> 
> The world is running out of oil. We have two options—
> 
> ...



I think both things can be true and motivate for their separate reasons.  I have seen the concept of "peak oil" come and go and come and go, but no matter how close or how far we are from peak, there will be one.  There has to be one.  We will run out some day.

And the end won't be pretty either.  What we'll do is start spending more to get "lower quality" hits for the oil and we'll take more risks (like the damage that is possible to do to aquifers from extraction of tar sands and oil sands) until we have exhausted our search for the stuff we were used to.  It's going to be pretty nasty.

And even worse if the climate is also messing with our economies and societies causing massive economic upheaval.

I've (hopefully) got less than 47 more years here, but we have the luxury to not have to live through what we are damning future generations to.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 2, 2022)

ding said:


> *This is the best video I’ve seen on the subject.*


I wish I had seen your video before I started posting on this subject. If I had seen it first, I would have shut up.

For one, I thank you for posting it.

-


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> In even the shortest of long runs, climate is a global characteristic.  And what is this "you never answer" bullshit?  I have never been asked this question before and I am answering it.  Waiting two-and-a-half hours at dinnertime and then claiming I'm unresponsive is pretty fucked up.


I’ve asked for five years. You still didn’t answer


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> . We will run out some day.


When?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> When?



Not a clue.


----------



## ding (Apr 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> I wish I had seen your video before I started posting on this subject. If I had seen it first, I would have shut up.
> 
> For one, I thank you for posting it.
> 
> -


I’ve gone back and forth on the subject.  The conditions which led to the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet still exist today; Polar regions isolated from warm marine currents and their respective threshold for extensive continental glaciation.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> I've asked before, where has climate changed in your lifetime?
> 
> Earth.


"Ignore" (or just "Swat") jc456.
He's a 5 word no-content fly.
`


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "Ignore" (or just "Swat") jc456.
> He's a 5 word no-content fly.
> `


And you can’t say where climate changed. It seems you have no fking clue what climate is


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> And you can’t say where climate changed. It seems you have no fking clue what climate is


I gave you the correct answer.  How about you just fuck off jc.  I've had you on Ignore all this while and have been manually opening your posts to see if you'd got any less stupid in your old age.  I see I've once more wasted my time.  Buh-bye.


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 2, 2022)

What do I have to post about you to get put on your ignore list? ...


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 2, 2022)

How do we “know”?  Maybe we don’t!  Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...


----------



## Meister (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> Not a clue.


Use your math


----------



## abu afak (Apr 2, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> How do we “know”?  Maybe we don’t!  Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...


:^)
You copied the Headline of another thread.
Genius at work.
You are a 100% NO CONTENT partisan Troll/hostile.
It was debunked in post # 78 of that thread as follows:

*"Flawed Reasoning: *​
The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.​*Inadequate support: *The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.​*Fails to provide correct physical explanation: *The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.​​The paper should not be relied upon.​​Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:​(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.​(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).​(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).​(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.​(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.​(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).​​​

​​Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming​​Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...​




 climatefeedback.org​​Seems your "bombshell study" was not published and has some serious flaws.""​- - - -

:^)
Now what?

`


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> LOL
> You copied the Headline of another thread.
> Genius at work.
> You are a 100% NO CONTENT partisan Troll/hostile.
> ...


Yes. You figured out that the link was to another thread! I couldn’t be more proud of you if you were intelligent.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 2, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yes. You figured out that the link was to another thread! I couldn’t be more proud of you if you were intelligent.


No answer as to it being a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS.
You remain a ZERO content cheerleader in this thread/Section.... as is Meister! who just Emptily HarrASSed a serious and meaty poster in the thread with a three word troll.
The empty Right on Full Display.
`


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> No answer as to it being a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS.
> You remain a ZERO content cheerleader in this thread/Section.... as is Meister! who just Emptily HarrASSed a serious and meaty poster in the thread with a three word troll.
> The empty Right on Full Display.
> `


No. I went right for the obvious, to wit: that you were able to somehow figure out that I linked to a thread headline. Your intelligence is off the charts!


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 3, 2022)

Keep in mind that the IPCC report is also "a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS." ... Abu doesn't know this because he has no formal education in science ... doesn't know what d^2r/dt^2 means ...


----------



## task0778 (Apr 3, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Keep in mind that the IPCC report is also "a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS." ... Abu doesn't know this because he has no formal education in science ... doesn't know what d^2r/dt^2 means ...



Or he doesn't believe it.  He and others may or may not know much about science and climate change, but there are many smart, educated people who cannot accept that their own viewpoint could be wrong.  They ignore the fact that for over 30 years we've been hectored with dire/drastic projections concerning global warming and climate change that haven't been close to being true, and fully expect all of us to spend enormous amounts of money that we don't have on projects that might not even make a difference in solving the problems.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Or he doesn't believe it.  He and others may or may not know much about science and climate change, but there are many smart, educated people who cannot accept that their own viewpoint could be wrong.  They ignore the fact that for over 30 years we've been hectored with dire/drastic projections concerning global warming and climate change that haven't been close to being true, and fully expect all of us to spend enormous amounts of money that we don't have on projects that might not even make a difference in solving the problems.


Can’t solve what you don’t know


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 3, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Or he doesn't believe it.  He and others may or may not know much about science and climate change, but there are many smart, educated people who cannot accept that their own viewpoint could be wrong.  They ignore the fact that for over 30 years we've been hectored with dire/drastic projections concerning global warming and climate change that haven't been close to being true, and fully expect all of us to spend enormous amounts of money that we don't have on projects that might not even make a difference in solving the problems.



*fully expect all of us to spend enormous amounts of money
*
Did they pile the expenses on everyone in Texas? ... that's a problem with Texas then ...

Oregon used an "opt-in" system ... we had to specifically state we wanted all the electricity we used (individually) to be bought from the new wind farm, and pay an extra 2¢/kW-hr ... I did and that added maybe $10 to my heating bill ... that's all expired now and I'm back down to the old rate having only zeroed inflation over these past 20 years ... and it looks like zero inflation for the next 20 years ...

That's "smelting aluminum" good ... if you take my meaning ...


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

If we (advocates of action re global warming) were "fully expecting you to spend enormous sums of money", we would not be here fighting you fools tooth and nail.  Nor having to nake certain we are voting for representatives who acknowledge the supremacy of science over the falsehoods spewed by the fossil fuel industry and their (I hate to use the term, but...) useful idiots.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> Nor having to nake certain we are voting for representatives who acknowledge the supremacy of science over the falsehoods spewed by the fossil fuel industry



Falsehoods like fossil fuels give us cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, unlike wind and solar?


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

Falsehoods like virtually every argument every made by AGW deniers.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Keep in mind that the IPCC report is also "a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS."


Shameless lie

IPCC report is a summary of published research relating to climate. Yes, peer reviewed. Flawed? Nonsense you regurgitated from a paid liar. It's the best summary available.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Falsehoods like fossil fuels give us cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, unlike wind and solar?


While true on its face, Teo things:

1) we aren't paying the true costs at the pumps and refineries

2) technology progresses


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 3, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shameless lie
> 
> IPCC report is a summary of published research relating to climate. Yes, peer reviewed. Flawed? Nonsense you regurgitated from a paid liar. It's the best summary available.



The United Nations published the IPCC report ... themselves ... it's self published and *not* peer-reviewed by a reputable scientific journal ... or tell us which publishing house did ...

You claim it's peer-reviewed ... who reviewed it? ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 3, 2022)

The IPCC report is not peer-reviewable ... it's too long ... it would take a couple of years just to read it, years longer just to verify the citations ... _just_ to verify the citations ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The United Nations published the IPCC report ... themselves ...


Irrelevant. The scientists published the research, and other scientists compiled it.




ReinyDays said:


> it's self published and *not* peer-reviewed by a reputable scientific journal .


It, of course, is nothing BUT a peer review. A peer review by the top experts of the state of the published research across nearly every field of science.  You are saying very stupid things.

But it does show the desperation of you cornered deniers, when you have retreated to this idiotic Alamo. Which is progress of a sort.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> technology progresses



No need to force it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No need to force it.


Says you.


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The United Nations published the IPCC report ... themselves ... it's self published and *not* peer-reviewed by a reputable scientific journal ... or tell us which publishing house did ...
> 
> You claim it's peer-reviewed ... who reviewed it? ...


The IPCC posts the extensive list of experts who review their assessments prior to publication. Were you actually unaware of that fact?


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> The IPCC posts the extensive list of experts who review their assessments prior to publication. Were you actually unaware of that fact?


PS, refereed journals do NOT use employees to peer review submissions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> The IPCC posts the extensive list of experts who review their assessments prior to publication. Were you actually unaware of that fact?


Of course he was.

He either just pulled his bizarre IPCC talking point right out of his ass, or it was spoonfed to him by one of the paid liars in the denier industry.


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> The IPCC posts the extensive list of experts who review their assessments prior to publication. Were you actually unaware of that fact?



Authors don't get to pick the people who do the peer-review ... and you're painfully unaware of that fact ... so sad ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Authors don't get to pick the people who do the peer-review ... and you're painfully unaware of that fact ... so sad ...


Dude, give it up. You said something dumb and wrong.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

*National Academy of Sciences:*

CLIMATE CHANGE​



​Humans are causing global warming​*CLAIM*​_Today’s global warming is No different from Previous warming periods in Earth’s past._

FINDING​*FALSE. Natural changes in the Sun and Earth Cannot explain Today’s global warming. Human activities are Causing Earth to heat up in ways that are Different from warm periods in the past.*



			https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=CjwKCAjwur-SBhB6EiwA5sKtjtcMTuGt7ChKFX5jE6V_uKlNHciBAjoaMiHtu4nVPCQEJNM2v91CERoC_c0QAvD_BwE
		


`


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *National Academy of Sciences:*
> 
> CLIMATE CHANGE​
> 
> ...


what is it you think that proves?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2022)

Crick said:


> The IPCC posts the extensive list of experts who review their assessments prior to publication. Were you actually unaware of that fact?


is it all of the 99%?


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

Do you ever post more than ten words you empty harassment Troll?
What are you even doing here.?
Go tweet some one liners.

My post was from the most important Science org in the country.
You're a one-line NO CONTENT Troll.
`
`


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Do you ever post more than ten words you empty harassment Troll?
> What are you even doing here.?
> Go tweet some one liners.
> 
> ...


but you have no idea what it proves.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> *but you have no idea what it proves.*


Really?
See if you can figure it out this time:
(you want to help me bump my thread/make my point with your token/7-word/non replies? Be my guest)

*Natl academy of sciences/NAS*

CLIMATE CHANGE​



​Humans are causing global warming​*CLAIM*​_Today’s global warming is No different from previous Warming periods in Earth’s past._

FINDING​*FALSE. Natural changes in the Sun and Earth Cannot Explain Today’s Global warming. Human activities are Causing Earth to heat up in ways that are Different from warm periods in the past.*

`


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Really?
> See if you can figure it out this time:
> (you want to help me bump my thread/make my point with your token/7-word/non replies? Be my guest)
> 
> ...


So you can’t summarize what is evidence?

so if I simply say nope, my evidence is as good as their’s.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> *So you can’t summarize what is evidence?*
> 
> so if I simply say nope, my evidence is as good as their’s.


YES!
Just did in another thread and have scores of times.

Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at [increasingly] staggering rates.
CO2 and other GHGs typically trail and exacerbate Warming after a solar forcing/astronomical/tilting event.
NOT the case now.
They are perfectly capable of causing warming as they are now/almost uniquely.

Scientists have measured radiation-in/radiation-out.
Radiation-in has NOT changed in at least 50 years.
Radiation out back into space is being blocked by the increasingly thick GHG blanket and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHG gases.

That's about the best, but not only, of many reasons we now this is *A*GW.

MY TURN:
Can you post a paragraph summarizing your Contrasting theory and why?
LOFL TROLL boy.
`

`


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> YES!
> Just did in another thread and have scores of times.
> 
> Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at [increasingly] staggering rates.
> ...


Again, where’s your evidence?


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> *Again, where’s your evidence?*


TROLL
The OP has Half a Dozen or more Excellent sources with the evidence.
*But YOU ASKED for a "summary" you Dishonest little LIAR.
and I gave a summary, not pages of Evidence.
YOU LOST.*
I did give that summary and the OP and thread is full of evidence of it.
YOU LOST.

Last word away you STINKING 7-word, non-conversant, no-meat, TROLL.
You post NO facts, NO Links, NOTHING but 7-word heel-nipping.
SWAT! 
You could NOT post YOUR "summary" in kind I asked for.
YOU LOST.


`


----------



## abu afak (Apr 11, 2022)

expat_panama said:


> Somehow what ur saying makes more sense than all I've been able to get from the AGW folks, they always seem to back off when ever we get into the nuts'n'bolts of what's heating & how do we measure it.
> 
> We got to admit that there are a lot of very nice folks who're swept into this thing, as vapid as it may be.



See the OP for many high quality explanations/sources.

`


----------



## abu afak (Jul 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> *And that means, exactly, what?  The key is that past interglacials were driven by natural forcings (specifically and chiefly the Milankovich Cycles).  The current interglacial, regardless of human activity is whatever temperature it is.  The key is that:
> 1. We should be heading back into another glacial advance and we should be seeing cooling.  But we are NOT.  We are, instead, warming.
> 2. Anthropogenic Global Warming will be expected to have the biggest impact on our societies in general.  Our agricultural infrastructure, our land-usage and our economies.  Something that we didn't have in the last interglacial*


Great post. dinging ding's 9500th troll.

`


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Great post. dinging ding's 9500th troll.
> 
> `


Us blokes get blamed for everything these days, but I don't think global warming is down to us. Today alone, my wife has driven to the supermarket, done two loads of washing and ironing, vacuumed the whole house, made some bread and several cups of coffee for me, and washed the pots. By comparison I haven't used any energy whatsoever. It's time we recognise who's causing all the problems in the world.


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Us blokes get blamed for everything these days, but I don't think global warming is down to us. Today alone, my wife has driven to the supermarket, done two loads of washing and ironing, vacuumed the whole house, made some bread and several cups of coffee for me, and washed the pots. By comparison I haven't used any energy whatsoever. It's time we recognise who's causing all the problems in the world.





Damn women!


----------



## Crick (Jul 5, 2022)

abu afak said:


> TROLL
> The OP has Half a Dozen or more Excellent sources with the evidence.
> *But YOU ASKED for a "summary" you Dishonest little LIAR.
> and I gave a summary, not pages of Evidence.
> ...


He was never actually in the competition.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> He was never actually in the competition.


still no evidence.  We're still waiting.  Crickster provides the comic relief in here, he spits and farts and leaves and dances with wolves I guess.  Still waiting on how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is dude.  You still haven't answered.  This OP is nonsense, and frankly I don't give a shit how you feel about my post.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

abu afak said:


> YES!
> Just did in another thread and have scores of times.
> 
> Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at [increasingly] staggering rates.
> ...


Be at peace in the knowledge that you are correct. The whole world realizes this except for the naysayers. Those few will always exist, like doubting Thomas, nothing's going to change them especially if they try to reinforce their thoughts with lies. Have a good day and forget these losers.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> Be at peace in the knowledge that you are correct. The whole world realizes this except for the naysayers. Those few will always exist, like doubting Thomas, nothing's going to change them especially if they try to reinforce their thoughts with lies. Have a good day and forget these losers.


especially when.......................you got nothing like you got.  Amazing!!! How hot is 120PPM of CO2 since you have the answers.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> especially when.......................you got nothing like you got.  Amazing!!! How hot is 120PPM of CO2 since you have the answers.


I'm not playing your silly little games. The debate was over in 1992 when 197 nations in the world signed the United Nations framework for climate change. It was definitely over when in 2006 the American association for the advancement of science declared the scientific evidence is clear global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and it is a growing threat to society. This is not something new, we've had well over 100 years to change our ways and prepare for a future without fossil fuels but big oil blocked move that was attempted now we are in a sad situation because of them. The industrial revolution started in the approximately 1850. By 1896 the swedish scientists Svante Arrhenius figured it all out. He simply said; " As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which add CO2 gas to the Earth's atmosphere we would have arrived in the planet's average temperature." The rest is history. You must be a trumper, you believe like him that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. I'm sorry but the real world doesn't work like that and I'm not playing your sick little games. It's over. Try to have a nice day, I plan on it.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 5, 2022)

How do we know humanity is causing climate change?

I think we have to distinguish between THE cause and A cause, or even the primary cause.  People can spout off about this study or that research and that may have some value but too often it is the product of somebody's politics rather than objective truth.  [Money talks very loudly.]  There are too many natural causes that shift in time in terms of cause and effect, and much of that cannot be accurately measured.  Clearly there have been stretches of time where the various measurements used to describe climate change have risen and fallen, sometimes significantly and unexplainably.  I do not believe there is any doubt that mankind has polluted the air and water and that did/does have an effect, but to what extent relative to natural causes remains unknown.

Which does not mean we should do nothing about it, but the programs and policies we adopt ought to be smart and cost-effective without undue negative impact on the people who can afford it least.  So much of the climate change politics is based on money, who gets it vs how much good it'll do.  It has become a hot-button political issue where no one can really know how much difference a given policy or program will make.  Instead, we are rewarding political donors and supporters with huge sums that have not produced results that were worthy of the expenditures.  These days truth is in the eye of the beholder, and it is very elusive.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

task0778 said:


> How do we know humanity is causing climate change?
> 
> I think we have to distinguish between THE cause and A cause, or even the primary cause.  People can spout off about this study or that research and that may have some value but too often it is the product of somebody's politics rather than objective truth.  [Money talks very loudly.]  There are too many natural causes that shift in time in terms of cause and effect, and much of that cannot be accurately measured.  Clearly there have been stretches of time where the various measurements used to describe climate change have risen and fallen, sometimes significantly and unexplainably.  I do not believe there is any doubt that mankind has polluted the air and water and that did/does have an effect, but to what extent relative to natural causes remains unknown.
> 
> Which does not mean we should do nothing about it, but the programs and policies we adopt ought to be smart and cost-effective without undue negative impact on the people who can afford it least.  So much of the climate change politics is based on money, who gets it vs how much good it'll do.  It has become a hot-button political issue where no one can really know how much difference a given policy or program will make.  Instead, we are rewarding political donors and supporters with huge sums that have not produced results that were worthy of the expenditures.  These days truth is in the eye of the beholder, and it is very elusive.


You can't believe any garbage you want. The bottom line is most people on the planet know climate change is a real threat and they want to curtail it as much as possible. We ( collectively ) caused this and we, at least most of us, want to leave our children and grandchildren with a planet as wonderful as the one we had.


----------



## Crick (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You can't believe any garbage you want. The bottom line is most people on the planet know climate change is a real threat and they want to curtail it as much as possible. We ( collectively ) caused this and we, at least most of us, want to leave our children and grandchildren with a planet as wonderful as the one we had.


Which ought to inform the argument.  AGW deniers are, seemingly, concerned primarily about money.  People that accept the conclusions of mainstream science on this topic realize AGW is a threat to our children and theirs.  Thus a large disparity in the strength of our two motivations should surprise no one.  The idiots on this forum are a very real threat to our children and their futures.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not playing your silly little games. The debate was over in 1992 when 197 nations in the world signed the United Nations framework for climate change. It was definitely over when in 2006 the American association for the advancement of science declared the scientific evidence is clear global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and it is a growing threat to society. This is not something new, we've had well over 100 years to change our ways and prepare for a future without fossil fuels but big oil blocked move that was attempted now we are in a sad situation because of them. The industrial revolution started in the approximately 1850. By 1896 the swedish scientists Svante Arrhenius figured it all out. He simply said; " As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which add CO2 gas to the Earth's atmosphere we would have arrived in the planet's average temperature." The rest is history. You must be a trumper, you believe like him that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. I'm sorry but the real world doesn't work like that and I'm not playing your sick little games. It's over. Try to have a nice day, I plan on it.


well how about you first tell us how hot all that added CO2 added to the atmosphere?  Go ahead, remove the humidity and what you got?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You can't believe any garbage you want. The bottom line is most people on the planet know climate change is a real threat and they want to curtail it as much as possible. We ( collectively ) caused this and we, at least most of us, want to leave our children and grandchildren with a planet as wonderful as the one we had.


prove most.  How you gonna do that?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

task0778 said:


> How do we know humanity is causing climate change?
> 
> I think we have to distinguish between THE cause and A cause, or even the primary cause.  People can spout off about this study or that research and that may have some value but too often it is the product of somebody's politics rather than objective truth.  [Money talks very loudly.]  There are too many natural causes that shift in time in terms of cause and effect, and much of that cannot be accurately measured.  Clearly there have been stretches of time where the various measurements used to describe climate change have risen and fallen, sometimes significantly and unexplainably.  I do not believe there is any doubt that mankind has polluted the air and water and that did/does have an effect, but to what extent relative to natural causes remains unknown.
> 
> Which does not mean we should do nothing about it, but the programs and policies we adopt ought to be smart and cost-effective without undue negative impact on the people who can afford it least.  So much of the climate change politics is based on money, who gets it vs how much good it'll do.  It has become a hot-button political issue where no one can really know how much difference a given policy or program will make.  Instead, we are rewarding political donors and supporters with huge sums that have not produced results that were worthy of the expenditures.  These days truth is in the eye of the beholder, and it is very elusive.


I just want to see the study on how they proved how much adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes.  Wonder where that study is at?  no one in here's provided it.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> Which ought to inform the argument.  AGW deniers are, seemingly, concerned primarily about money.  People that accept the conclusions of mainstream science on this topic realize AGW is a threat to our children and theirs.  Thus a large disparity in the strength of our two motivations should surprise no one.  The idiots on this forum are a very real threat to our children and their futures.


You're right about one thing, it was about the money all the money big oil made off of us keeping us blind to what was happening to the planet at the same time. The jig is up. Like I said you could leave all the fantasies you want it doesn't change the truth this planet is in trouble and we are the cause.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You're right about one thing, it was about the money all the money big oil made off of us keeping us blind to what was happening to the planet at the same time. The jig is up. Like I said you could leave all the fantasies you want it doesn't change the truth this planet is in trouble and we are the cause.


what happened to the planet? show us.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> prove most.  How you gonna do that?


I had my say, I'm not going to argue with idiots it's a proven fact already I'm sorry you can't accept it
Goodbye


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> what happened to the planet? show us.


Goodbye, try to have a nice day.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> I had my say, I'm not going to argue with idiots it's a proven fact already I'm sorry you can't accept it
> Goodbye


I give two shits what you want.  Prove your point.  Show us the numbers of who believes in your crazy shit.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> Goodbye, try to have a nice day.


bye, I see you got nothing as I would have predicted. Just crazy OP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> The debate was over in 1992 when 197 nations in the world signed the United Nations framework for climate change.



When did the US sign?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> AGW deniers are, seemingly, concerned primarily about money.



AGW fanatics don't care about money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You're right about one thing, it was about the money all the money big oil made off of us keeping us blind to what was happening to the planet at the same time.



You're free to stop using fossil fuels at anytime.
Let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I give two shits what you want.  Prove your point.  Show us the numbers of who believes in your crazy shit.


Case closed, not open for further discussion. We all have better things to do with our time.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> bye, I see you got nothing as I would have predicted. Just crazy OP.


You are denying climate change,  I think crazy better defines you.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> Case closed, not open for further discussion. We all have better things to do with our time.



Here's Stann cause he can't prove his point.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are denying climate change,  I think crazy better defines you.


where has it changed in your lifetime?

Greenland have Ice?
Arctic have Ice?
Antarctic got Ice?

Equator still hot and humid?

Northern Hemisphere still have snow and winter?

Name somewhere.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Here's Stann cause he can't prove his point.
> View attachment 666465





jc456 said:


> Here's Stann cause he can't prove his point.
> View attachment 666465


You are very sick if you think you got me upset. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing. You must be a sick troll, goodbye.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> where has it changed in your lifetime?
> 
> Greenland have Ice?
> Arctic have Ice?
> ...


I'm sorry climate change isn't moving fast enough for you, it's not interesting in satisfying your need for instant gratification.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are very sick if you think you got me upset. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing. You must be a sick troll, goodbye.


your post confirmed I got you upset, otherwise, as a calm person you think you are, you'd provide the evidence of CO2 on how hot 120 PPM of CO2 is.  It would be nice to see the study.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> where has it changed in your lifetime?
> 
> Greenland have Ice?
> Arctic have Ice?
> ...


You see with climate change deniers like you no matter what I say You're going to come up with some garbage saying it's not true so I'm not playing you're sick little games you're not worth it. Goodbye once and for all. I wish you well if that's possible giving your predicament.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> your post confirmed I got you upset, otherwise, as a calm person you think you are, you'd provide the evidence of CO2 on how hot 120 PPM of CO2 is.  It would be nice to see the study.


You've seen many studies and you come up with reasons not to believe them good luck with that.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You see with climate change deniers like you no matter what I say You're going to come up with some garbage saying it's not true so I'm not playing you're sick little games you're not worth it. Goodbye once and for all. I wish you well if that's possible giving your predicament.


not at all.  I look at facts.  To date, there are absolutely no facts presented to claim climate change beyond what we've all experienced in a life time of seasonal changes.  So, exercise your talents and let us know where climate has changed in your lifetime to make such statements you've made?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You've seen many studies and you come up with reasons not to believe them good luck with that.


I just want to see the study and the results of the study on how hot 120PPM of CO2 is.  Do you have it?


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> not at all.  I look at facts.  To date, there are absolutely no facts presented to claim climate change beyond what we've all experienced in a life time of seasonal changes.  So, exercise your talents and let us know where climate has changed in your lifetime to make such statements you've made?


Get a life already.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> Get a life already.


Still showing you got nothing


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> Be at peace in the knowledge that you are correct. The whole world realizes this except for the naysayers. Those few will always exist, like doubting Thomas, nothing's going to change them especially if they try to reinforce their thoughts with lies. Have a good day and forget these losers.


Bwaaaahhaaaaaa......Just today, the temperature here was well below the record.  How is it that the temps can be lower if year after year, the temperatures are rising with the rise in CO2?  You deniers can never answer that question.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Bwaaaahhaaaaaa......Just today, the temperature here was well below the record.  How is it that the temps can be lower if year after year, the temperatures are rising with the rise in CO2?  You deniers can never answer that question.


Wow, a below normal temperature how unusual. A major factor of in climate change is that it's unpredictable and very variable. I think that's got you covered. Now go away sheep.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> Wow, a below normal temperature how unusual. A major factor of in climate change is that it's unpredictable and very variable. I think that's got you covered. Now go away sheep.



How do we know it's human caused climate change.....It's warmer, right?
Sometimes it's colder, right? Sometimes there is more rain, right? 
Sometimes there is less rain, right? We're guilty!!!

We need $76 trillion in new windmills.....now!!!!

You greedy bastards.


----------



## flan327 (Jul 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> not at all.  I look at facts.  To date, there are absolutely no facts presented to claim climate change beyond what we've all experienced in a life time of seasonal changes.  So, exercise your talents and let us know where climate has changed in your lifetime to make such statements you've made?


Icebergs are melting
Hurricane season starts earlier


Toddsterpatriot said:


> How do we know it's human caused climate change.....It's warmer, right?
> Sometimes it's colder, right? Sometimes there is more rain, right?
> Sometimes there is less rain, right? We're guilty!!!
> 
> ...


Grow up


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Icebergs are melting
> Hurricane season starts earlier
> 
> Grow up



Why do you hate the planet?


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Icebergs are melting
> Hurricane season starts earlier
> 
> Grow up


I believe these people are trolls. Either that or complete idiots, that believe they know better than most of the scientists in the world. They find one bit of information that seems to superficially contradict climate change and they plan on to it as if they found a pot of gold. When it really means nothing in the big picture.


----------



## Crick (Jul 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How do we know it's human caused climate change.....It's warmer, right?
> Sometimes it's colder, right? Sometimes there is more rain, right?
> Sometimes there is less rain, right? We're guilty!!!
> 
> ...


Do you actually have a pertinent argument to make Todd?


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you hate the planet?


I know that applies more to you and jc456 then it does to anyone else on here.


----------



## Crick (Jul 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When did the US sign?


1997 Todd.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're free to stop using fossil fuels at anytime.
> Let us know how that works out for you.


You don't understand it's a gradual phase out, some nations are further ahead on this than we are some Nations are not as far ahead as we are. In the past 30 years Saudi Arabia has pumped out 90 trillion barrels of oil out of their oil fields, less than 50% of the oil fields are left now. The law of supply and demand are coming into play very much so now. Dwindling supplies and increased demands from all over the planet. The days of cheap fuel are over. I can almost guarantee in less than 10 years gas will be $10 a gallon and that's why so many of the big auto companies are switching to hybrid and electric model vehicles. This should have been done years ago, but big oil blocked it every step of the way, even buying off every Republican they could. So if you really want to blame this situation on anyone, blame it on the Republicans. They're really putting the screws to Biden right now.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1997 Todd.


I looked it up the other day I believe it was 1992 and 197 Nations signed the agreement.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> I looked it up the other day I believe it was 1992 and 197 Nations signed the agreement.


George Bush signed it in 1992. Looked it up again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you actually have a pertinent argument to make Todd?



The climate is changing. We did it.

I thought that was obvious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1997 Todd.



That's great!
How many votes did it get in the Senate?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> Wow, a below normal temperature how unusual. A major factor of in climate change is that it's unpredictable and very variable. I think that's got you covered. Now go away sheep.


Okay stan, here is an analogy so even a 3rd grader like you can understand.


You are in a house that has 3 levels.  You have a thermostat on the first floor of the house set for 72 degrees, while the upstairs is hotter because hot air rises so the temp is 74 degrees, while down in the basement, cool air goes down, so the temp is 70 degrees.   So far so good right?  Now if you raise the temp of the thermostat up 5 degrees, does the basement get lower than normal, or does it go up to 75 degrees, while the 2nd floor would be 79 degrees.  For the past 20 years , you global warming zealots have been saying that the Earth has been warming year after year, so each fucking year, the temperature all over the Earth be hotter by those 20 fucking years.  Dumbass progs are the reason why gas prices are so high, and solar and wind, make Socialist elites very wealthy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> The days of cheap fuel are over. I can almost guarantee in less than 10 years gas will be $10 a gallon and that's why so many of the big auto companies are switching to hybrid and electric model vehicles.



Is that why Germany pays triple what we do for electricity?
Because cheap fuel is over?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 5, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Icebergs are melting
> Hurricane season starts earlier
> 
> Grow up


How many fucking hurricanes have their been on the east coast so far?  Wait for it.....


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Okay stan, here is an analogy so even a 3rd grader like you can understand.
> 
> 
> You are in a house that has 3 levels.  You have a thermostat on the first floor of the house set for 72 degrees, while the upstairs is hotter because hot air rises so the temp is 74 degrees, while down in the basement, cool air goes down, so the temp is 70 degrees.   So far so good right?  Now if you raise the temp of the thermostat up 5 degrees, does the basement get lower than normal, or does it go up to 75 degrees, while the 2nd floor would be 79 degrees.  For the past 20 years , you global warming zealots have been saying that the Earth has been warming year after year, so each fucking year, the temperature all over the Earth be hotter by those 20 fucking years.  Dumbass progs are the reason why gas prices are so high, and solar and wind, make Socialist elites very wealthy.


Your analogy would make more sense if you used a fishbowl. The Earth is essentially are closed biosystem. But you went on to say much more, hinting that the majority of the world scientists are just money grubbers. Not sorry, that would be better applied to Big oil over the past 50 years, buy off every Republican they could to deny what was happening to the Earth and to prevent people from  preparing for future without fossil fuels. That's exactly why we're in the current predicament we are.


----------



## Stann (Jul 5, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> How many fucking hurricanes have their been on the east coast so far?  Wait for it.....


Repeating, Please grow up !


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> AGW fanatics don't care about money.


Todd, how many times on this forum have you mentioned the trillions of dollars you think we all want to spend?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Your analogy would make more sense if you used a fishbowl. The Earth is essentially are closed biosystem. But you went on to say much more, hinting that the majority of the world scientists are just money grubbers. Not sorry, that would be better applied to Big oil over the past 50 years, buy off every Republican they could to deny what was happening to the Earth and to prevent people from  preparing for future without fossil fuels. That's exactly why we're in the current predicament we are.


So taking your fishbowl analogy.  If the temperature of the water is 75 degrees and over the period of 20 years each year you raised the temperature by 1 degree after 20 years the water and everything else in it would be 95 fucking degrees there would not be any below normal temperatures.  Follow the fucking money, on how someone like Al Jazeera Gore can become a 1/2 billionaire, the brown turd Obammy can own two mansions both on the ocean and most other progressive elites are millionaires, all because you think they are saving the planet, but stealing from US by taking our tax dollars.


...............................The brown turd's house Hawaii..................................The brown turd's house Marthas Vineyard


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> Todd, how many times on this forum have you mentioned the trillions of dollars you think we all want to spend?



How many times have you denied it?


----------



## Stann (Jul 6, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> So taking your fishbowl analogy.  If the temperature of the water is 75 degrees and over the period of 20 years each year you raised the temperature by 1 degree after 20 years the water and everything else in it would be 95 fucking degrees there would not be any below normal temperatures.  Follow the fucking money, on how someone like Al Jazeera Gore can become a 1/2 billionaire, the brown turd Obammy can own two mansions both on the ocean and most other progressive elites are millionaires, all because you think they are saving the planet, but stealing from US by taking our tax dollars.
> 
> 
> ...............................The brown turd's house Hawaii..................................The brown turd's house Marthas Vineyard
> View attachment 666852 View attachment 666853


----------



## Stann (Jul 6, 2022)

Interesting you call Obama a turd. He is ranked 10th best present ever. Where is your orange turd, that you obviously think the world of, ranks at near bottom, coming in at the 41st most popular.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Interesting you call Obama a turd. He is ranked 10th best present ever. Where is your orange turd, that you obviously think the world of, ranks at near bottom, coming in at the 41st most popular.


Bwaahhhaaaaa.......The brown turd Obammy was almost as bad as Jimmy Carter, but for the Lame Stream Media, carrying the water for him. If he was so great then the people would of voted in his secretary, but no one wanted 4 more years of minimum wage jobs and higher taxes.  Oh yeah, before Biden, the turd doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 9.5 trillion with 4 more trillion on the Fed books for the QE shit, where the rich got way richer and the poor dumbasses got poorer.  Now stop trying to derail this thread and answer the question, why over  20 years of global warming because of ever increasing CO2, can my temperature be well below the highest record?  You cant because you are a stupid twit.


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Bwaahhhaaaaa.......The brown turd Obammy was almost as bad as Jimmy Carter, but for the Lame Stream Media, carrying the water for him. If he was so great then the people would of voted in his secretary, but no one wanted 4 more years of minimum wage jobs and higher taxes.  Oh yeah, before Biden, the turd doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 9.5 trillion with 4 more trillion on the Fed books for the QE shit, where the rich got way richer and the poor dumbasses got poorer.  Now stop trying to derail this thread and answer the question, why over  20 years of global warming because of ever increasing CO2, can my temperature be well below the highest record?  You cant because you are a stupid twit.


It's not the media that gives him that rating.  It is the world's historians, a rather conservative group.  That you should think that your temperature being well below the highest record somehow refutes AGW only shows your pathetic failings at basic science.  The world has temperatures ranging almost 200 Fahrenheit degrees.  What the temperature at your location might have been doing lately is really, really, really close to irrelevant.  That you don't understand that is simply evidence that you're too ignorant to be participating in this conversation.  And is very likely why you brought up Obama in a thread about anthropogenic global warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> It's not the media that gives him that rating.  It is the world's historians, a rather conservative group.  That you should think that your temperature being well below the highest record somehow refutes AGW only shows your pathetic failings at basic science.  The world has temperatures ranging almost 200 Fahrenheit degrees.  What the temperature at your location might have been doing lately is really, really, really close to irrelevant.  That you don't understand that is simply evidence that you're too ignorant to be participating in this conversation.  And is very likely why you brought up Obama in a thread about anthropogenic global warming.



_It's not the media that gives him that rating.  It is the world's historians, a rather conservative group._

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> It's not the media that gives him that rating.  It is the world's historians, a rather conservative group.  That you should think that your temperature being well below the highest record somehow refutes AGW only shows your pathetic failings at basic science.  The world has temperatures ranging almost 200 Fahrenheit degrees.  What the temperature at your location might have been doing lately is really, really, really close to irrelevant.  That you don't understand that is simply evidence that you're too ignorant to be participating in this conversation.  And is very likely why you brought up Obama in a thread about anthropogenic global warming.


Have you ever taken a math class?  What is 75 + 1 degree for 20(years) =  ?

Now how can it be that over 20 years of warming, year by year, can you have below normal temperatures let alone 15 degrees below the hottest day on record?  Come on man,  it is 3rd grade math, did you ever finish 3rd grade?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _It's not the media that gives him that rating.  It is the world's historians, a rather conservative group._
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.


All they can do is lie all the time.


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Have you ever taken a math class?  What is 75 + 1 degree for 20(years) =  ?
> 
> Now how can it be that over 20 years of warming, year by year, can you have below normal temperatures let alone 15 degrees below the hottest day on record?  Come on man,  it is 3rd grade math, did you ever finish 3rd grade?


The poles are still quite cold.   The equators are still quite warm.  Do you understand the concept of "average temperature".  It appears that you do not.  Let me explain.

Let's say I have taken a temperature measurement in Kansas City, Missouri once in the 15th of each month for one year.  I have found the following temperatures:

25, 31, 33, 28, 42, 62, 78, 88, 88, 71, 58, 42. 

Does any one of these accurately represent the temperature of Kansas City for that year?  Hard to say.  In calculating an AVERAGE, we will add all 12 of those values and then divide the sum by 12.  When we do that we get:

25 + 31 + 33 + 28 + 42 + 62 + 78 + 88 + 88 + 71 + 58 + 42 = 646

646 / 12 = 53.83

So, we can say that the average annual temperature in Kansas City is 53.83 degrees.  Roughly half the time it will be warmer than that and roughly half the time it will be colder than that.  It is the centroid of all Kansas City temperatures.

Got it?

 I didn't think so.  But, hey, I tried.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jul 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> It's not the media that gives him that rating.  It is the world's historians, a rather conservative group.  That you should think that your temperature being well below the highest record somehow refutes AGW only shows your pathetic failings at basic science.  The world has temperatures ranging almost 200 Fahrenheit degrees.  What the temperature at your location might have been doing lately is really, really, really close to irrelevant.  That you don't understand that is simply evidence that you're too ignorant to be participating in this conversation.  And is very likely why you brought up Obama in a thread about anthropogenic global warming.


5 Presidents With the Largest Impacts on the National Debt​(in trillions) Percent Increase Added to Debt (in trillions)
Franklin D. Roosevelt 1048% 0.236
Woodrow Wilson 723% 0.021
*Ronald Reagan 186% 1.86*
George W. Bush 101% 5.85
Barack Obama 74% 8.6
----------------------------------------
1980: Electronic Age for Treasury Securities​


Official Portrait of
President Ronald Reagan, 1981

"_For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present.... You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?_"

_Ronald Reagan, 1981, Inaugural address_

Ronald Reagan (b, February 6, 1911 - d, June 5, 2004), who became the 40th president of the United States in 1980, declared "debt" to be one of his major campaign issues.

Reagan and his advisors were adherents of Milton Friedman (b. July 31, 1912 - d. November 16, 2006), an American Nobel Laureate economist, a promoter of "economic liberalism," and an intellectual renowned for his theories of "consumption analysis." Friedman advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. This "laissez-faire" style of economics allowed "the market" to set prices and interest rates.





Series HH Bond, 1980

*Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled as the government borrowed money to fund military build-ups and many elaborate new policies, such as "the war on drugs."* Americans began relying more and more on credit cards and jumbo mortgages, and being "in debt" became a new way of life in America.


----------



## Stann (Jul 6, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Bwaahhhaaaaa.......The brown turd Obammy was almost as bad as Jimmy Carter, but for the Lame Stream Media, carrying the water for him. If he was so great then the people would of voted in his secretary, but no one wanted 4 more years of minimum wage jobs and higher taxes.  Oh yeah, before Biden, the turd doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 9.5 trillion with 4 more trillion on the Fed books for the QE shit, where the rich got way richer and the poor dumbasses got poorer.  Now stop trying to derail this thread and answer the question, why over  20 years of global warming because of ever increasing CO2, can my temperature be well below the highest record?  You cant because you are a stupid twit.


Chris said it all, your claims are bogus just like you are. And by the way, your buddy trump did not create the bustling economy, he wrote in on the coattails of Obama and biden's great recovery act which got us out of another Republicans mess, Bush. And yes recovers are costly but Obama had to be honest and he included Bush's wars and that's why the national debt went up. What's Trump's excuse he took it up to over 20 trillion dollars.


----------



## Stann (Jul 6, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Bwaahhhaaaaa.......The brown turd Obammy was almost as bad as Jimmy Carter, but for the Lame Stream Media, carrying the water for him. If he was so great then the people would of voted in his secretary, but no one wanted 4 more years of minimum wage jobs and higher taxes.  Oh yeah, before Biden, the turd doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 9.5 trillion with 4 more trillion on the Fed books for the QE shit, where the rich got way richer and the poor dumbasses got poorer.  Now stop trying to derail this thread and answer the question, why over  20 years of global warming because of ever increasing CO2, can my temperature be well below the highest record?  You cant because you are a stupid twit.


So I looked it up again. Obama left Trump with a good, rapidly growing economy. The national debt was 9 trillion dollars because he included the Iraq in Afghanistan war which which Bush did not. When Trump left office he had increased the national debt to 27 trillion and the economy was at a standstill because of the pandemic and his failures to deal with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> So I looked it up again. Obama left Trump with a good, rapidly growing economy. The national debt was 9 trillion dollars because he included the Iraq in Afghanistan war which which Bush did not. When Trump left office he had increased the national debt to 27 trillion and the economy was at a standstill because of the pandemic and his failures to deal with it.



*So I looked it up again. Obama left Trump with a good, rapidly growing economy.*

+1.6% was "rapidly growing?

*The national debt was 9 trillion dollars because he included the Iraq in Afghanistan war which which Bush did not. *

Obama didn't change any bookkeeping for the national debt. 
Iraq and Afghanistan were never "excluded" from the debt. 

It was $19.9 trillion when Obama left, $10.6 trillion when he started.

* When Trump left office he had increased the national debt to 27 trillion and the economy was at a standstill*

Standstill?









__





						Real Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed
					

View the annual rate of economic output, or the inflation-adjusted value of all new goods and services produced by labor and property located in the U.S.



					fred.stlouisfed.org
				




It grew 33.8% in Q3 2020 and 4.5% in Q4 2020.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> The poles are still quite cold.   The equators are still quite warm.  Do you understand the concept of "average temperature".  It appears that you do not.  Let me explain.
> 
> Let's say I have taken a temperature measurement in Kansas City, Missouri once in the 15th of each month for one year.  I have found the following temperatures:
> 
> ...


Let me once again fill you in.  When you have a place on Earth that has a high of 100 degrees, then over 20 years, with Global Warming each year increasing, because CO2 is increasing, would the temperature of that place be 15 degrees cooler or hotter?  There nice and easy for a 1st grader even...


If the temperature was 100 degrees, and over 20 years a new ice age was coming each year the temperature was decreasing would the temperature of the place be 15 degrees cooler or hotter?  Had to give the counter point because so far our place is getting a little cooler each year.  Could it be that Florida is now God's county so it is getting better while your place must be Hell that is why it is warming up?


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So I looked it up again. Obama left Trump with a good, rapidly growing economy.*
> 
> +1.6% was "rapidly growing?
> 
> ...


Kinda oddly timed graph if you were trying to brag about Trump's economic performance there Todd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> Kinda oddly timed graph if you were trying to brag about Trump's economic performance there Todd.



*When Trump left office he had increased the national debt to 27 trillion and the economy was at a standstill*

How would you time a graph showing the economy when Trump left office?


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 5, 2022)

Dale Smith said:


> Changing any minds, dipshit???😂


You know, I never paid much attention to your "chem trail," arguments, till after the scamdemic. 

When Corbett started focusing heavily on the WEF and the WHOs future climate lockdown plans, I finally get, that the chemtrails, where never about global depopulation, but were always about weather control, thanks!   



			https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/stay-informed.764366/page-82#post-30372840
		


"That last, "election," was probably the last straw before the establishment types went full crazy.

I have no idea if there is an intentional, timed and tracked psy-op on the planetary population, but after some of the conferences I have watched at the WEF?  And read about what went on at things like that Event 201 and Dark Winter, if you told me there was an actual conspiracy going on, I'd not be shocked, AT ALL.









						Environmental Modification Convention - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








__





						Environmental Modification Convention
					






					2009-2017.state.gov
				




      " Article III    
1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement, and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world."






*








						Weather Modification History · Geoengineering Timeline and Educational Resource
					

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.




					weathermodificationhistory.com
				



*









						Ionospheric Heaters - Space Weather Control and Geophysical Warfare · ClimateViewer News
					

JUST THE FACTS about HAARP and experiments on the ionosphere, magnetosphere, and YOU!




					climateviewer.com
				












						Weaponized Cell Towers are Directly Related to Chemtrail Spray - Prepare For Change
					

The “EVENT” is the moment of the “Compression Breakthrough” on earth. COBRA guides us to prepare for change, for the Event and disclosure.




					prepareforchange.net
				





Joe even admitted it! 



". . It’s not like it’s beyond our control. The weather may be beyond our control for now, but it’s not beyond our control, and I promise you, we’re staying – the federal government, along with the state and county and the city. We’re staying until everybody’s back to where they were, not a joke, and one other thing I’ve raised to the gov. "




__





						Biden, Touring Flood Damage in Ky.: ‘The Weather May Be Beyond Our Control for Now’
					

While touring the damage from flooding in Eastern Kentucky on Monday, President Joe Biden said that “the weather is beyond our control for now.”




					www.cnsnews.com
				




The expert on this, is Patrick Wood.  I saw there is a Caravan to Midnight interview, but I have no sub to that channel, here it is;








						463 – Patrick Wood & Stephen Knapp
					

FEATURING Patrick Wood Stephen Knapp VIEW ALL GUEST MEDIA To view and/or listen to the following content you need to be a Caravan to Midnight member. If you are, please login. If not, subscribe or sign up today for a 14 day FREE TRAIL! VIDEO AUDIO SIGN UP FOR A FREE 14 DAY TRAIL SUBSCRIBE




					caravantomidnight.com
				




Otherwise, here is Mercola;


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 5, 2022)

__





						Climate Change Lockdowns?
					

Are Climate Change Lockdowns next? It is being talked about.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## jc456 (Sep 5, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think they should release the nuclear disaster they want. Hey demofks, are you chicken shits? Stand up fkers be proud!


----------



## Stann (Sep 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I think they should release the nuclear disaster they want. Hey demofks, are you chicken shits? Stand up fkers be proud!


You're all talking about some garbage, making crazy connections between public health measures and climate change. What can we expect next from you guys. The world has enough problems to be legitimately concerned about and try to fix, you don't need to create worry about other things that may happen however far-fetched they are.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 5, 2022)

Stann said:


> You're all talking about some garbage, making crazy connections between public health measures and climate change. What can we expect next from you guys. The world has enough problems to be legitimately concerned about and try to fix, you don't need to create worry about other things that may happen however far-fetched they are.


Naw we’re calling out demofks who hate humanity. Don’t jack off tonight


----------



## Stann (Sep 5, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Naw we’re calling out demofks who hate humanity. Don’t jack off tonight


I'd say you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'd say you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.


I don't hate humanity, I am pro life. I am however, anti crime, and those who inflict pain on to others do not have the right to life.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I think they should release the nuclear disaster they want. Hey demofks, are you chicken shits? Stand up fkers be proud!



In reality nuclear will likely be our best "go to" technology for climate change amelioration.  It's a scalable, developed technology that, at least on the use end is non-GHG producing.  I'm holding out for better "inherently safe" reactor designs, though.  The downside of nuclear is that "accidents" can be very, very, very bad.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The downside of nuclear is that "accidents" can be very, very, very bad.


Um, there's far more downside than that. Still no permanent disposal of the radioactive waste ever accomplished. Zero. Every reactor still heavily subsidized. None privately insurable. Nada. Such a crap way to produce electric power that even France finds itself being a net importer now. The industry remains fueled solely by corrupt, warmongering political interests. For mercy's sake, stick a fork in it and kiss it goodbye.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Um, there's far more downside than that. Still no permanent disposal of the radioactive waste ever accomplished. Zero. Every reactor still heavily subsidized. None privately insurable. Nada. Such a crap way to produce electric power that even France finds itself being a net importer now. The industry remains fueled solely by corrupt, warmongering political interests. For mercy's sake, stick a fork in it and kiss it goodbye.



Good points.  But, unfortunately, with climate change actually turning out to be true and normal scaled fuel sources that we currently count on will have to be supplanted by something else that's already established.  As many critiques as we have of nuclear, many of these can be dealt with.  

Personally I'm not a HUGE fan of nuclear.  I see the value but I generally agree it is problematic.  I (personally again) prefer to go with the renewables but I realize that they don't scale as well.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

I will add that, after the actual clean up costs have been accounted for, not one nuke plant has ever paid for itself. Zilch. Contractors and investors may get rich. The taxpayers and consumers have lost every time. It's no solution period. Just corruption.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> I will add that, after the actual clean up costs have been accounted for, not one nuke plant has ever paid for itself. Zilch. Contractors and investors may get rich. The taxpayers and consumers have lost every time. It's no solution period. Just corruption.


has any solar panel or windmill paid for itself?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I don't hate humanity, I am pro life. I am however, anti crime, and those who inflict pain on to others do not have the right to life.


So in other words you're just anti-abortion and anti women.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> has any solar panel or windmill paid for itself?



My neighbor swears by his solar panels!  Says he doesn't pay electric bills anymore.

Some people apparently like 'em.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> has any solar panel or windmill paid for itself?


If you've got to ask..


----------



## task0778 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> My neighbor swears by his solar panels!  Says he doesn't pay electric bills anymore.
> 
> Some people apparently like 'em.



Yeah, they work pretty good in areas where they get mostly sunny days, like San Antonio.  But other places, not so much.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Yeah, they work pretty good in areas where they get mostly sunny days, like San Antonio.  But other places, not so much.



I live in a place where it rains about 6 months out of the year.  He still thinks it's a great investment.  And I can't argue since he doesn't pay electricity bills.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> My neighbor swears by his solar panels!  Says he doesn't pay electric bills anymore.
> 
> Some people apparently like 'em.


he's paying for the solar panels right?  What's his monthly payment?

he has 24 hour sunlight?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> My neighbor swears by his solar panels!  Says he doesn't pay electric bills anymore.
> 
> Some people apparently like 'em.


In the state of Nebraska the power company has to buy any extra power that an individual or individual entity produces in excess of what they need. On one of the hilltops in Blair a man put in a windmill and has solar panels he has never paid for electricity since in fact The electric company has sent him checks on occasion.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I live in a place where it rains about 6 months out of the year.  He still thinks it's a great investment.  And I can't argue since he doesn't pay electricity bills.


At least 95% of the country would benefit from solar panels. There's a small section of the Pacific Northwest which is least feasible for installation and productivity.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> In the state of Nebraska the power company has to buy any extra power that an individual or individual entity produces in excess of what they need. On one of the hilltops in Blair a man put in a windmill and has solar panels he has never paid for electricity since in fact The electric company has sent him checks on occasion.


what is the monthly payment for the alternative power for the individual?  How many trees must come down?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> At least 95% of the country would benefit from solar panels. There's a small section of the Pacific Northwest which is least feasible for installation and productivity.



I live in the Pacific Northwest.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I live in a place where it rains about 6 months out of the year.  He still thinks it's a great investment.  And I can't argue since he doesn't pay electricity bills.


The old Harbor Freight solar panels from their relatively cheap 4 panel kits actually still work best under such conditions. Being 100% amorphous, they capture the cloud scattered lower spectrum frequencies much better than the newer, more focused crystalline ones engineered to capture direct sunlight.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> At least 95% of the country would benefit from solar panels. There's a small section of the Pacific Northwest which is least feasible for installation and productivity.


sure they would.  who's gonna pay for them to be deployed?  I'm still waiting on that answer.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> he's paying for the solar panels right?  What's his monthly payment?



Says he bought them outright.  



jc456 said:


> he has 24 hour sunlight?



Not that I have noticed.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> sure they would.  who's gonna pay for them to be deployed?  I'm still waiting on that answer.



Maybe we could take some of the money that is shuffled to the oil companies in the form of subsidies and put it toward greener energy sources?

Sounds like it could work.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Says he bought them outright.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I have noticed.


how does he heat his home in the winter?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how does he heat his home in the winter?



I think he's still got a gas furnace.  But he says he runs an excess every month in terms of how much his panels produce and how much he uses, so it could be that he could one day get an electric furnace or soemthing (?) I dunno.

Either way I'm struggling to see how this isn't a good idea.  I'm thinking about them for my house.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Maybe we could take some of the money that is shuffled to the oil companies in the form of subsidies and put it toward greener energy sources?
> 
> Sounds like it could work.


oil companies don't receive susidies, they get tax breaks.  Whole different thing.

Solaris was subsidized and died.  that path doesn't seem functionable.


----------



## task0778 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I live in a place where it rains about 6 months out of the year.  He still thinks it's a great investment.  And I can't argue since he doesn't pay electricity bills.



If he's your neighbor and it rains 6 months out of the year then he's lying about not paying any electric bills.  There are some places where it's a good investment and others where it isn't.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I think he's still got a gas furnace.  But he says he runs an excess every month in terms of how much his panels produce and how much he uses, so it could be that he could one day get an electric furnace or soemthing (?) I dunno.
> 
> Either way I'm struggling to see how this isn't a good idea.  I'm thinking about them for my house.


how long can his batteries last when they are engaged?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> what is the monthly payment for the alternative power for the individual?  How many trees must come down?


This is Nebraska. Trees don't grow on hilltops unless you plant them there. Trees only exist in the stream and River bottoms. I don't know what is monthly payments are or if he even has any. He's a very wealthy man. But I do know that there are government incentive programs if you want to do solar.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> This is Nebraska. Trees don't grow on hilltops unless you plant them there. Trees only exist in the stream and River bottoms. I don't know what is monthly payments are or if he even has any. He's a very wealthy man. But I do know that there are government incentive programs if you want to do solar.


well, we're talking about the country, are you suggesting we don't have trees in the US?


----------



## BackAgain (Sep 6, 2022)

This just in:

Based on many decades of scientific scrutiny, it can now be reported as *confirmed* that global climate changes. 

Sources close to reality have even said that the term “global climate change” is redundant. Climate always changes. There is no such thing as “static climate.”


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> oil companies don't receive susidies, they get tax breaks.  Whole different thing.



I don't know as that is such a big difference.  Easing mandatory tax burdens works out to be about the same as pumping money into the revenue stream.

And, in fact, if you look online, most experts call them "subsidies".  I think there's a difference between "direct" and "indirect" but both are subsidies.

I know that if I were running a company and someone offered to lower my tax bill I would end up at the end of the year _with more money._

So I think it's still a subsidy.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Easing mandatory tax burdens works out to be about the same as pumping money into the revenue stream.


no it's not. it's about easing the burden on the public. for lower gas prices.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> This just in:
> 
> Based on many decades of scientific scrutiny, it can now be reported as *confirmed* that global climate changes.
> 
> Sources close to reality have even said that the term “global climate change” is redundant. Climate always changes. There is no such thing as “static climate.”



I think the question is "why is it changing NOW"?  

I mean, yeah, we know that climate changes in earth history.   But it always had a REASON.  What if the reason for the CURRENT warming is....us?

Couldn't we be doing something to make this hard on ourselves?


----------



## task0778 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> At least 95% of the country would benefit from solar panels. There's a small section of the Pacific Northwest which is least feasible for installation and productivity.



I highly doubt that, if you're talking about a cost/benefit analysis.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> "why is it changing NOW"?


where is it changing?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> no it's not.



Why not?  If they are mandated by law to pay out $X and a "tax break" is provided to them by fiat of the IRS, then they have that $X to put back into the company.

It really sounds like exactly the same thing.

Why do you feel it isn't an economic benefit to a company to have a lower tax burden?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> where is it changing?



On earth.


----------



## task0778 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> oil companies don't receive subsidies, they get tax breaks. Whole different thing.



I don't believe that oil companies get unique tax breaks that other companies don't get.  Anybody want to provide a link that shows a unique tax break or subsidy?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

so in order to accommodate solar panels and windmills we must cut our existing trees down.  wow.  How environmentally correct is that?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> On earth.


how is earth changing?  Climate has always changed on earth, what is unique?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Um, there's far more downside than that. Still no permanent disposal of the radioactive waste ever accomplished. Zero. Every reactor still heavily subsidized. None privately insurable. Nada. Such a crap way to produce electric power that even France finds itself being a net importer now. The industry remains fueled solely by corrupt, warmongering political interests. For mercy's sake, stick a fork in it and kiss it goodbye.



*Still no permanent disposal of the radioactive waste ever accomplished. Zero. *

OMG! That's awful! Do the employees take it home, like Homer Simpson?

*Every reactor still heavily subsidized. *

How?

*None privately insurable.*

Don't they have an insurance fund?

*Such a crap way to produce electric power that even France finds itself being a net importer now. *

That's terrible! Are they going to burn more coal now, like Germany?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

task0778 said:


> I don't believe that oil companies get unique tax breaks that other companies don't get.  Anybody want to provide a link that shows a unique tax break or subsidy?


I don't recall anyone providing it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> So in other words you're just anti-abortion and anti women.


how am I anti women If I don't want babies killed?  what if the baby was a girl, you're killing it.  I'd say you hate women.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> If you've got to ask..



Thanks!

That link was pretty funny.

_The United States subsidises fossil fuels with $649 billion of taxpayers money that goes straight into the shareholder’s pockets.

Fossil fuel pollution costs Americans $240 billion per year, just in weather extremes it causes._

When does the comedy end and the accounting begin?
Maybe your next link?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
					






					e360.yale.edu


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

I


jc456 said:


> sure they would.  who's gonna pay for them to be deployed?  I'm still waiting on that answer.


I read your post I don't think you're really interested in solar panels you're just interested in condemning them. Do you work for Big oil or big coal ? Or in a job that's depends on them. If you're actually serious about installing solar panels.           Home Improvement and Remodeling - This Old House>solar How monster solar panels cost ? ( 2022 Guide )-This Old House.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I live in a place where it rains about 6 months out of the year.  He still thinks it's a great investment.  And I can't argue since he doesn't pay electricity bills.



He sounds like an idiot.
Of course with all the taxpayer dollars being thrown around, even idiotic ideas can get funded.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

task0778 said:


> I don't believe that oil companies get unique tax breaks that other companies don't get.  Anybody want to provide a link that shows a unique tax break or subsidy?


Why do you think they have all those lobbyists. They're getting away with murder.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how is earth changing?  Climate has always changed on earth, what is unique?



We are getting warmer.  In the past we got warmer when the sun put out more energy or whatever, but right now the scientists say the sun can't account for the warming we see.  So we look around and check all the other things that can cause warming NATURALLY and we don't see any of those in the "warm up" phase.

So it's a question:  what is causing it?  Well, the science indicates that about half of the warming (or more) that we are seeing NOW can't be attributed to natural things only.  But it makes sense when we start looking at what humans are doing.

Suddenly the warming MAKES SENSE.  It "lines up" with the factors that are causing it.  And at least half if not more of that is apparently due to human activities.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. _

Thanks. 
That was even funnier.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He sounds like an idiot.



Well, between him and me my utility bill says otherwise.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course with all the taxpayer dollars being thrown around, even idiotic ideas can get funded.



I don't believe he got any "subsidies", just a tax break that was not all that great.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> In the state of Nebraska the power company has to buy any extra power that an individual or individual entity produces in excess of what they need. On one of the hilltops in Blair a man put in a windmill and has solar panels he has never paid for electricity since in fact The electric company has sent him checks on occasion.



*In the state of Nebraska the power company has to buy any extra power that an individual or individual entity produces in excess of what they need. *

That's awesome!
Now all his neighbors get to help pay for his idiocy.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I
> 
> I read your post I don't think you're really interested in solar panels you're just interested in condemning them. Do you work for Big oil or big coal ? Or in a job that's depends on them. If you're actually serious about installing solar panels.           Home Improvement and Remodeling - This Old House>solar How monster solar panels cost ? ( 2022 Guide )-This Old House.


Typo in the above it should read. How much do solar panels cost ? ( 2022 Guide )- This Old House. Sorry about that didn't check how the voice machine printed out the words.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Well, between him and me my utility bill says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe he got any "subsidies", just a tax break that was not all that great.



*Well, between him and me my utility bill says otherwise.*

Math is hard for some people.

*I don't believe he got any "subsidies", just a tax break that was not all that great.*

Yeah, a tax credit is a subsidy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> At least 95% of the country would benefit from solar panels. There's a small section of the Pacific Northwest which is least feasible for installation and productivity.



Not if they had to pay for them with their own money.


----------



## BackAgain (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I think the question is "why is it changing NOW"?
> 
> I mean, yeah, we know that climate changes in earth history.   But it always had a REASON.  What if the reason for the CURRENT warming is....us?
> 
> Couldn't we be doing something to make this hard on ourselves?


Because it always changes. Why would it not be changing, now? 

Of course there is always a reason or reasons. There are always underlying causes. That *some* of those things are coming together, now, to have the effect of causing the changes which we can observe does NOT establish that anything humans are doing (CO2 emissions) is such a cause. 

Before we rush to the judgment that “we need to do something!!” it might make better sense to recognize how little our behaviors have any impact (if any at all) on planetary climate and climate change.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *In the state of Nebraska the power company has to buy any extra power that an individual or individual entity produces in excess of what they need. *
> 
> That's awesome!
> Now all his neighbors get to help pay for his idiocy.



But the electric company gets extra energy into the grid that they didn't have to generate themselves!  Seems like maybe the electric company is making out pretty well too.

This is called "Net Metering".  The debate can definitely be had that if the power company paid full "retail rates" for the electricity it wouldn't be good, but if the rate they "pay" the generator is in any way less than what they normally get for a kWh of electricity it's win-win for pretty much everyone.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> We are getting warmer.  In the past we got warmer when the sun put out more energy or whatever, but right now the scientists say the sun can't account for the warming we see.  So we look around and check all the other things that can cause warming NATURALLY and we don't see any of those in the "warm up" phase.
> 
> So it's a question:  what is causing it?  Well, the science indicates that about half of the warming (or more) that we are seeing NOW can't be attributed to natural things only.  But it makes sense when we start looking at what humans are doing.
> 
> Suddenly the warming MAKES SENSE.  It "lines up" with the factors that are causing it.  And at least half if not more of that is apparently due to human activities.


On today's news, we're past the breaking point on the Greenland Ice Cap. The oceans are guaranteed to rise 10 inches. 30 inches by approximately 2150.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Of course there is always a reason or reasons. There are always underlying causes. That *some* of those things are coming together, now, to have the effect of causing the changes which we can observe does NOT establish that anything humans are doing (CO2 emissions) is such a cause.



Unfortunately the science says otherwise.



BackAgain said:


> Before we rush to the judgment that “we need to do something!!” it might make better sense to recognize how little our behaviors have any impact (if any at all) on planetary climate and climate change.



We've been studying this topic for almost a century and a half.  In earnest for at least 50 years, maybe 60 years.  I think we've got a pretty good handle on most of it.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But the electric company gets extra energy into the grid that they didn't have to generate themselves!  Seems like maybe the electric company is making out pretty well too.
> 
> This is called "Net Metering".  The debate can definitely be had that if the power company paid full "retail rates" for the electricity it wouldn't be good, but if the rate they "pay" the generator is in any way less than what they normally get for a kWh of electricity it's win-win for pretty much everyone.


Every city in the United States has massive industrial parks, commercial districts. They would be ideal to put solar panels on. I don't know why president Biden hasn't come up with this idea. A joint effort between government and the private sector. A win-win for everyone. Industry commerce would get discounted electricity and the extra could be put into the electrical grid to help everyone else.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> On today's news, we're past the breaking point on the Greenland Ice Cap. The oceans are guaranteed to rise 10 inches. 30 inches by approximately 2150.



I'd be really careful with the "guaranteed" bit.  It's always the hyperbolic scary predictions that denialists and skeptics come back to if they don't happen as advertised.

Normally most of these predictions are best characterized as "likely", but not guaranteed in any given time frame.  The Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica could collapse within the next year and cause catastrophic sea level rise.  Or it could hold out for many more years.  The odds aren't good either way.

But still, I'd avoid "guaranteed" in any statement like this.


----------



## BackAgain (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Unfortunately the science says otherwise.



No. It doesn’t. Some scientists make that claim. But it’s very much disputed. 


Paracetamol63 said:


> We've been studying this topic for almost a century and a half.


And?


Paracetamol63 said:


> In earnest for at least 50 years, maybe 60 years.


Ok. And?


Paracetamol63 said:


> I think we've got a pretty good handle on most of it.


I don’t think you or they do have any such good handle on it.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No. It doesn’t. Some scientists make that claim. But it’s very much disputed.



Not really.  I know there are a lot of folks who CLAIM the science is in serious flux, but it really isn't.  It's not as unclear as one might hope.



BackAgain said:


> And?
> 
> Ok. And?
> 
> I don’t think you or they do have any such good handle on it.



Since I'm not a climate scientist I can't really speak for them.  But I know this approach of "let's wait and see if we can learn just a bit more before we take any actions" isn't really a rational way to go about it.

Even if AGW isn't real, we STILL need to find greener, less polluting and RENEWABLE energy sources.  Right now fossil fuels just aren't going to be a great solution in the long run.  We either have to put more and more and more pollution controls on the generators and some day most of it WILL run low.  We may not run completely out of oil anytime soon _but we WILL end up having to spend more and more and more to get lower quality coal and oil out of the ground._

Green energy is in our future, regardless of the reason.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Maybe we could take some of the money that is shuffled to the oil companies in the form of subsidies and put it toward greener energy sources?
> 
> Sounds like it could work.



Which oil subsidies?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I'd be really careful with the "guaranteed" bit.  It's always the hyperbolic scary predictions that denialists and skeptics come back to if they don't happen as advertised.
> 
> Normally most of these predictions are best characterized as "likely", but not guaranteed in any given time frame.  The Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica could collapse within the next year and cause catastrophic sea level rise.  Or it could hold out for many more years.  The odds aren't good either way.
> 
> But still, I'd avoid "guaranteed" in any statement like this.


Well the expert said that no matter what we do the oceans are going to rise at least 10 in now. I'll go with the experts, most of what they're saying is already happenig. Soon Greenland will actually be green.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Well, between him and me my utility bill says otherwise.*
> 
> Math is hard for some people.



$0 vs $115.  The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I don't believe he got any "subsidies", just a tax break that was not all that great.*
> 
> Yeah, a tax credit is a subsidy.



I agree, but others tell me that it isn't.  Especially when you tell them that OIL COMPANIES get subsidies.  They IMMEDIATELY point out that in their view tax breaks aren't subsidies.  

Maybe tax breaks are a subsidy for the regular person but NOT a subsidy for oil companies?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Well the expert said that no matter what we do the oceans are going to rise at least 10 in now. I'll go with the experts, most of what they're saying is already happenig. Soon Greenland will actually be green.



I don't doubt the seas will rise (they are currently doing so).  I'm just saying that be careful with language like "guaranteed".  That level of "perfect knowledge" is what the denialists and skeptics will focus on.  They will laugh when something doesn't work EXACTLY as forecast.


----------



## BackAgain (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Not really.  I know there are a lot of folks who CLAIM the science is in serious flux, but it really isn't.  It's not as unclear as one might hope.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I get it. I’m not a climate scientist either. So my layman’s grasp of the dispute in the scientific community is equal to your own. 

And the facts are in dispute. The evidence is in dispute. The scientific methodology is in dispute. Certain basic underlying assumptions are in dispute. And the conclusions are in dispute. Plus, the standard ploy of “consensus” is not only in dispute, but not scientific anyway.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which oil subsidies?



The ones the oil companies get.






						Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
					






					e360.yale.edu


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> $0 vs $115.  The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*$0 vs $115. The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.*

You pay $115 a month and he pays zero?
What was the total cost of his system? Batteries?

*I agree, but others tell me that it isn't.  Especially when you tell them that OIL COMPANIES get subsidies. *

Oil subsidy? Anything specific?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> And the facts are in dispute. The evidence is in dispute. The scientific methodology is in dispute. Certain basic underlying assumptions are in dispute. And the conclusions are in dispute.




Hmm.  There are still people out there who think the earth is flat.  If one asked them they'd make the same claims about earth sphericity.

There are always "skeptics" but just because some question something, does not make it less likely.  Questions always exist.

Right now there's a TON of smart people out there who think that science is pretty settled.  I'm not really in a position to question them (that would assume I understood it better than they do) and from what I can tell the number of PROFESSIONALS who question the science is really pretty small.  

Right now the best bet looks like following the mainstream science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The ones the oil companies get.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Be specific. That link isn't helping you.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *$0 vs $115. The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.*
> 
> You pay $115 a month and he pays zero?
> What was the total cost of his system? Batteries?



I don't know.  All I know is he doesn't pay an electric bill (He may pay a small surcharge every month for grid upkeep).  He's also not on batteries but uses net metering.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I agree, but others tell me that it isn't.  Especially when you tell them that OIL COMPANIES get subsidies. *
> 
> Oil subsidy? Anything specific?








						Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
					






					e360.yale.edu


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Be specific. That link isn't helping you.



Sorry.  Just telling you what the world says about oil company subsidies.


----------



## Meister (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Hmm.  There are still people out there who think the earth is flat.  If one asked them they'd make the same claims about earth sphericity.
> 
> There are always "skeptics" but just because some question something, does not make it less likely.  Questions always exist.
> 
> ...


There are also a ton of smart people that think   the science isn't settled.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> *There are also a ton of smart people that think   the science isn't settled.*


You missed my long running thread?
I've covered all the Pillars of the issue with them.
I don't dodge you, YOU dodge me junior.
Ran for TWO YEARS until This july..









						Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*Opposing *​(The AGW Consensus)​​Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..​​



__





						Opposing the AGW Consensus are  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
					

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Opposing  Opposing (The AGW Consensus)  Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




and continue reading Link for Surveys of scientists and their papers/opinions.
Overwhelming.
And the more specialist they are/the more convinced.

`


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> There are also a ton of smart people that think   the science isn't settled.



But it's not even close to the same number as think it is real.  Do you have a solid number somewhere?

There are a lot of folks who AREN'T scientists who question it, but among the professional climate-related earth scientists the number is actually pretty small.


----------



## BackAgain (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Hmm.  There are still people out there who think the earth is flat.


Irrelevant to this discussion, of course. 


Paracetamol63 said:


> If one asked them they'd make the same claims about earth sphericity.


So what? Those folks know less about science than you do. That’s all. 


Paracetamol63 said:


> There are always "skeptics" but just because some question something, does not make it less likely.  Questions always exist.


Thanks Captain obvious. Now try to learn. The fact that there are always skeptics doesn’t mean that the skeptics are always necessarily wrong. 


Paracetamol63 said:


> Right now there's a TON of smart people out there who think that science is pretty settled.


They have the right to think so. Neither their numbers nor their mass has any bearing whatsoever on the question of whether their belief is merited or mistaken. 


Paracetamol63 said:


> I'm not really in a position to question them (that would assume I understood it better than they do) and from what I can tell the number of PROFESSIONALS who question the science is really pretty small.


Your understanding is undermined by the fact that the numbers trotted out are themselves fictional. 


Paracetamol63 said:


> Right now the best bet looks like following the mainstream science.


Actually, the best bet is to have actual scientists using actual scientific procedure to see *whether* or not the “mainstream science,” on this topic, is scientifically valid.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant to this discussion, of course.
> 
> So what? Those folks know less about science than you do. That’s all.



But you see the point, right?  *There are always "skeptics" about ANY scientific claim, no matter how well established the science is*.



BackAgain said:


> Thanks Captain obvious. Now try to learn. The fact that there are always skeptics doesn’t mean that the skeptics are always necessarily wrong.



But the presence of skeptics does not mean the science isn't settled.



BackAgain said:


> Your understanding is undermined by the fact that the numbers trotted out are themselves fictional.



How do you know they are fictional?



BackAgain said:


> Actually, the best bet is to have actual scientists using actual scientific procedure to see *whether* or not the “mainstream science,” on this topic, is scientifically valid.



They are using proper scientific procedure.  Which part are they "missing"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I don't know.  All I know is he doesn't pay an electric bill (He may pay a small surcharge every month for grid upkeep).  He's also not on batteries but uses net metering.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pick your favorite "subsidy" from your link and cut and paste it in the thread.


----------



## Meister (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But it's not even close to the same number as think it is real.  Do you have a solid number somewhere?
> 
> There are a lot of folks who AREN'T scientists who question it, but among the professional climate-related earth scientists the number is actually pretty small.


I've always said to just follow the money.  I'm sticking to that.
We have had heating and cooling cycles long before Man had any kind of industrial impact.
We have had 6(?) or more ice ages.  We really don't have a clue on the impact of our CO2 footprint.
The models created rarely if ever prove anything.

Follow the money


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Sorry.  Just telling you what the world says about oil company subsidies.



That study isn't "the world".


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pick your favorite "subsidy" from your link and cut and paste it in the thread.



Not an economist.  Just telling you what the world says about oil company subsidies.  Whether you like the word or not.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> I've always said to just follow the money.  I'm sticking to that.
> We have had heating and cooling cycles long before Man had any kind of industrial impact.
> We have had 6(?) or more ice ages.  We really don't have a clue on the impact of our CO2 footprint.
> The models created rarely if ever prove anything.
> ...



Guess it's better than following the science which actually seems pretty clear.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Not an economist.  Just telling you what the world says about oil company subsidies.  Whether you like the word or not.



Pick your favorite "subsidy" from your link and cut and paste it in the thread.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That study isn't "the world".



If you google you will find MANY MANY MANY sources (many of them actual ECONOMISTS) calling what the oil companies get "subsidies".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Guess it's better than following the science which actually seems pretty clear.



How much money does the science say we should spend on windmills?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Why do you think they have all those lobbyists. They're getting away with murder.


Who they killing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> If you google you will find MANY MANY MANY sources (many of them actual ECONOMISTS) calling what the oil companies get "subsidies".



There are a lot of idiots out there. If you want to discuss specifics, post them.

If you are afraid to post specifics, just say so.


----------



## Meister (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You missed my long running thread?
> I've covered all the Pillars of the issue with them.
> I don't dodge you, YOU dodge me junior.
> Ran for TWO YEARS until This july..
> ...


For the most part, I ignore you.  Then every few weeks you just blast disapprove emojis.
 But I do thank you for my sig line.
I stand on what I post, with or without your "long running thread".


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *$0 vs $115. The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.*
> 
> You pay $115 a month and he pays zero?
> What was the total cost of his system? Batteries?
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You pay $115 a month and he pays zero?
> What was the total cost of his system? Batteries


They were obviously free!


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> There are a lot of idiots out there. If you want to discuss specifics, post them.
> 
> If you are afraid to post specifics, just say so.



I don't believe I need to.


----------



## Meister (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Guess it's better than following the science which actually seems pretty clear.


I'm not trying to change your mind, and you won't change mine.
But, the Climate cooling/warming scam is pretty clear.
Follow the money to globalization.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Right now there's a TON of smart people out there who think that science is pretty settled. I'm not really in a position to question them (that would assume I understood it better than they do) and from what I can tell the number of PROFESSIONALS who question the science is really pretty small.


So, there are no smart people with a different opinion?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. _
> 
> Thanks.
> That was even funnier.


You're welcome. --I provide. You consume and disparage. Adult vs. Child. Such is life.-- Implicit subsidies accounting for the rest, obviously. But let's look a tad closer at the math, shall we.. 8% of "$5.9 Trillion in Subsidies" =..
$472 Billion. Wow, that's a lot of direct subsiding for an industry reporting record profits! You're supposedly here for the little guy? Why are we subsidizing record profits again?





Math is hard for some people.



> The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around *70% were fossil fuel subsidies*. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear.











						Fossil Fuel Subsidies
					

Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a high cost. Subsidies have sizable fiscal costs (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution...



					www.imf.org


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I don't believe I need to.


So oil companies aren’t getting subsidies then?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> They were obviously free!



So the only valid alternative is if everything is completely free?

That isn't going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> $0 vs $115.  The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The terminology doesn't matter. Big oil has its claws into our Congress and they get their way.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> *For the most part, I ignore you. * Then every few weeks you just blast disapprove emojis.
> But I do thank you for my sig line.
> I stand on what I post, with or without your "long running thread".[/B]



IOW, you're a low IQ politico who chooses to ignore my Documented facts in favor of your unsubstantiated MAGAtry.
Great stuff!

You can't debate me. Not close.
and my sig line is just another example.

_"There are a ton of people who deny evolution"_....  TOO
LOL You clown.
That's the level of your debate.
`


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> $0 vs $115.  The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The bottom line is not the money being saved right now but avoiding all the costs that climate change are going to cause in the future if you factor that in. Switching to Green is a bargain.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> We are getting warmer.


why's that a problem if we are?  How do you know we are getting warmer?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> but avoiding all the costs that climate change are going to cause


what is that?  

Do you have documentation and research of what's going to happen?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Well, the science indicates that about half of the warming (


what science is that?


----------



## abu afak (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> why's that a problem if we are? * How do you know we are getting warmer?*


*By Measuring the Global yearly temperature over 140 years.
Not your (and Skooker's) backyard on a cold morning you goofy One-Line Troll.*

`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> to put back into the company.


what do you think that does?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> By Measuring the Global yearly temperature over 140 years.
> Not your (and Skooker's) backyard on a cold morning you One-line Troll.
> 
> `


the earth is only a 140 years old?  damn, I thought it was a billion years old.  Here I thought you all did science or something like it.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> why's that a problem if we are?  How do you know we are getting warmer?


The data is actually recorded. It's called science. Science is the reason we have civilization at the level we do. If it weren't for science would still be living back in the Stone age.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> *the earth is only a 140 years old?  damn, I thought it was a billion years old.  Here I thought you all did science or something like it.*


and humans are only 200,00 years old. (so we can't study them either?)
and his industrialization/emissions only about 150 years old!
Hmmm/coincidence.

There's like 100 points between our IQs.
(Edit after neg feedback...) But you're still above Meister.

`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Well, between him and me my utility bill says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe he got any "subsidies", just a tax break that was not all that great.


how much do you supposed he paid to buy the panels and batteries, then have them installed into his grid?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> The data is actually recorded. It's called science. Science is the reason we have civilization at the level we do. If it weren't for science would still be living back in the Stone age.


what data is actually recorded?  you all don't seem to be able to educate us on how you conclude what you conclude.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> what data is actually recorded?  you all don't seem to be able to educate us on how you conclude what you conclude.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> The bottom line is not the money being saved right now but avoiding all the costs that climate change are going to cause in the future if you factor that in. Switching to Green is a bargain.


so will new infrastructure be at no cost?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I don't believe I need to.



I can smell your fear from here.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> and humans are only 200,00 years old. (so we can't study them either?)
> and his industrialization/emissions only about 150 years old!
> Hmmm/coincidence.
> 
> ...


dude, are you okay?  you seem alarmed and confused.  what is it you're trying to say?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> There's like 100 points between our IQs.


when will you be putting some digits up there then?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

I'm not into playing games and that what you seem to be doing. You can look up all that information for yourself and keep denying that it's occurring. That's fine with me no skin off my back. Besides it's not my job to educate you that's your job. We're going back to the cost of solar panels I looked it up the average cost for a 5 Watt home system installed is $11,000. Now you can complain about that. You can't just look at it as the monitor cost to you right now. Look at it as an investment in the future, because if you are an older person it'll probably never pay off itself in your lifetime. It will continue working long after you're gone and the world will be a better place for it. I better clarify that, the world will be a better place because you installed solar panels.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Guess it's better than following the science which actually seems pretty clear.


But you can't seem to explain the science you follow, why is that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> You're welcome. --I provide. You consume and disparage. Adult vs. Child. Such is life.-- Implicit subsidies accounting for the rest, obviously. But let's look a tad closer at the math, shall we.. 8% of "$5.9 Trillion in Subsidies" =..
> $472 Billion. Wow, that's a lot of direct subsiding for an industry reporting record profits! You're supposedly here for the little guy? Why are we subsidizing record profits again?
> 
> 
> ...



$472 billion for the entire world? That's awful!

* Wow, that's a lot of direct subsiding for an industry reporting record profits!*

Hold on there a second, numbnuts.
Your source didn't say $472 billion directly handed to fossil fuel companies, did it?

Dig a little deeper. Maybe ask Stephen for a bit more help?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not into playing games and that what you seem to be doing. You can look up all that information for yourself and keep denying that it's occurring. That's fine with me no skin off my back. Besides it's not my job to educate you that's your job. We're going back to the cost of solar panels I looked it up the average cost for a 5 Watt home system installed is $11,000. Now you can complain about that. You can't just look at it as the monitor cost to you right now. Look at it as an investment in the future, because if you are an older person it'll probably never pay off itself in your lifetime. It will continue working long after you're gone and the world will be a better place for it. I better clarify that, the world will be a better place because you installed solar panels.


now divide 11,000 by $140 and how many months of electricity will you have paid for?  almost 79 months of 140 dollar payments and that's free to you!!! can't make it up.


----------



## Meister (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not into playing games and that what you seem to be doing. You can look up all that information for yourself and keep denying that it's occurring. That's fine with me no skin off my back. Besides it's not my job to educate you that's your job. We're going back to the cost of solar panels I looked it up the average cost for a 5 Watt home system installed is $11,000. Now you can complain about that. You can't just look at it as the monitor cost to you right now. Look at it as an investment in the future, because if you are an older person it'll probably never pay off itself in your lifetime. It will continue working long after you're gone and the world will be a better place for it. I better clarify that, the world will be a better place because you installed solar panels.


What is the shelf life of those solar panels when being  used?  It's a serious question, I know 10-15 years ago
they weren't paying for themselves before they expired.  Not sure if they changed or not.  Also, China was the biggest producer
of them.  Are we competitive now?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> So the only valid alternative is if everything is completely free?
> 
> That isn't going to happen anytime soon.


well I was just told all installed it's about 11,000 dollars.  Now your $140 a month payment divided into 11,000 comes out to 79 months of 140 dollar payments.  That's almost 7 years dude!!!! That isn't free electricity.  One other point to include here, after seven years will he need to update the system?  How much you supposed it will cost extra for the next seven years of free electricity?  hahahahahahahahaahahaha I joined Amazon Prime and for only 140 dollars I get free shipments on many items.   I bet you believe that line eh?  It's your kind of stupid that makes the world go round.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> human-induced effects on climate change."


what are the effects?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You missed my long running thread?
> I've covered all the Pillars of the issue with them.
> I don't dodge you, YOU dodge me junior.
> Ran for TWO YEARS until This july..
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But it's not even close to the same number as think it is real.


so how many for and how many against?  Let's see the totals since you know it isn't close.

Honestly, you can't really be this retarded.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> If you google you will find MANY MANY MANY sources (many of them actual ECONOMISTS) calling what the oil companies get "subsidies".


if there are so many many many of them, why is it you can't post one?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> so will new infrastructure be at no cost?


Dream on. Of course it's going to cost, but weighing that against the cost of climate change, it's still a whole lot cheaper. The estimated climate change damage to the United States alone last year was $145 billion dollars. There were 20 separate events that were over a billion dollars each. Not to mention the loss of life, 688 people died in those events.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> The estimated climate change damage to the United States alone last year was $145 billion dollars.


what got damaged by climate?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> There were 20 separate events that were over a billion dollars each. Not to mention the loss of life, 688 people died in those events


the climate changed 20 times in a year?  Holy shit, how did that happen?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> so how many for and how many against?  Let's see the totals since you know it isn't close.
> 
> Honestly, you can't really be this retarded.


99% of our scientists firmly believe in the catastrophic event called climate change that is gripping our planet. The other 1% probably work for big oil or big coal or just Fringe lunatics.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> what got damaged by climate?


Everything is being affected. But like I said you're not interested in learning the truth you're just here to try to deny climate changes occurring in your own silly fashion so I'm done explaining things to you you can look them up and do the hard work like everybody else.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> 99% of our scientists firmly believe in the catastrophic event called climate change that is gripping our planet. The other 1% probably work for big oil or big coal or just Fringe lunatics.


Seriously, you didn't just post that.

how many scientists make up your 99% out of how many scientists?


----------



## abu afak (Sep 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> What is the shelf life of those solar panels when being  used?  It's a serious question, I know 10-15 years ago
> they weren't paying for themselves before they expired.  Not sure if they changed or not.  Also, China was the biggest producer
> of them.  Are we competitive now?


You should have ready any number of many of my threads but you're not really interested in the topic, just a Right Wing politico/HACK.

*Solar has gotten 80-90% more efficient /cheaper in the last decade+ and is now the cheapest producer of electric in large favorable settings.
That and lower interest rates offset/amortize the front-loaded cost of Renewables. (vs the ongoing cost of Fossil fuels).*

85% of money spent on power generation was spent on renewables in 2021. (see my thread starts!!)
Up from 2/3 in 2016. (another thread start!!)

The biggest adder of renewables last year (by TRIPLE) was King-oil TEXAS. (another of my OPs!!)

You are a totally uninterested party and RW Hack. You are even blind to the board you ostensibly moderate.

All this info is obtainable in minutes using google.
Even seeing my OPs (if not reading them) IS an Education. That's the idea.

`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Everything is being affected. But like I said you're not interested in learning the truth you're just here to try to deny climate changes occurring in your own silly fashion so I'm done explaining things to you you can look them up and do the hard work like everybody else.


everything?  holy fk.  what is happening?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You should have ready any number of many of my threads but you're not really interested in the topic, just aa Right Wing politico/HACK.
> 
> Solar has gotten 80-90% more efficient /cheaper in the last decade+ and is now the cheapest producer of electric in large favorable settings.
> That and lower interest rates offset the front-loaded cost of Renewables. (vs the ongoing cost of Fossil fuels).
> ...


how you figure, one of your tag alongs in here says it cost 11,000 dollars to buy and install a system in one home.  At a 140 dollar a month charge for us with electricity from a co-op, divide that 140 dollar number into 11,000 dollars and it takes almost 7 years to pay for it.  How is that free exactly?


----------



## Meister (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You should have ready any number of many of my threads but you're not really interested in the topic, just a Right Wing politico/HACK.
> 
> *Solar has gotten 80-90% more efficient /cheaper in the last decade+ and is now the cheapest producer of electric in large favorable settings.
> That and lower interest rates offset the front-loaded cost of Renewables. (vs the ongoing cost of Fossil fuels).*
> ...


I'm just uninterested in you, abu. You just seem to be a goofball full of yourself.
I imagine most on this board feel the same way about you.

All I did was ask if the panels paid for themselves or if they wore out like they did a few years ago.
I also asked if China is still the biggest producer and importer of the panels, or if we
have increased to where we don't need China.

But you trying to promote your BS threads to me is a fools errand. Go annoy someone who cares.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> What is the shelf life of those solar panels when being used? It's a serious question


Serious answer:


> Do Solar Panels Degrade over Time?​As with most technologies, solar panels will naturally produce less energy over time. This reduced power output is called the degradation rate. The median solar panel degradation rate is about 0.5%, which simply means that a solar panel’s energy production will decrease at a rate of 0.5% per year.3 After 20 years, your panels should still be working at about 90% of its original output.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> I'm just uninterested in you, abu. You just seem to be a goofball full of yourself.
> I imagine most on this board feel the same way about you.
> 
> All I did was ask if the panels paid for themselves or if they wore out like they did a few years ago.
> ...


*You don't even make a pretense of interest in the topic and are not remotely Conversant in it. (and my last Topically fact-filled post answering you as No one else could.) (noblesse oblige)
Just admittedly personal attacks on me.

So GTFO of the section you ad hom Troll.
We need a Real mod to get rid of the Troll Meister!*

`


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Seriously, you didn't just post that.
> 
> how many scientists make up your 99% out of how many scientists?


I looked it up you idiot. I don't remember the total number but 14,000 of them declared it as a climate emergency.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how you figure, one of your tag alongs in here says it cost 11,000 dollars to buy and install a system in one home.  At a 140 dollar a month charge for us with electricity from a co-op, divide that 140 dollar number into 11,000 dollars and it takes almost 7 years to pay for it.  How is that free exactly?


I never said it was free. Everything costs if you're going to be realistic. Only fools believe in something for nothing.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> everything?  holy fk.  what is happening?


The planet is going through abrupt changes in climate and wreaking havoc on us all.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> if there are so many many many of them, why is it you can't post one?



Not the remit.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> I'm just uninterested in you, abu. You just seem to be a goofball full of yourself.
> I imagine most on this board feel the same way about you.
> 
> All I did was ask if the panels paid for themselves or if they wore out like they did a few years ago.
> ...


China is the world's factory I'm sorry you weren't aware of that. I think you're the one who's full of BS. ( and also a troll ).


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> so how many for and how many against?  Let's see the totals since you know it isn't close.



Last I heard it's less than 5% of the actual climate scientists who are skeptical of the core concept.



jc456 said:


> Honestly, you can't really be this retarded.



Please don't use language like that.  It is offensive.  Thanks!


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I can smell your fear from here.



As you wish.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

Wind Turbine Generator 400-Watt 12-Volt/AC Wind Turbine Kit 3 Blades Wind Power Generator with MPPT Controller -- $149 from Home Depot.
What are you waiting for? Why pay more?
I really like the look of these. Extremely simple, no fuss design. Quiet.


----------



## Orangecat (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Only fools believe in something for nothing.


Like $10,000 worth of college for free?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> if there are so many many many of them, why is it you can't post one?


Home page>digest>fossilfuelsrecieved5.9trillioninsubsidiesin2020, reportfinds


----------



## Meister (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> China is the world's factory I'm sorry you weren't aware of that. I think you're the one who's full of BS. ( and also a troll ).


Not a troll, it was a legitimate question. 
I do believe I was aware of it and did mention that in my post when asked if they still are.
 I have a problem relying on China for anything, and you should be too.
I assume you don't know if China has improved the longevity of the solar panels.
I don't know either.   
Not sure why you think this is trolling?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> On today's news, we're past the breaking point on the Greenland Ice Cap. The oceans are guaranteed to rise 10 inches. 30 inches by approximately 2150.


Will you be alive to see that? How convenient


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Home page>digest>fossilfuelsrecieved5.9trillioninsubsidiesin2020, reportfinds


Didn’t find anything regarding your claim in that link?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> China is the world's factory I'm sorry you weren't aware of that. I think you're the one who's full of BS. ( and also a troll ).


Why? We can’t make solar panels?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Last I heard it's less than 5% of the actual climate scientists who are skeptical of the core concept


How many scientists are there? You don’t have numbers? But you’re using language suggesting you know. That’s lying. Ouch dishonest


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Please don't use language like that. I


Stop acting retarded then!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> The planet is going through abrupt changes in climate and wreaking havoc on us all.


What’s the havoc? Nothing happening here in Chicago except it be fking cold? Wtf? How is that possible if earth is warming?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> How many scientists are there? You don’t have numbers? But you’re using language suggesting you know. That’s lying. Ouch dishonest



It doesn't really matter when I say 5% of the population.   Regardless of how many are in the population, 5% represents a very small fraction of the entire population.

As such, when one uses "percentages" it obviates the need for the actual population values.  My point still stands.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I never said it was free. Everything costs if you're going to be realistic. Only fools believe in something for nothing.


So it isn’t cheaper right?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> It doesn't really matter when I say 5% of the population. Regardless of how many are in the population, 5% represents a very small fraction of the entire population


How do you actually know the percentage if you don’t have the actual count? That’s not very scientific


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> How is that possible if earth is warming?



Because climate change means that _globally the average temperature increases_ but *locally the climate changes and it can change to a cooler climate.  *

It is actually EXPECTED that with global warming _some places may actually get COOLER!_

Here's just one example:  How Global Warming Can Chill the Planet


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> How do you actually know the percentage if you don’t have the actual count? That’s not very scientific



May I ask, mathematically, how my point would change if there were 9,987 climate scientists or 45 climate scientists? 

5% is still a minority fraction of the total.

My point still stands.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I looked it up you idiot. I don't remember the total number but 14,000 of them declared it as a climate emergency.


Really? Where’s the list?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> May I ask, mathematically, how my point would change if there were 9,987 climate scientists or 45 climate scientists?
> 
> 5% is still a minority fraction of the total.
> 
> My point still stands.


Because you don’t have that that’s why


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Because you don’t have that that’s why



It kind of feels like you don't actually understand what a "percentage" is.

Apologies.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> It kind of feels like you don't actually understand what a "percentage" is.
> 
> Apologies.


It seems you don’t. A percentage is from a total count of anything. So I want to know the quantity of scientists that percentage is from. That’s math


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> It seems you don’t. A percentage is from a total count of anything. So I want to know the quantity of scientists that percentage is from. That’s math



It is extremely common in science to characterize something based on a percentage *even when you don't know the full population number.*

This is a topic called a "*sample*".  Scientists take a measurement from a SAMPLE of the whole population.  Sometimes they don't even know what the whole population is.  They are characterizing a SAMPLE.

Within that sample they can estimate what the WHOLE POPULATION is.  This is, essentially, one of the main points of statistics.









						Population and Sample Statistic - GeeksforGeeks
					

A Computer Science portal for geeks. It contains well written, well thought and well explained computer science and programming articles, quizzes and practice/competitive programming/company interview Questions.




					www.geeksforgeeks.org
				





With more and more sampling the results give you better and better views of the whole population, but by no means is it necessary to measure the whole population.  Many times you simply can't do that at all.

As such it is not necessary to know exactly how many climate scientists there are in the world.  If we take samples and find (repeatedly) that the number comes out to about 5% of that population is skeptical we know pretty much all we DO need to know.

That's one of the main ways science is done.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> It is extremely common in science to characterize something based on a percentage *even when you don't know the full population number.*


it is? first I ever heard of it.  Everything I do in my job uses totals.  Are you suggesting totals aren't important to use for calculations regarding human life?  There are approximately 7 billion people on earth, you say 5% there's a fking number one can pull from the total, 350 million.  subtract 350 million from 7 billion gives the other 95%.  It's called statistics. You are using percentages as a statistic and as such demands approximate numbers.  You think me the fool little one.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> This is a topic called a "*sample*". Scientists take a measurement from a SAMPLE of the whole population. Sometimes they don't even know what the whole population is. They are characterizing a SAMPLE.


sample?  hahahahahahahahahahhahahaha, sample from where? How do you get a sample without a whole number?  The sample size for your 97% scientists was 97 out of 99, but there are like hundreds of thousands of scientists.  Fitting a conclusion without the entire sample is unscientific.  Just as there is no such thing as consensus in science.  It is only if one wishes to con a society does one say such stupidity.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> sample?  hahahahahahahahahahhahahaha, sample from where? How do you get a sample without a whole number?  The sample size for your 97% scientists was 97 out of 99, but there are like hundreds of thousands of scientists.  Fitting a conclusion without the entire sample is unscientific.  Just as there is no such thing as consensus in science.  It is only if one wishes to con a society does one say such stupidity.



Believe it or not, when one studies things in nature they do EXACTLY that.

Do you think that population studies on wolves means they know exactly how many wolves are in the world?  You must surely realize that is an impossible number to know.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Believe it or not, when one studies things in nature they do EXACTLY that.
> 
> Do you think that population studies on wolves means they know exactly how many wolves are in the world?  You must surely realize that is an impossible number to know.


ONe thing I am very confident of, there isn't one scientist that knows why the earth climate behaves as it does.  Not one. And that makes you the fool.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> it is? first I ever heard of it.  Everything I do in my job uses totals.  Are you suggesting totals aren't important to use for calculations regarding human life?  There are approximately 7 billion people on earth, you say 5% there's a fking number one can pull from the total, 35 million.  subtract 35 million from 7 billion gives the other 95%.  It's called statistics. You are using percentages as a statistic and as such demands approximate numbers.  You think me the fool little one.



But what if I say the rate of "red hair" in the European population is about 3% do you think that someone actually goes out and counts every person in Europe?  No, they take a SAMPLE and estimate the Population.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But what if I say the rate of "red hair" in the European population is about 3% do you think that someone actually goes out and counts every person in Europe?  No, they take a SAMPLE and estimate the Population.


well first off, just saying a percentage gives you nothing of depth of the percentage.  I could say 30% of demofks have lost their brains.  Does it make it so?  It's my opinion, something without fact.  If someone says 3% of population is red hair, they'd have a number they picked that 3% from.  3% could be 3 out 100.  Now you're working your way to polling nonsense.  that 1000 people determine the minds of 1 million.  nope, it's why polling is a farce.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> making crazy connections between public health measures and climate change.



Actually?  The two hoaxes couldn't be closer linked if it were advertised and broadcast on your TEE VEE.  Yoar ignorance of the facts, is no excuse for not knowing the truth.

They are both based on faulty modeling coming out of the Imperial College London.











						What COVID forecasters can learn from climate models
					

Methods that are routine in computation-heavy fields could lead to more reliable pandemic predictions.




					www.nature.com
				


















						How Bill Gates Funded Science Fraud in the Imperial College Covid Forecast Model - Brightwork Research & Analysis
					

The covid forecast model that was used as a rationale to justify lockdowns has been exposed as science fraud.This model was funded by Bill Gates to be deliberately exaggerated.




					www.brightworkresearch.com


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> well first off, just saying a percentage gives you nothing of depth of the percentage.  I could say 30% of demofks have lost their brains.  Does it make it so?  It's my opinion, something without fact.  If someone says 3% of population is red hair, they'd have a number they picked that 3% from.  3% could be 3 out 100.



Unfortunately it is clear we are talking past each other.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> The estimated climate change damage to the United States alone last year was $145 billion dollars.



You could fertilize a corn field with that number. 
Hope they washed their hands after they pulled that out.

*There were 20 separate events that were over a billion dollars each.*

How much would they have cost if we spent $100 billion more on windmills?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> 99% of our scientists firmly believe in the catastrophic event called climate change that is gripping our planet. The other 1% probably work for big oil or big coal or just Fringe lunatics.



99% believe it's catastrophic? Link?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Unfortunately it is clear we are talking past each other.


it is clear you are flinging pooh on a wall and think I'm gonna accept your pooh.  Nope.  Again, if you choose to use percentages then I want the counts that is derived from.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 6, 2022)

Wiki consensus link with list of study percentages.
Excerpted the later ones. The consensus has GROWN over the last 20 years, 10 years, etc.


""...A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed *11,944 abstracts *of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these *"97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".*[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]




Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors* published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.*[150]
His 2015 paper on the topic, *covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only Five articles by Four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.*[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in *2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.*[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from *88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.*[153]
Depending on expertise, *a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. 
Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted*(20+ papers published).[4]
[.......]

`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Wiki link cont'sd with list of percentage consensus
> Excerp
> 
> 
> ...


then why is there this?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

This article *does not cite any sources*. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
_Find sources:_ "Environmental Research Letters" – news *·* newspapers *·* books *·* scholar *·* JSTOR _(April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)_

abu afak


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> it is clear you are flinging pooh on a wall and think I'm gonna accept your pooh.  Nope.  Again, if you choose to use percentages then I want the counts that is derived from.



I honestly wish I could have helped you understand my point.  Have you ever had a statistics class?  They talk a lot about this concept in statistics, I think.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> As you wish.



Don't pull a hamstring running away.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> This article *does not cite any sources*. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
> _Find sources:_ "Environmental Research Letters" – news *·* newspapers *·* books *·* scholar *·* JSTOR _(April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)_
> 
> abu afak


I won't call you a Liar because you are just Breathtakingly Stupid and a last-wording/OCD ONE LINE TROLL.
The article names and dates the Meta and Peer Reviewed studies, and Footnotes them. [10]
They can then be clicked on.
Bye 62 IQ guy.
Gratuitously Multi-post away.
`


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't pull a hamstring running away.



?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I honestly wish I could have helped you understand my point


I understand your point, you don’t have one


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I understand your point, you don’t have one



At least give me the benefit of the doubt that perhaps I know what I'm talking about.  

The reason early on I sent the link to the article about "Samples and Populations" because it's critical to how a lot of science is done.  

Samples are KNOWN quantities from an UNKNOWN LARGER POPULATION.

Percentages calculated from SAMPLES can be leveraged to estimate the breakdown in the larger (unknown) population.

There are papers published showing percentages of various animal populations that have this or that affliction.  Do you honestly think they are measuring every single animal on the planet?  No, they take a sample.  Because there's no way to know about every member of some populations.

Hope that clears it up for you.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> At least give me the benefit of the doubt that perhaps I know what I'm talking about


Why would I do that?  It seems you have no clue! You throw percentage numbers around without any supporting figures


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Why would I do that?  It seems you have no clue! You throw percentage numbers around without any supporting figures



I can only recommend taking a class in statistics.  It will be much more clear then.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> There are papers published showing percentages of various animal populations that have this or that affliction. Do you honestly think they are measuring every single animal on the planet?


They make estimations based on location and data collected for that environment.  It is studied.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I won't call you a Liar because you are just Breathtakingly Stupid and a last-wording/OCD ONE LINE TROLL.
> The article names and dates the Meta and Peer Reviewed studies, and Footnotes them. [10]
> They can then be clicked on.
> Bye 62 IQ guy.
> ...


I pulled that from your link. So you disagree with your own link


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I can only recommend taking a class in statistics.  It will be much more clear then.


You need your own advice.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Last I heard it's less than 5% of the actual climate scientists who are skeptical of the core concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't use language like that.  It is offensive.  Thanks!


Wait a second. This creep is calling you retarded. He's a troll, just give up on him, he's not worth it. He offers nothing but complaints that have no basis in fact.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So it isn’t cheaper right?


You don't get it it's essential that we've chang systems. Startup costs going to be expensive, but the savings in the end justified the cost. And there are plenty of costs to take into consideration environmental, societal, industrial, military, infrastructure as well as financial. Financial would be the least to be concerned about.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Wait a second. This creep is calling you retarded. He's a troll, just give up on him, he's not worth it. He offers nothing but complaints that have no basis in fact.


He keeps asking for all this information but she could easily look up himself and then he argues about it as if you can argue with facts. He is definitely a TROLL.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> At least 95% of the country would benefit from solar panels. There's a small section of the Pacific Northwest which is least feasible for installation and productivity.


I knew you were dumb, I just didn't think you were THIS dumb.

The Pacific NW is known to have a lot of rain, but there are many other parts of the nation that have more cloud cover on more days than that location.  Living in the Great Lakes region, we have always been told by local weather men, that we have less sunny days than Seattle.  

You now have, officially, very little credibility and well known stupidity in my eyes.

Saginaw Bay comes in the same as Spokane WA, at overcast 52% of the time.   

You clearly don't know what you are talking about most of the time.








						The Gloomiest Cities in the United States | Move.org
					

We looked at climate data to find out which cities have the most cloudy days each year. Read Move.org’s guide to find out which US cities are gloomiest.




					www.move.org


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 6, 2022)

The past three weeks have been dreadful here, this is the first sunny day I have seen in about 12 days.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> You don't get it it's essential that we've chang systems. Startup costs going to be expensive, but the savings in the end justified the cost. And there are plenty of costs to take into consideration environmental, societal, industrial, military, infrastructure as well as financial. Financial would be the least to be concerned about.


What savings? You all got your heads up your butts.

Defend the savings


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> I knew you were dumb, I just didn't think you were THIS dumb.
> 
> The Pacific NW is known to have a lot of rain, but there are many other parts of the nation that have more cloud cover on more days than that location.  Living in the Great Lakes region, we have always been told by local weather men, that we have less sunny days than Seattle.
> 
> ...


I got that information off of a map from the US government. The Pacific Northwest was the only area that looked marginal. I looked up another source, it showed only two states Vermont and Washington as marginal for solar panels because it only get 58 days of sunshine a year. Six other states, Alaska Michigan New York Ohio Oregon and West Virginia are mediocre in solar realization with between 60 and 80 days of sunshine a year, all the rest of the states are excellent for solar panels. Arizona ranks number one with 198 days of sunshine a year, along with Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas these are the top four states. Texas really should do this with their electrical grid problems.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> What savings? You all got your heads up your butts.
> 
> Defend the savings


Like I said I'm done with you you're a troll. Goodbye creep.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Like I said I'm done with you you're a troll. Goodbye creep.


So you can’t explain the savings you referred to?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I got that information off of a map from the US government. The Pacific Northwest was the only area that looked marginal. I looked up another source, it showed only two states Vermont and Washington as marginal for solar panels because it only get 58 days of sunshine a year. Six other states, Alaska Michigan New York Ohio Oregon and West Virginia are mediocre in solar realization with between 60 and 80 days of sunshine a year, all the rest of the states are excellent for solar panels. Arizona ranks number one with 198 days of sunshine a year, along with Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas these are the top four states. Texas really should do this with their electrical grid problems.


Can’t make it up


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So you can’t explain the savings you referred to?


I'm tired of your sick little games look them up for yourself you creep


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm tired of your sick little games look them up for yourself you creep


Running scared huh? Can’t defend your post


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> Arizona ranks number one with 198 days of sunshine a year, along with Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas these are the top four states. Texas really should do this with their electrical grid problems.


Texas actually has lots of solar now while Arizona has fought against it most vehemently.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Running scared huh? Can’t defend your post


LOL, I'm on to you creep. Asking a few questions is normal and acceptable. But when it gets to the point where it's ridiculous, actually a form of badgering. That could only mean one thing, you're trying to get an emotional response from the opposition and that has all the markings of a troll. You in the prize, if you didn't call it that- you are a troll. I'm not running away scared if anything you're laughable. I'm walking away from all your nonsense. You have to try a lot harder to get to me.


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> LOL, I'm on to you creep. Asking a few questions is normal and acceptable. But when it gets to the point where it's ridiculous, actually a form of badgering. That could only mean one thing, you're trying to get an emotional response from the opposition and that has all the markings of a troll. You in the prize, if you didn't call it that- you are a troll. I'm not running away scared if anything you're laughable. I'm walking away from all your nonsense. You have to try a lot harder to get to me.


Try to have a good evening if that's possible for someone like you. I plan on it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> LOL, I'm on to you creep. Asking a few questions is normal and acceptable. But when it gets to the point where it's ridiculous, actually a form of badgering. That could only mean one thing, you're trying to get an emotional response from the opposition and that has all the markings of a troll. You in the prize, if you didn't call it that- you are a troll. I'm not running away scared if anything you're laughable. I'm walking away from all your nonsense. You have to try a lot harder to get to me.


I asked but one question and you ran


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I asked but one question and you ran


And I answered your stupid questions in all the ways possible over and over like I said I'm done with you you're an idiot troll.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> And I answered your stupid questions in all the ways possible over and over like I said I'm done with you you're an idiot troll.


I didn’t see any answer concerning the savings how come? That’s the only question I asked


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I didn’t see any answer concerning the savings how come? That’s the only question I asked


I guess you believe a lot of things that aren't true.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I guess you believe a lot of things that aren't true.


So nothing on the savings you said we would see . Odd you would say something you knew absolutely nothing about


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So nothing on the savings you said we would see . Odd you would say something you knew absolutely nothing about


One more time and I'm out of here. You aren't just a troll you are crazy troll. Give it up already the answers are right in front of you if you ever wanted them. Solar installation varies the cost and location, the only savings that is certain is it will help the planet avoid even more terrible faith and we're already facing.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> One more time and I'm out of here. You aren't just a troll you are crazy troll. Give it up already the answers are right in front of you if you ever wanted them. Solar installation varies the cost and location, the only savings that is certain is it will help the planet avoid even more terrible faith and we're already facing.


No answer from you after you stated we would! Again, odd you can’t answer


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I got that information off of a map from the US government. The Pacific Northwest was the only area that looked marginal. I looked up another source, it showed only two states Vermont and Washington as marginal for solar panels because it only get 58 days of sunshine a year. Six other states, Alaska Michigan New York Ohio Oregon and West Virginia are mediocre in solar realization with between 60 and 80 days of sunshine a year, all the rest of the states are excellent for solar panels. Arizona ranks number one with 198 days of sunshine a year, along with Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas these are the top four states. Texas really should do this with their electrical grid problems.


Solar panels don't last forever, neither do the batteries that are needed for energy storage, that are required when folks want energy at night, or on a cloudy day.

What you are essentially doing, is taking hydrocarbon energy, mining and extracting minerals and creating other hydrocarbon related products needed in the manufacture of solar panels, and converting them to solar panels, to use solar energy, for a time.   And then, after that time period is up?  Repeating the process over again, with hydrocarbon energy, it is an illusion that you are getting something for nothing.


Do you think you can use energy from solar panels, and make solar panels, and never use energy from other sources, like hydrocarbon or nuclear again?  Seriously?

This is a fantasy you are living, it doesn't and can't exist.  It is like free energy.

It is illogical, it is like a never-ending free energy machine.  I just don't think you get, or understand, the paradigm of what you are trying to sell.














						The Dark Side of Solar Power
					

Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to...




					hbr.org
				












						Why 100% renewables isn't feasible by 2050
					

The trillion dollar question is, what's the tipping point that reflects efficient utilization of renewables and fossil-based power in the U.S., while keeping the costs and pollution low and ensuring reliable power, says Harshit Chatur.




					www.utilitydive.com
				


















						The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking | Manhattan Institute
					

Progressive policymakers promote the idea that America is on the verge of a green revolution that will eliminate hydrocarbon use within the near future—but in reality, this is not possible.




					www.manhattan-institute.org


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> No answer from you after you stated we would! Again, odd you can’t answer


I gave you all the answers I can. You do this to me in another line of posts or you get badgering me and I finally got fed up with it this time I'm not letting you get to me I realize who you are you are a troll. Live with it, I don't have to. Goodbye.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I gave you all the answers I can. You do this to me in another line of posts or you get badgering me and I finally got fed up with it this time I'm not letting you get to me I realize who you are you are a troll. Live with it, I don't have to. Goodbye.


You never answered what we’d be saving. Why? It was but one question


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> You never answered what we’d be saving. Why? It was but one question


I do not know the particulars of your situation. The cost and function of the solar panels depends on a lot of variables so I can't answer your question for you you have to find that out for yourself I don't think you want to give me that private information like where you live how much Sunshine a day your area gets whether you have a good location for solar, if you're on the hilltop if you're in a valley everything makes a difference
https://www.shopwelby.com/us solar estimator- compare solar estimator.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I do not know the particulars of your situation. The cost and function of the solar panels depends on a lot of variables so I can't answer your question for you you have to find that out for yourself I don't think you want to give me that private information like where you live how much Sunshine a day your area gets whether you have a good location for solar, if you're on the hilltop if you're in a valley everything makes a difference
> https://www.shopwelby.com/us solar estimator- compare solar estimator.


I just wanted to know what we’d be saving?  You keep ignoring your own comment, why?  Are you denying you said savings?


----------



## Stann (Sep 6, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I just wanted to know what we’d be saving?  You keep ignoring your own comment, why?  Are you denying you said savings?


I am not going to answer another one of your incessant, inane posts. You are absolutely ridiculous. What does it feel like to be such an idiot. Never mind I don't want to know good luck in life you're going to need a lot of it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2022)

Stann said:


> I am not going to answer another one of your incessant, inane posts. You are absolutely ridiculous. What does it feel like to be such an idiot. Never mind I don't want to know good luck in life you're going to need a lot of it.


So we wouldn’t save. No reason to make a 37 trillion dollar change then. Thanks for helping us out to see the con!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 7, 2022)

Don't mind him. He got Bluto so pissed that he finally just kicked this spinach eating jerk's obnoxious little ass up and down the block until all that remained was a bloody mess. His jaw's permanently wired shut so now he has to suck strained veggie juice through a straw to survive. The same straw he so violently pecks at his little keyboard with all day. He also stinks, no longer having any bladder control. Olive Oyl's never looked back. "We" haha! Poor fella


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> You need your own advice.



I have done so.  

There's something in statistics called "The Central Limit Theorem" that states that with more sampling the statistics you measure get closer and closer to a normal distribution with a more and more accurate estimate of the "true mean" of an unknown population.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> They make estimations based on location and data collected for that environment.  It is studied.



Do you honestly think they analyze EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE POPULATION?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I have done so.
> 
> There's something in statistics called "The Central Limit Theorem" that states that with more sampling the statistics you measure get closer and closer to a normal distribution with a more and more accurate estimate of the "true mean" of an unknown population.


but you can't state the sample size.  So you have no idea how to move forward in any direction.  Shame.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Do you honestly think they analyze EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE POPULATION?


Not sure your point?  They know counts based on research and population data gathering.  In the US we call it a census.  I guess you haven't heard of that.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Not sure your point?



My point being that it is EXTREMELY common in science for scientists to take a small SAMPLE and generalize the findings to the larger population.

you know the exact number in your sample....you DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER IN THE ENTIRE POPULATION.



jc456 said:


> They know counts based on research and population data gathering.  In the US we call it a census.  I guess you haven't heard of that.



Think of it more like a political poll.  They go out and SAMPLE and then say "x% of democrats think..." and "Y% of Republicans say..."

*At no point did they ask every single Democrat or every single Republican. *

Is this clear yet?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> My point being that it is EXTREMELY common in science for scientists to take a small SAMPLE and generalize the findings to the larger population.
> 
> you know the exact number in your sample....you DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER IN THE ENTIRE POPULATION.


Still you haven't stated they numbers that reflect your percentage.  How else can you get a percentage accept to turret it out loud?

I'll say that 99% of the climate scientists say the globe is behaving normally.  Now what?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> but you can't state the sample size.  So you have no idea how to move forward in any direction.  Shame.



The sample size is irrelevant in this particular conversation unless you would be able to clearly define the FAILURE of that sampling to accurately reflect the total population.

Which, if you would like to do, you can actually do so.  There are SEVERAL _*independent and unrelated methods*_ of assessing scientific agreement on the topic and all of them (remember they are INDEPENDENT METHODS AND UNRELATED) keep coming up with about 95+% agreement among the professionals.

Now, of course Science ISN'T DONE BY CONSENSUS.  But consensus shows where the majority of the professionals are leaning.

Let's say you went to Vegas to bet some money.  You decide to go to the sports betting areas to bet on an NBA basketball game (or whatever).  Would you go in without knowing anything about basketball _or even the teams_ and place your bet?  No, you'd learn about the game and you'd *listen to odds makers and the professional coaches and sports authorities.*

That's what I'm talking about here.  Repeated studies (which you can look up) have found this consistent figure.  Even if it is not 100% perfectly accurate it shows that *it is at least >50% of the professionals feel this is a true fact (AGW).*


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The sample size is irrelevant in this particular conversation unless you would be able to clearly define the FAILURE of that sampling to accurately reflect the total population.
> 
> Which, if you would like to do, you can actually do so.  There are SEVERAL _*independent and unrelated methods*_ of assessing scientific agreement on the topic and all of them (remember they are INDEPENDENT METHODS AND UNRELATED) keep coming up with about 95+% agreement among the professionals.
> 
> ...


nope, it is not irrelevant.  Says sample size is needed in the procedure you posted.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> nope, it is not irrelevant.  Says sample size is needed in the procedure you posted.



If I do the heavy lifting for you and show you the various studies (you seem unable to find any of them on your own), will you first tell me how you will calculate the relative goodness of the sample?

Just one metric and I'll provide you with some numbers.  Tell me how you will assess the impact of the sample size.

Thanks!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> If I do the heavy lifting for you and show you the various studies (you seem unable to find any of them on your own), will you first tell me how you will calculate the relative goodness of the sample?
> 
> Just one metric and I'll provide you with some numbers.  Tell me how you will assess the impact of the sample size.
> 
> Thanks!


just provide the count that gave you your percentage.  It's been my ask since the first post you made.  You've been slimming along here.  deflecting badly.  So, let's stop the nonsense about lectures and classes and just post the counts.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> just provide the count that gave you your percentage.  It's been my ask since the first post you made.  You've been slimming along here.  deflecting badly.  So, let's stop the nonsense about lectures and classes and just post the counts.



OK.  Got it.

You won't know what to do with sample size (hint:  there actually is a lot of stuff you can do to estimate whether you've got the right sample size, including power estimates.)

If you can't give me assurance that we are talking at the same level then I will leave it to you to find the studies which are quite easy to find.

Thanks.  I don't want to waste too much more time with you if we are just going to talk past each other and you don't have the requisite training to understand the topic.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> nope, it is not irrelevant.  Says sample size is needed in the procedure you posted.



Yes, sample size is known.

What is unknown is the exact population size.

That's how the math and statistics work.  This is part and parcel of the Central Limit Theorem which acts as one of the core pillars of statistics.  I highly recommend a class.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yes, sample size is known.
> 
> What is unknown is the exact population size.
> 
> That's how the math and statistics work.  This is part and parcel of the Central Limit Theorem which acts as one of the core pillars of statistics.  I highly recommend a class.


I don't need exact, never said I did.  I said to provide the data used to reach the percentage and you still haven't answered.  Diversion tactics are so boring.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> OK.  Got it.
> 
> You won't know what to do with sample size (hint:  there actually is a lot of stuff you can do to estimate whether you've got the right sample size, including power estimates.)
> 
> ...


nope, I want to see the data used to produce the percentage you claimed.  It's quite simple and not worth all the ice skating diversions you keep using.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I don't need exact, never said I did.  I said to provide the data used to reach the percentage and you still haven't answered.  Diversion tactics are so boring.



You are still not listening to what I'm saying.  Please take a statistics class.  It will be much more clear than I am able to make it for you.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> You are still not listening to what I'm saying.  Please take a statistics class.  It will be much more clear than I am able to make it for you.


nope, post the data or it's all made up.  Hey message board, paracetamol63 is a liar and uses fake data.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> nope, post the data or it's all made up.  Hey message board, paracetamol63 is a liar and uses fake data.



Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The sample size is irrelevant in this particular conversation unless you would be able to clearly define the FAILURE of that sampling to accurately reflect the total population.
> 
> Which, if you would like to do, you can actually do so.  There are SEVERAL _*independent and unrelated methods*_ of assessing scientific agreement on the topic and all of them (remember they are INDEPENDENT METHODS AND UNRELATED) keep coming up with about 95+% agreement among the professionals.
> 
> ...



75 out of 77 is a very impressive.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 75 out of 77 is a very impressive.



But there are actually other studies that are much larger in sample size.

Remember the Central Limit Theorem.  We are collecting a variety of different means to test the scientific view and repeatedly all the studies keep running up against the >95% agreement number.

But more to the original point:  *what would you do differently?  *And mathematically how would YOU select your sample size?  Remember, again, the choice of sample size is VERY WELL DISCUSSED in statistics.  It's an obsession for them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But more to the original point: *what would you do differently? *



I wouldn't bother. Not unless you're asking a lot more questions.

Is the climate warming? Is mankind partially responsible?

Talk about a couple of useless questions..........


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> nope, post the data or it's all made up.  Hey message board, paracetamol63 is a liar and uses fake data.



LOLOLOL.  Reading these posts it is AMAZINGLY clear you don't have a frickin' CLUE about statistics or sampling or science

LOL.  

Moron.


----------



## otto105 (Sep 7, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> You know, I never paid much attention to your "chem trail," arguments, till after the scamdemic.
> 
> When Corbett started focusing heavily on the WEF and the WHOs future climate lockdown plans, I finally get, that the chemtrails, where never about global depopulation, but were always about weather control, thanks!
> 
> ...


Wow, you one fucked up boi.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> LOLOLOL.  Reading these posts it is AMAZINGLY clear you don't have a frickin' CLUE about statistics or sampling or science
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Moron.


I understand your skills are so limited thanks, he needed some help! So I expect you’re gonna provide the data I requested


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I understand your skills are so limited thanks, he needed some help! So I expect you’re gonna provide the data I requested



You wouldn't know what to do with it if you had it!  LOL.  The other poster asked you how you would assess the impact of sample size....*AND YOU DIDN'T RESPOND*.

Know why?  BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC.

See?  That was easy!

(BTW:  Honestly if you can't find these studies the other poster was talking about...YOU are the idiot.  LOL)


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You wouldn't know what to do with it if you had it!  LOL.  The other poster asked you how you would assess the impact of sample size....*AND YOU DIDN'T RESPOND*.
> 
> Know why?  BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC.
> 
> ...


I actually don’t give a fk what he was expecting. I initially asked for his data. That’s first. I don’t play demfker games


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 7, 2022)

When the climate stops changing it won't have to be a discussion......but we have maybe a billion years or so, relax


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> When the climate stops changing it won't have to be a discussion......but we have maybe a billion years or so, relax


2150


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I actually don’t give a fk what he was expecting. I initially asked for his data. That’s first. I don’t play demfker games


Translation: _I don't give a fuck. I'm here just to deny and distract like my pals here. I pepper them with stupid, loaded questions. Then I demand shit. I do not respond to other's requests. I berate, belittle, and guffaw at them is all. I'm paid to do that so I do it. Day in, day out. Here, there, anywhere. I'm a professional troll so I troll. All pays the same. Got a problem with that? I don't give a fuck._

Suggestion: Ignore them. Don't feed them.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Translation: _I don't give a fuck. I'm here just to deny and distract like my pals here. I demand shit. I do not respond to other's requests. I berate, belittle, and guffaw at them is all. I'm paid to do that so I do it. Day in, day out. Here, there, anywhere. I'm a professional troll so I troll. All pays the same. Got a problem with that? I don't give a fuck._
> 
> Suggestion: Ignore them. Don't feed them.


No , it means my question was first. Demofks games aren’t allowed in my world


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I actually don’t give a fk what he was expecting. I initially asked for his data. That’s first. I don’t play demfker games



Face it....you're a loser.  You can't even find something EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT! LOLOLOL.

How lazy and/or stupid.

You are hilarious.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> No , it means my question was first. Demofks games aren’t allowed in my world



LOLOL.  Widdle JC stamps his widdle feet and squeeeeeeeems.  "I axed furst  mommy!!!"


Hilarious.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> LOLOL.  Widdle JC stamps his widdle feet and squeeeeeeeems.  "I axed furst  mommy!!!"
> 
> 
> Hilarious.


Exactly, sounds like you’re the one whining jack! Hilarious when I know I’m better


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Exactly, sounds like you’re the one whining jack! Hilarious when I know I’m better



Pathetic.

Stamp those widdle feet!  Stamp them!  Mommy! MOOOOOMMMMMY!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Pathetic.
> 
> Stamp those widdle feet!  Stamp them!  Mommy! MOOOOOMMMMMY!


Need a tissue


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Face it....you're a loser.  You can't even find something EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT! LOLOLOL.
> 
> How lazy and/or stupid.
> 
> You are hilarious.


My mode of operation is my mode of operation. It’s obvious to all, that throwing percentages around without the supporting data is not how statistics works. Pooh fling away


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2022)

jc456 said:


> My mode of operation is my mode of operation. It’s obvious to all, that throwing percentages around without the supporting data is not how statistics works. Pooh fling away



<iframe src="Winnie The Pooh GIF by Disney - Find & Share on GIPHY" width="480" height="350" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>

Don't fling the Pooh.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> <iframe src="Winnie The Pooh GIF by Disney - Find & Share on GIPHY" width="480" height="350" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>
> 
> Don't fling the Pooh.


Outstanding


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 8, 2022)

A. I still say that the common objective and focus on PRESERVING natural environment, ecosystems and wildlife
is better for uniting people instead of dividing over conflicting views and politicizing/attacking others for that.

The SAME process it would take to get rid of pollution out of respect for nature
would also solve any issue with pollution causing "CO2 and blocking heat in the atmosphere and trapping more heat that is released into space"

B. Nobody is addressing why China is exempt from the restrictions that are disproportionately targeting and costing Western nations more,
even though China produces more of the pollution than all other countries combined. 

So if this isn't a political conflict for power and economics, why wouldn't China be held to the same standards proportionally?

C. Although people are still contesting the "causality" argument, the data supposedly shows
that the fossil fuels CO2 has a different ratio of C13:C12 that is due to being plant based.
Plants also prefer C12 and have a lower C13:C12 ratio
so the basic arguments being cited are that the 
LOWER C13:C12 ratio  in the CO2 measurements
shows this CO2 increase is from Fossil Fuels that create that particular footprint/output. 

So the graphs showing the increase in CO2 coming from Fossil Fuels is used to argue
this "CORRESPONDS" to an increase in temperature spikes (both hotter hots and colder colds).

But that "CORRELATION" doesn't necessarily prove "CAUSALITY"
so that's where the opposing scientists are arguing that this is being POLITICIZED,
there are OTHER motives for arguing and attacking people over this approach.

If environmental restoration, preservation and protection were the issue,
there wouldn't be avoidance of point B - holding China to even greater restrictions due to greater threats and pollution
and there would be more focus on A - conservation of natural environment (which would not only require the same reduction
in fossil fuel pollutions and emissions but all other factors including the hazards to wildlife and environment of the
material and toxic waste involved in wind and solar energy using batteries and producing nondegradable/nonrecyclable equipment
that causes more problems than it solves)
instead of political fights over the CO2 arguments.


----------



## basquebromance (Sep 8, 2022)

we need something like, well, a PLAN...or a NEW DEAL

GREEN NEW DEAL!


----------



## basquebromance (Sep 8, 2022)

The Earth's ozone layer will make a full recovery in 50 years. Thanks largely to the Montreal Protocol of 1987 which put a global ban on Chloroflurocarbons (CFOs)


----------



## abu afak (Sep 8, 2022)

emilynghiem said:


> A. I still say that the common objective and focus on PRESERVING natural environment, ecosystems and wildlife
> is better for uniting people instead of dividing over conflicting views and politicizing/attacking others for that.
> 
> The SAME process it would take to get rid of pollution out of respect for nature
> ...


THANK YOU For thoughtful post!
Stunning here in MAGAt land.
All points are good ones. Some alteration/comment/suggestion.

1. I agree it's mostly for naught if we can't get China/Chindia more committed.
China argues they are 1.3 Billion who are entitled to move the bottom half to the middle class/Western standards (like Cars) and not be stunted so early in energy usage rate development. India same.

The West - alas - accepts this argument even though it pretty much makes our effort much less effective (I feel near useless except for embarrassing them as the biggest solar panel manufacturer).
We need to push them much harder and make sure they have a much better energy mix than we are letting them get away with now.
That negotiation part of the 'Paris Agreement' that is too weak.


2. The C13/12 point just demonstrates what we already know. We/man is putting huge amounts of it and other Greenhouse gases into the atmo.
And we all know the definition of GHG!

3. My quick primer on the topic. Hopefully you read one of the links provided.
CAUSATION:

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious deniers know/use, usually Lag that solar forcing... but this time led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate compared to natural cycles.

Hope that helps, and thx your understanding and again for such a sober post.
.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 8, 2022)

I'll add that it's more complex but also more definitive than simply plotting C12:C13 ratios.
One can't ignore C14:





						How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?
					

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.




					www.climate.gov
				





> Young organic matter has more carbon-14 than older organic matter, and *fossil fuels have no measurable carbon-14 at all.* {...snip...}
> This faster decline is driven by the addition to the atmosphere of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from a source with no carbon-14. As this carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it dilutes the ratio


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 8, 2022)

Troll repellent:  





						The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
					






					history.aip.org


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

basquebromance said:


> we need something like, well, a PLAN...or a NEW DEAL
> 
> GREEN NEW DEAL!


Will it be cheaper? How much money you got?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> I'll add that it's more complex but also more definitive than simply plotting C12:C13 ratios.
> One can't ignore C14:
> 
> 
> ...


So, how hot is that CO2?


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Will it be cheaper? How much money you got?


It will definitely be cheaper when gas starts running out and it cost $25 a gallon.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> My mode of operation is my mode of operation. It’s obvious to all, that throwing percentages around without the supporting data is not how statistics works. Pooh fling away



Might want to add in "Learn what you are talking about" to your "mode of operation".  LOL.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So, how hot is that CO2?



What a stupid question!  LOL.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> I'll add that it's more complex but also more definitive than simply plotting C12:C13 ratios.
> One can't ignore C14:
> 
> 
> ...



Problem with 14-C is that atmospheric nuke testing back in the 60's messed up the relative amounts.  But prior to that apparently the CO2 in the atmosphere was depleted in 14-C _exactly as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels_.

Isotopes are a great fingerprint to tell us who is likely responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere these days.  Sadly, it's not super "easy" science (isotope fractionation) so many of our local "skeptics" on here will have no clue about it or what it implies.

I wish we had better science education these days.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Need a tissue



Sorry, widdle one, I don't have one.  Go ask mommy.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> <iframe src="Winnie The Pooh GIF by Disney - Find & Share on GIPHY" width="480" height="350" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>
> 
> Don't fling the Pooh.



That's all he's got.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 8, 2022)

basquebromance said:


> The Earth's ozone layer will make a full recovery in 50 years. Thanks largely to the Montreal Protocol of 1987 which put a global ban on Chloroflurocarbons (CFOs)



The Montreal Protocols are a great blueprint for international cooperation.  It's also a great example of how the "merchants of doubt" were brought on as well.  Some of the usual scientists who sell their services to cast doubt on science (like in the tobacco-cancer link, acid rain and now climate change).  One of them decreed that alternatives to CFC's would be far worse, more polluting and more dangerous and less effective so we shouldn't ban the CFC's that were causing the problem.

Of course, as in tobacco-cancer, acid rain and AGW the "merchant of doubt" was wrong.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Problem with 14-C is that atmospheric nuke testing back in the 60's messed up the relative amounts.  But prior to that apparently the CO2 in the atmosphere was depleted in 14-C _exactly as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels_.
> 
> Isotopes are a great fingerprint to tell us who is likely responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere these days.  Sadly, it's not super "easy" science (isotope fractionation) so many of our local "skeptics" on here will have no clue about it or what it implies.
> 
> I wish we had better science education these days.



There's a lot of talk about "isotopes" here.  Whehter its the oxygen for telling temperature or this stuff about the CO2.

Can someone please explain what an isotope is and why they get so much info from them?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Problem with 14-C is that atmospheric nuke testing back in the 60's messed up the relative amounts.  But prior to that apparently the CO2 in the atmosphere was depleted in 14-C _exactly as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels_.
> 
> Isotopes are a great fingerprint to tell us who is likely responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere these days.  Sadly, it's not super "easy" science (isotope fractionation) so many of our local "skeptics" on here will have no clue about it or what it implies.
> 
> I wish we had better science education these days.


Thanks. Actually though, the amount of 14-C added from nuke testing is old news today and fully  accounted for. It's not really a "Problem." Indeed, isotope fractionation has been extremely simple and precise since before our denier trolls here began wearing their diapers.

I  also find "_as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels" _confusing_._ Vegetal may imply biodiesel or ethanol from corn but it really just means pertaining to plants. Firewood is vegetal. Fossil fuels are ultimately vegetal as well. So I'd work on a better way to phrase that bit.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Thanks. Actually though, the amount of 14-C added from nuke testing is old news today and fully  accounted for. It's not really a "Problem." Indeed, isotope fractionation has been extremely simple and precise since before our denier trolls here began wearing their diapers.
> 
> I  also find "_as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels" _confusing_._ Vegetal may imply biodiesel or ethanol from corn but it really just means pertaining to plants. Firewood is vegetal. Fossil fuels are ultimately vegetal as well. So I'd work on a better way to phrase that bit.


Actually in terms of the stable isotopes it won’t make much difference if it is coal or more recent vegetation sources since we are talking about fractionation by the original plant that increases the 12C isotope, correct?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Actually in terms of the stable isotopes it won’t make much difference if it is coal or more recent vegetation sources since we are talking about fractionation by the original plant that increases the 12C isotope, correct?


It's the amount of time spent underground that counts. If the plant has been at the surface instead of underground for millions of years it's going to have C-14 as opposed to zero and a different ratio (fraction) of C-12 to C-13.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> It's the amount of time spent underground that counts. If the plant has been at the surface instead of underground for millions of years it's going to have C-14 as opposed to zero and a different ratio (fraction) of C-12 to C-13.


Can you explain the role of burial and catagenesis in the fractionation of 12C and 13C.  I am not tracking on it.  I know why 14C makes a diff with age but I’m not sure about the stable isotopes.  Thanks!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Can you explain the role of burial and catagenesis in the fractionation of 12C and 13C.  I am not tracking on it.  I know why 14C makes a diff with age but I’m not sure about the stable isotopes.  Thanks!


Okay, but my understanding is likely nothing compared to a geologist like Crick. Thing is, all buried fuel loses its C-14 fairly quickly looking back in geologic time scales {eta -- because it's not being bombarded with cosmic rays and so forth as it would be at Earth's surface}. So the C-12 to C-13 ratio is helpful when looking at ice cores, where C-14 is not. For example, data from carbon isotopes and CO2 amounts within any particular sediment layer yield characteristic variations over time allowing for long term comparison -- i.e. graphs. Now help the guy out with his isotope question, will ya.. LOL

I much prefer reading and providing good reading sources to splainin things myself. Why bother when it's usually all right there at your fingertips with a bit of searching?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Might want to add in "Learn what you are talking about" to your "mode of operation".  LOL.


that's the qualifier I have over you.  Drives you nuts.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> What a stupid question!  LOL.


why?  you all think our footprint is dangerous to the globe.  I am merely asking how much hotter are we making the earth?  I haven't as of today, seen any information from the warmers on how different is our CO2 to nature?  Do you know how hot 120 PPM of CO2 actually is?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 8, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> please explain what an isotope is and why they get so much info from them?


This should help. {Tell 'em you're a student and see what happens.. Me? I have no idea}








						Isotopes and mass spectrometry (article) | Khan Academy
					

Learn about isotopes and how they relate to the average atomic mass of an element. Find out how isotopes can be detected using mass spectrometry.




					www.khanacademy.org
				



All matter is comprised of isotopes. Look at "_The mass spectrum for an *average* sample *of pure* zirconium" _near the end_. _An "average" sample of "pure" carbon isolated from burning the O2 off an "average" sample of "pure" CO2 would yield similar spikes for each isotope.


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> why?  you all think our footprint is dangerous to the globe.  I am merely asking how much hotter are we making the earth?  I have as of today, seen any information from the warmers on how different is our CO2 to nature?  Do you know how hot 120 PPM of CO2 actually is?


I realize you think you know a lot but you don't. You ask the stupidest questions. CO2 is an essential component in our atmosphere. If it all disappeared from the atmosphere we would lose the greenhouse effect all of the planet and we'd all freeze to death. Climate change is nothing new. It's been occurring since the Advent of the industrial age in 1750. In the beginning it's effects were negligible, but like anything else out of whack, the more it got out of whack, the more problems it caused. Today the atmosphere has basically 148% levels of CO2  ( 2020 ) more than prior to 1750. I'm putting this as simply as I can so you can understand. When you put gas in your car it runs well, try running it with six little bottles of any high mileage fuel treatment in the tank. The engine will run so hot it will probably burn up. The Earth is basically a closed system like an aquarium, or pressure cooker. We are changing things and not for the better. The real fun ( if you can call it that ) is just getting started and unless you make drastic changes, we will suffer those consequences for at least 50 years. It's going to be amazing to see what's left. No one has done enough and the debt has to be paid. I suggest that you stop this insanity start doing something to help the situation rather than hurt it.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> This should help. {Tell 'em you're a student and see what happens.. Me? I have no idea}
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## abu afak (Sep 8, 2022)

Stann said:


> I realize you think you know a lot but you don't. You ask the stupidest questions. CO2 is an essential component in our atmosphere. If it all disappeared from the atmosphere we would lose the greenhouse effect all of the planet and we'd all freeze to death. Climate change is nothing new. It's been occurring since the Advent of the industrial age in 1750. In the beginning it's effects were negligible, but like anything else out of whack, the more it got out of whack, the more problems it caused. Today the atmosphere has basically 148% levels of CO2  ( 2020 ) more than prior to 1750. I'm putting this as simply as I can so you can understand. When you put gas in your car it runs well, try running it with six little bottles of any high mileage fuel treatment in the tank. The engine will run so hot it will probably burn up. The Earth is basically a closed system like an aquarium, or pressure cooker. We are changing things and not for the better. The real fun ( if you can call it that ) is just getting started and unless you make drastic changes, we will suffer those consequences for at least 50 years. It's going to be amazing to see what's left. No one has done enough and the debt has to be paid. I suggest that you stop this insanity start doing something to help the situation rather than hurt it.


jc456 is a one-line (or 3 word) *Harassment troll* at 50-70 posts a day and is not worth responding to.
He'a JOKE with ZERO factual Content, ZERO links. Zero.
Ignore him. ding/ToddsterPatriot near the same.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The Montreal Protocols are a great blueprint for international cooperation.  It's also a great example of how the "merchants of doubt" were brought on as well.  Some of the usual scientists who sell their services to cast doubt on science (like in the tobacco-cancer link, acid rain and now climate change).  One of them decreed that alternatives to CFC's would be far worse, more polluting and more dangerous and less effective so we shouldn't ban the CFC's that were causing the problem.
> 
> Of course, as in tobacco-cancer, acid rain and AGW the "merchant of doubt" was wrong.


*
The Montreal Protocols are a great blueprint for international cooperation. *

There is a difference between switching to a different class of refrigerants and CO2 emissions.

*One of them decreed that alternatives to CFC's would be far worse, more polluting and more dangerous *

Which one?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The Montreal Protocols are a great blueprint for international cooperation. *
> 
> There is a difference between switching to a different class of refrigerants and CO2 emissions.



But not how the "merchants of doubt" were leveraged.  Just like they are today!  Only folks like you who LISTEN to them don't know that their job is to create confusion...and historically they have been wrong 100% of the time.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *One of them decreed that alternatives to CFC's would be far worse, more polluting and more dangerous *
> 
> Which one?



I want to say S. Fred Singer, but I'm not entirely certain if it was him or Seitz.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> jc456 is a one-line (or 3 word) *Harassment troll* at 50-70 posts a day and is not worth responding to.
> 
> `


I am beginning to realize that he never has anything of value to add and he doesn't seem to actually know anything sufficient to state it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> jc456 is a one-line (or 3 word) *Harassment troll* at 50-70 posts a day and is not worth responding to.
> He'a JOKE with ZERO factual Content, ZERO links. Zero.
> Ignore him. ding/ToddsterPatriot near the same.
> `



How's Exxon's market cap looking lately?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But not how the "merchants of doubt" were leveraged.  Just like they are today!  Only folks like you who LISTEN to them don't know that their job is to create confusion...and historically they have been wrong 100% of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to say S. Fred Singer, but I'm not entirely certain if it was him or Seitz.



*But not how the "merchants of doubt" were leveraged. *

Leverage? You mean how changing your refrigerants is fairly simple, but costly, while eliminating CO2 (ignoring rising CO2 emissisions in China, India, etc.) is impossible and incredibly expensive?


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> jc456 is a one-line (or 3 word) *Harassment troll* at 50-70 posts a day and is not worth responding to.
> He'a JOKE with ZERO factual Content, ZERO links. Zero.
> Ignore him. ding/ToddsterPatriot near the same.
> `


I understand that. I just hope he's redeemable. No one should have to go through life like that, it's very sad


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I am beginning to realize that he never has anything of value to add and he doesn't seem to actually know anything sufficient to state it.


I don't know denigration can be a good thing if it's not overdone. Other than that you are very correct. I went through another series of posts with him and the same thing happened. The third time isn't a charm with him.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> This should help. {Tell 'em you're a student and see what happens.. Me? I have no idea}
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 14-C bit is correct.  But 12-C and 13-C are fractionated by the plants that created the coal.  Plants in general tend to prefer lighter 12-C isotopes to the heavier 13-C and so they preferentially enrich it in 12-C.

Now, the question you and I both seem unclear on is:  does catagenesis or diagenesis alter that?  I am uncertain but it won't necessarily change the original phrase "vegetal and fossil fuels" because burning regular vegetation should, if I'm understanding the fractionation properly, lead to a general increase in 12-C content in atmospheric carbon.

There may be some degree to which coal, having been through catagenesis and diagenesis and had biological actions and thermal actions on the plant material, would have even more 12-C and thus stand out, I think it more overall appropriate to include vegetal as well as fossil fuels.


When it comes to 14-C the difference is that 14-C is the radioactive isotope and it is fixed at the time of death of the plant so as it ages it obviously loses 14-C which, as you rightly note, winds up with lower levels of 14-C represented in the atmospheric CO2.  Something we did see prior to the 1960's and nuke air testing.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But not how the "merchants of doubt" were leveraged. *
> 
> Leverage?



Brought out and paraded around to create doubt in the science.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You mean how changing your refrigerants is fairly simple,



But it's not!  CFC's are very good at what they do.  Finding an alternative, as I understand it, required going with analogues of CFC's.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> but costly, while eliminating CO2 (ignoring rising CO2 emissisions in China, India, etc.) is impossible and incredibly expensive?



It isn't impossible.  Clearly humanity existed for thousands of years prior to industrialization.  We CAN decrease it even today...and still enjoy our modern lifestyle!  We need to seriously work on renewables and non-GHG energy (yeah, including nuclear).

We don't HAVE to be doing this.

And if we REALLY want to put the screws to China that's really simple!  *Just stop buying things.  Pretty much everything, but yeah, just stop buying stuff*.  That'll put a damper on their economy.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> This should help. {Tell 'em you're a student and see what happens.. Me? I have no idea}
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How come there are high pressure systems next to low pressure systems? Isn’t CO2 the same?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> How come there are high pressure systems next to low pressure systems? Isn’t CO2 the same?



What does pressure have to do with the carbon isotopes?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It isn't impossible. Clearly humanity existed for thousands of years prior to industrialization


Why do you need to decrease it when it was higher before human life?


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> How come there are high pressure systems next to low pressure systems? Isn’t CO2 the same?


Are you talking about highs and lows in barometric pressure ?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Why do you need to decrease it when it was higher before human life?



Trust me when I say you are simply too stupid to understand if someone were to explain it to you.

So go ahead and screech like you usually do.  Tell us all about what ails you.

JC, no one actually cares what you say because you never say anything of value.  So why don't you just sit back and read something.  LEARN something before you post!

It's fun to learn stuff!  You may be mentally challenged but you can still learn.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

Stann said:


> Are you talking about highs and lows in barometric pressure ?



It's impossible to tell. This is the same guy who thinks the CO2 has a temperature that has meaning here.  It's weird.  He's a complete tool.


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Trust me when I say you are simply too stupid to understand if someone were to explain it to you.
> 
> So go ahead and screech like you usually do.  Tell us all about what ails you.
> 
> ...


There is the possibility he suffers from pessimism bias.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Trust me when I say you are simply too stupid to understand if someone were to explain it to you.
> 
> So go ahead and screech like you usually do.  Tell us all about what ails you.
> 
> ...


I know I am far smarter than you will ever be! You think 120 ppm of co2 Carrie’s more heat than the sun! That’s ridiculous


----------



## abu afak (Sep 8, 2022)

Stann said:


> I understand that. I just hope he's redeemable. No one should have to go through life like that, it's very sad


He's made 116,000 posts/quips. He can never engage in a true conversation or write a paragraph.
Again he is just a full time harassment Troll.
and I wouldn't put it past this MB that he's a paid page-view/post generator.
He has NO content.
This place runs/makes money on Page Views and they love these little shlts running up the score.
This is THEE internet Home of One-Line RW Trolls.
Many banned from more coherent boards.
Toddster (one line question responses) and Ding same (and occasional 100 time repeated graphic/link) are two more
`


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I know I am far smarter than you will ever be! You think 120 ppm of co2 Carrie’s more heat than the sun! That’s ridiculous



Smarter than I will ever be?  Well, let's start with your post.

HILARIOUS.  Do you type with a hammer?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> He's made 116,000 posts/quips. He can never enegage in a true conversation or write a paragraph.
> Again he is just a full time harassment Troll.
> and I wouldn't put it past this MB that he's a paid page-view/post generator.
> He has NO content.
> ...


You still haven’t explained why renewables are cheaper? Why?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Smarter than I will ever be?  Well, let's start with your post.
> 
> HILARIOUS.  Do you type with a hammer?


Indeed, smarter.

Still waiting on how a high pressure system can be next to low pressure system with the same amount of co2? You ran


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Indeed, smarter



LOLOLOL.  

Seriously, what are you, associates degree...MAYBE?  Something simple suiting a simpleton?

You don't seem to have any technical knowledge of anything .

Smarter.  LOLOLOL.  You would struggle to be smarter than an anencephalic baby.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I know I am far smarter than you will ever be! You think 120 ppm of co2 Carrie’s more heat than the sun! That’s ridiculous


carries?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> LOLOLOL.
> 
> Seriously, what are you, associates degree...MAYBE?  Something simple suiting a simpleton?
> 
> ...


Common sense


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Brought out and paraded around to create doubt in the science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*But it's not!  CFC's are very good at what they do. *

Very good and very cheap. That helped get them replaced, the manufacturers made good money on the new ones. 

*It isn't impossible. Clearly humanity existed for thousands of years prior to industrialization.*

Greens should definitely run on that. Use the Flintstones.

*We need to seriously work on renewables and non-GHG energy (yeah, including nuclear).*

You should tell your team. 

*And if we REALLY want to put the screws to China that's really simple!  Just stop buying things.  Pretty much everything, but yeah, just stop buying stuff.  *

Careful, you sound a bit Trumpian.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> carries?


Don’t tell me you aren’t familiar with absorbing?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> The 14-C bit is correct.  But 12-C and 13-C are fractionated by the plants that created the coal.  Plants in general tend to prefer lighter 12-C isotopes to the heavier 13-C and so they preferentially enrich it in 12-C.
> 
> Now, the question you and I both seem unclear on is:  does catagenesis or diagenesis alter that?  I am uncertain but it won't necessarily change the original phrase "vegetal and fossil fuels" because burning regular vegetation should, if I'm understanding the fractionation properly, lead to a general increase in 12-C content in atmospheric carbon.
> 
> ...


Glad we agree on the C-14 stuff. You lose me with the rest. You seem stuck on coal being the definitive "fossil" fuel. It doesn't work that way for me. Perhaps if you could share a source or two discussing the matter as you see it we could better see eye to eye on this.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Careful, you sound a bit Trumpian.



Not if you read my post closely.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Common sense



Ahhhhhhahahahahahaha!  That's what ever dumbass in the trailer park says.  LOL.

Let me know when you get your GED, Cletus.


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

Stann said:


> Are you talking about highs and lows in barometric pressure ?





jc456 said:


> Indeed, smarter.
> 
> Still waiting on how a high pressure system can be next to low pressure system with the same amount of co2? You ran


https://scied.ucar>leafning-zone The highs and lows of air pressure/center for scientific education. At low pressure or high temperature there will be fewer air molecules in the sample chamber, so there will be fewer CO2 molecules, even though the PPM doesn't change.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Stann said:


> https://scied.ucar>leafning-zone The highs and lows of air pressure/center for scientific education. At low pressure or high temperature there will be fewer air molecules in the sample chamber, so there will be fewer CO2 molecules, even though the PPM doesn't change.


I thought co2 drove temperatures?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Ahhhhhhahahahahahaha!  That's what ever dumbass in the trailer park says.  LOL.
> 
> Let me know when you get your GED, Cletus.


I’ll take common sense over master degree all the time. How many years of school does it take to get that master degree and number of loans?  Oh wait Creepy joe will forgive!!! Ahhh


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I thought co2 drove temperatures?


Radiation from the Sun heats our planet. Most of it bounces right back out into space after it hits the Earth. CO2 interferes with that process and deflecks i some of that escaping radiation back to the Earth again. That's why temperatures are rising all around the world. To the ordinary person it seems miniscule and is occurring at a slow rate. But in the chronology of Earth's time it's increasing rapidly and altering our climate I live in the Nebraska, what was called tornado Alley. The increases in temperature equate to increases in the power and variability of the weather patterns. I don't think we're in tornado Alley anymore, it's been shifted East several hundred miles and now places like Mississippi Alabama Tennessee Kentucky are having all the tornadoes they might be the new tornado Alley. Power has the ability to move things and we keep giving Earth's climate patterns more and more power.


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I’ll take common sense over master degree all the time. How many years of school does it take to get that master degree and number of loans?  Oh wait Creepy joe will forgive!!! Ahhh


Wouldn't America be great if success and power did not depend on money but hard work and the will to do better. Remove those barriers and America will take a quantum leap into the future.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2022)

Stann said:


> That's why temperatures are rising all around the world


Where are temperatures rising? Not here in Chicago. In fact, it’s gotten cooler


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Where are temperatures rising? Not here in Chicago. In fact, it’s gotten cooler


Since 1901 the average surface temperature in the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.17° Fahrenheit per decade. ( That's warp speed in chronological time of the Earth ) Worldwide, 2010 was the warmest year on record, 20/20 was the second warmest and 2012 through 2021 was the warmest decade ever recorded. Chicago maybe an exception I don't know. There are exceptions to every rule, but overall temperatures are increasing all over the world and unfortunately that's not going to change anytime soon no matter what we do. We still might have time to avoid the worst of the changes if we act now, but time is running out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Stann said:


> Radiation from the Sun heats our planet. Most of it bounces right back out into space after it hits the Earth. CO2 interferes with that process and deflecks i some of that escaping radiation back to the Earth again. That's why temperatures are rising all around the world. To the ordinary person it seems miniscule and is occurring at a slow rate. But in the chronology of Earth's time it's increasing rapidly and altering our climate I live in the Nebraska, what was called tornado Alley. The increases in temperature equate to increases in the power and variability of the weather patterns. I don't think we're in tornado Alley anymore, it's been shifted East several hundred miles and now places like Mississippi Alabama Tennessee Kentucky are having all the tornadoes they might be the new tornado Alley. Power has the ability to move things and we keep giving Earth's climate patterns more and more power.



*Radiation from the Sun heats our planet. Most of it bounces right back out into space after it hits the Earth. *

Most of it bounces back into space?
Is that your final answer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Stann said:


> Since 1901 the average surface temperature in the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.17° Fahrenheit per decade. ( That's warp speed in chronological time of the Earth )



What was the average rate every decade from 400 AD to present?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I’ll take common sense over master degree all the time.



Of course you will!  Because you couldn't hack a Masters degree!  LOL.  



jc456 said:


> How many years of school does it take to get that master degree and number of loans?  Oh wait Creepy joe will forgive!!! Ahhh



LOL.  You don't even know what you are talking about here!  LOLOL.

It's SO FUNNY seeing people like you struggle to understand academia!  I mean HILARIOUS.

You simpleton.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I thought co2 drove temperatures?



-sigh-

It is one of MANY factors that drive temperatures.

is there ANYTHING in the world that you understand?  Or are you in a special home somewhere?


----------



## Stann (Sep 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I thought co2 drove temperatures?


You are getting a lot of good basic ideas from several different people on here, but what you really need is a basic knowledge of the subject matter. And guess what, you can get it free online. There are many sites you can Google, here's just one of them. Discover, review and discuss the best courses on the web>topic The best free meteorology courses online-Coursearena. Good luck.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 11, 2022)

basquebromance said:


> we need something like, well, a PLAN...or a NEW DEAL
> 
> GREEN NEW DEAL!


The best way I see to guarantee this is representing and protecting equal rights of all people,
is to orchestrate a separate administration and policy where those reps are elected by the people,
a mirror or parallel structure to Congress but all GREEN focused, like the Green party would organize
by district state and region/issue. Why expect the same reps to be experts on environment and energy policies?
Why not have a separate network just for that and run conventions democratically?


----------



## Stann (Sep 11, 2022)

emilynghiem said:


> The best way I see to guarantee this is representing and protecting equal rights of all people,
> is to orchestrate a separate administration and policy where those reps are elected by the people,
> a mirror or parallel structure to Congress but all GREEN focused, like the Green party would organize
> by district state and region/issue. Why expect the same reps to be experts on environment and energy policies?
> Why not have a separate network just for that and run conventions democratically?


Address and climate change should not be a political matte, it affects all of us.  I agree with that. But rather than form a whole another infrastructure that's just say x amount of dollars a year will address the issue and it can't be  increased or curtailed by a political party or used for any other purpose.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)




----------



## buttercup (Sep 12, 2022)

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again.  Those who genuinely care about truth will want to learn the history of the whole thing. Those who only care about politics and winning an argument? I'm sure they'll turn a blind eye. 

This documentary exposes and destroys the orchestrated lie of "climate change," which is just another fearmongering pretext for bringing about political agendas. (Good ol' Problem - Reaction - Solution... which works every time, no wonder they keep using that tactic.) 

It's long, but the pertinent part is Part 2, so people can skip ahead to that. It starts at 36:24.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 12, 2022)

buttercup said:


> I've posted this before, but I'll post it again.  Those who genuinely care about truth will want to learn the history of the whole thing. Those who only care about politics and winning an argument? I'm sure they'll turn a blind eye.
> 
> This documentary exposes and destroys the orchestrated lie of "climate change," which is just another fearmongering pretext for bringing about political agendas. (Good ol' Problem - Reaction - Solution... which works every time, no wonder they keep using that tactic.)
> 
> It's long, but the pertinent part is Part 2, so people can skip ahead to that. It starts at 36:24.


Thanks. Interesting film. But no. It does nothing to destroy the fact of "climate change." Those paying attention pretty much knew all along that Big Oil was hogging the stage and lying its ass off. It is entirely possible for young, naïve heirs of oil fortunes to get conned themselves by eugenics promoting jerkoffs before growing increasingly self-centered, manipulative, bitter, and grabby with age. One can be excruciatingly correct about some things while full of beans regarding others.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


>


I don't get my news from extremists, but I see you do. I don't believe it serves a person very well. Piers Corbin / Piers Corbyn is an English weather forecaster, businessman, anti-vaxxer, climate change denier and conspiracy theorist. He speaks at haunted science denial events. I don't know what Twitter bots are, but his name came up with those too. With a warning that much of the disinformation about the science of climate change comes from Twitter bots. He must be one of those too.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> I don't get my news from extremists, but I see you do. I don't believe it serves a person very well. Piers Corbin / Piers Corbyn is an English weather forecaster, businessman, anti-vaxxer, climate change denier and conspiracy theorist. He speaks at haunted science denial events. I don't know what Twitter bots are, but his name came up with those too. With a warning that much of the disinformation about the science of climate change comes from Twitter bots. He must be one of those too.


There is a typo in the above that I didn't catch it's, " he speaks at climate science denial events. "  I do not know how my voice machine translator got haunted out of that.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> but I see you do



No l don’t. Before you jump to any subjective conclusions, and attack the messenger, why don’t you dispute his assertions in a civilised grownup way.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> No l don’t. Before you jump to any subjective conclusions, and attack the messenger, why don’t you dispute his assertions in a civilised grownup way.


Post 1,915. I did address it, gave it all the credit is due. I looked up the data on this character. That tells the whole story.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Post 1,915. I did address it, gave it all the credit is due. I looked up the data on this character. That tells the whole story.



What _whole _story?


----------



## Oddball (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> But rather than form a whole another infrastructure that's just say x amount of dollars a year will address the issue and it can't be  increased or curtailed by a political party or used for any other purpose.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Post 1,915. I did address it, gave it all the credit is due. I looked up the data on this character. That tells the whole story.


#1,915 is a run-on ad hominem attack, not a refutation of  any of the evidence he has presented.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Oddball said:


> #1,915 is a run-on ad hominem attack, not a refutation of  any of the evidence he has presented.



That’s what l meant.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> What _whole _story?


He's a confused person.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> He's a confused person.



So what?


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> So what?


There's enough nonsense in this world, I'm not going to waste time on it. Try to have a good day, I plan on it.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> There's enough nonsense in this world, I'm not going to waste time on it. Try to have a good day, I plan on it.



Seems to me you just want a gratuitous squabble. 

Goodbye.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> What _whole _story?





Mindful said:


> Seems to me you just want a gratuitous squabble.
> 
> Goodbye.


You are the one who presented this person has some kind of proof that climate change isn't happening. You failed to prove your point. Climate change is a fact, has been for hundreds of years we just didn't realize it.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are the one who presented this person has some kind of proof that climate change isn't happening. You failed to prove your point. Climate change is a fact, has been for hundreds of years we just didn't realize it.



Of course there’s climate change. How could there not be, given planet earth’s place in the cosmos?


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> Of course there’s climate change. How could there not be, given planet earth’s place in the cosmos?


I'll put this as simply as I can. I once had an aquarium. I enjoyed the two fish I had in it. It was easy upkeep, I only had to change the filter about once a month. I thought I'd add to it, I brought some more fish. I have to clean the filter twice a month then. I had it even more fish, thought it would be great and wanted more color. They all died. Think of the earth as an aquarium and people as the fish that are polluting the waters. The Earth has systems in place that naturally clean it but if they become overwhelmed then things start to go awry. That is where we're at now. God's not to blame, we did this all by ourselves. It's not natural, even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels now for approximately 50 years in the future we will have increasing problems until they finally wane and the Earth gets back to its normal cycles. End of story. Like I said have a good day. Goodbye.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'll put this as simply as I can. I once had an aquarium. I enjoyed the two fish I had in it. It was easy upkeep, I only had to change the filter about once a month. I thought I'd add to it, I brought some more fish. I have to clean the filter twice a month then. I had it even more fish, thought it would be great and wanted more color. They all died. Think of the earth as an aquarium and people as the fish that are polluting the waters. The Earth has systems in place that naturally clean it but if they become overwhelmed then things start to go awry. That is where we're at now. God's not to blame, we did this all by ourselves. It's not natural, even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels now for approximately 50 years in the future we will have increasing problems until they finally wane and the Earth gets back to its normal cycles. End of story. Like I said have a good day. Goodbye.



You think you’re greater than the planet? Than G-d Himself?

The planet has the power to destroy itself.

Krakatoa changed the climate for 100 years.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 12, 2022)

It should go without saying but while in a tent full of denial clowns, terms such as "ACC" (or anthropomorphic climate change) and AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) are unfortunately required to fend off gratuitous responses minimally consisting of: 


Mindful said:


> Of course there’s climate change.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> It should go without saying but while in a tent full of denial clowns, terms such as "ACC" (or anthropomorphic climate change) and AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) are unfortunately required to fend off gratuitous responses minimally consisting of:



Is that an ad hom?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> The Earth has systems in place that naturally clean it but if they become overwhelmed then things start to go awry. That is where we're at now.



Those systems didn't work when CO2 levels were multiples of current levels?

Everything died?


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> You think you’re greater than the planet? Than G-d Himself?
> 
> The planet has the power to destroy itself.
> 
> Krakatoa changed the climate for 100 years.


I never said anything of the kind. I'm done here with you. I can only listen to nonsense for so long and lies finish the deal. Goodbye and I no longer wish you a good day. Suffer through it as you suffer through life. I may be old but every day I have left here is one to enjoy and rejoice for. Not to waste on the likes of you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> It should go without saying but while in a tent full of denial clowns, terms such as "ACC" (or anthropomorphic climate change) and AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) are unfortunately required to fend off gratuitous responses minimally consisting of:



What's the difference between a natural hurricane and an ACC hurricane?


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> to waste on the likes of you.



The likes of me? You don’t even know me.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> The likes of me? You don’t even know me.


You are depending a nonsensical point of view. You just lied about me. I know all I want to know about you.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are depending a nonsensical point of view. You just lied about me. I know all I want to know about you.



It seems to me you are enjoying this.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Since 1901 the average surface temperature in the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.17° Fahrenheit per decade. ( That's warp speed in chronological time of the Earth ) Worldwide, 2010 was the warmest year on record, 20/20 was the second warmest and 2012 through 2021 was the warmest decade ever recorded. Chicago maybe an exception I don't know. There are exceptions to every rule, but overall temperatures are increasing all over the world and unfortunately that's not going to change anytime soon no matter what we do. We still might have time to avoid the worst of the changes if we act now, but time is running out.


naw, see that's with in statistical error so you can't use it as a gain.  All you need to do is produce the data.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are depending a nonsensical point of view. You just lied about me. I know all I want to know about you.


your entire point is nonsensical.  See how that works.  you do it, and I can do it.  The thing is, you can't prove yours.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> Is that an ad hom?



No.  An _argumentum ad hominem_ would be if the poster were to respond to a point you made by simply suggesting that you are not to be trusted or some other non-topic-related thing about you, personally.

Ad hominem is NOT the same as an insult.  An ad hominem is a fallacy in which the content of the point is ignored and the topic is shifted over to "the person" making the comment.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's the difference between a natural hurricane and an ACC hurricane?



1) It is irrational to take one weather event and attribute it solely to AGW.  It could be natural variability.  That is why it is necessary to see if there is a TREND in the number and/or severity etc of weather event*s*

2) A hurricane made worse by AGW would be worse than if AGW weren't real.  (The answer to the facile question of the poster)

Hope this helps.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> 1) It is irrational to take one weather event and attribute it solely to AGW.  It could be natural variability.  That is why it is necessary to see if there is a TREND in the number and/or severity etc of weather event*s*
> 
> 2) A hurricane made worse by AGW would be worse than if AGW weren't real.  (The answer to the facile question of the poster)
> 
> Hope this helps.


that seems like a circular argument.  You dizzy yet?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> You think you’re greater than the planet? Than G-d Himself?



SOrry to break it to you but humanity already has within it's power the ability to decimate all life on earth.  That makes us exactly as powerful as God in the story of Noah.



Mindful said:


> Krakatoa changed the climate for 100 years.



Yes, and since we KNOW when volcanoes erupt we know if one is causing problems.  In fact the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo *gave the climate scientists a chance to test their estimate of CO2 climate sensitivity and it held up!!!!*

Also: volcanoes in any given year put out far less CO2 than humans.

So volcanoes are extremely helpful to show us how AGW is real but they also are dwarfed by human production of greenhouse gases.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> that seems like a circular argument.  You dizzy yet?



It isn't.

The second point (#2) was a tautology because the question about a regular hurricane and an ACC Hurricane was stupid and facile and didn't deserve an actual thoughtful response because there was none to be had.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yes, and since we KNOW when volcanoes erupt we know if one is causing problems. In fact the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo *gave the climate scientists a chance to test their estimate of CO2 climate sensitivity and it held up!!!!*


post that link then.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> It isn't.
> 
> The second point (#2) was a tautology because the question about a regular hurricane and an ACC Hurricane was stupid and facile and didn't deserve an actual thoughtful response because there was none to be had.


sure it is.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> It seems to me you are enjoying this.


For you to say that, and keep replying nonsensically, when the discussion is over before it even begins, tells me that you are also a troll and you get your jollies out of this. Good luck with that, I do not share your enjoyment about nonsense.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> For you to say that, and keep replying nonsensically, when the discussion is over before it even begins, tells me that you are also a troll and you get your jollies out of this. Good luck with that, I do not share your enjoyment about nonsense.



I wouldn’t dream of trolling you.

How could you be so hurtful?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> post that link then.



Here ya go!



			https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005557


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> post that link then.


Krakatoa was one of the most documented eruptions in history. The eruption disrupted Earth's weather patterns for 2 years afterwards. Iceland, for example, is usually ice free in the summer. Iceland went into a little ice age and was not ice-free for those two years. I believe some people starved to death there because of it. But the long-term affect was negligible; unlike mankind's continual pollution of the atmosphere. That is adversely affecting our climate and has accumulating adverse affects on us all.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> I wouldn’t dream of trolling you.
> 
> How could you be so hurtful?


By continuing to post me you are still trolling. LOL. I think I should put you on ignore, but I like to see how you will continue this conversation you troll. Please don't I've had enough nonsense for today.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> 
> 
> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005557


Now he'll ask some other stupid question or deny the article.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Krakatoa was one of the most documented eruptions in history. The eruption disrupted Earth's weather patterns for 2 years afterwards. Iceland, for example, is usually ice free in the summer. Iceland went into a little ice age and was not ice-free for those two years. I believe some people starved to death there because of it. But the long-term affect was negligible; unlike mankind's continual pollution of the atmosphere. That is adversely affecting our climate and has accumulating adverse affects on us all.


ok, well post the data from those people who proved whatever the fk you stated.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Now he'll ask some other stupid question or deny the article.


_[3] An alternative that has been suggested is to use comparisons between the modeled and observed effects of volcanic eruptions for model validation and estimation of the climate sensitivity [Hansen et al., 1993; Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998]. There are a number of difficulties with this approach, as articulated by Lindzen and Giannitsis [1998, hereinafter referred to as LG98]. First, even for the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (June 1991) where satellite data have provided us with detailed information on the properties and distribution of the volcanic aerosol, there are still substantial discrepancies between different estimates of the forcing [see, e.g., Santer et al., 2001]. Uncertainties in the forcings for earlier eruptions are necessarily larger. Model-based signals therefore have considerable intrinsic uncertainty, even for results from a single model. Second, there is a signal-to-noise ratio problem. Since the relevant response is on a monthly timescale and since the response to an individual eruption decays to a negligible amount after less than a decade, the noise of internally generated variability makes it difficult to define the response signal in the observations (although some of these noise influences, such as the effects of El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability, may be removed by empirical methods; see section 5). Third, short-timescale forcing events (spanning 5 years or less) are less sensitive to ΔT2x than longer-timescale processes. If the response is relatively insensitive to ΔT2x, then it becomes much more difficult to back out information about ΔT2x from any model/observed data comparison. Fourth, the sensitivity may depend on the nature of the forcing and its spatial distribution [Wigley, 1994; Joshi et al., 2003]; we assume here that any such dependence is within the uncertainties of an empirical sensitivity estimate._

how?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Now he'll ask some other stupid question or deny the article.


Naw, I'll prove your link doesn't prove what you said.  see my post.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> ok, well post the data from those people who proved whatever the fk you stated.


Here we go again. You are actually on the internet it whether you know it or not, use it. It's a simple task, even you should be able to do it. Try to have a good day. I plan on it.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> By continuing to post me you are still trolling. LOL. I think I should put you on ignore, but I like to see how you will continue this conversation you troll. Please don't I've had enough nonsense for today.


But you’re not trolling me?

Oh the conceit.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Here we go again. You are actually on the internet it whether you know it or not, use it. It's a simple task, even you should be able to do it. Try to have a good day. I plan on it.


If it was so simple, why didn't you just provide it as per how the board works in here?


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> But you’re not trolling me?
> 
> Oh the conceit.


By all means, pitiful you!


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> If it was so simple, why didn't you just provide it as per how the board works in here?


You are a troll we prove that last time goodbye


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are a troll we prove that last time goodbye


I expect people who post in here to follow the rules.  And I'm the troll.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are a troll we prove that last time goodbye



Lovin’ it.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


Like I said, the mountain of evidence is so great, that anyone arguing there is no climate change, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I expect people who post in here to follow the rules.  And I'm the troll.


You and mindful May the same mistake. You both attempted to say I enjoyed all these incessant, nonsensical posts that's something only a troll could say. You can't even admit to who you are. You're going to have a lot of problems in life. Good luck with that. Reality / truth is always the best basis for a good life.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

Mindful said:


> Lovin’ it.


Says the troll. Only something a troll could say.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Says the troll. Only something a troll could say.



I thought we were done. 

Couldn’t you at least call me a trolless?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> 1) It is irrational to take one weather event and attribute it solely to AGW.  It could be natural variability.  That is why it is necessary to see if there is a TREND in the number and/or severity etc of weather event*s*
> 
> 2) A hurricane made worse by AGW would be worse than if AGW weren't real.  (The answer to the facile question of the poster)
> 
> Hope this helps.



*It is irrational to take one weather event and attribute it solely to AGW. *

But that's the entire green handbook.
There's a wildfire....AGW
There's a flood....AGW
There's a drought....AGW
There's a hurricane....AGW

*That is why it is necessary to see if there is a TREND in the number and/or severity etc of weather events*

After Katrina the greens said it was just the beginning, killer hurricanes were gonna
batter the US. When was the next serious hurricane?

*A hurricane made worse by AGW would be worse than if AGW weren't real. *

How many MPH faster were the winds of the last hurricane due to AGW?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> Like I said, the mountain of evidence is so great, that anyone arguing there is no climate change, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.


the mountains of evidence that turned into a valley since none can ever be presented.  Models are not evidence.  I know your IQ won't allow that to sink in.  But it is what it is.  I will stand on my firm ground that you cannot present one piece of evidence that man can heat the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Krakatoa was one of the most documented eruptions in history. The eruption disrupted Earth's weather patterns for 2 years afterwards. Iceland, for example, is usually ice free in the summer. Iceland went into a little ice age and was not ice-free for those two years. I believe some people starved to death there because of it. But the long-term affect was negligible; unlike mankind's continual pollution of the atmosphere. That is adversely affecting our climate and has accumulating adverse affects on us all.



Cooling is much worse than warming.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How so? Link?



Sure!  I gave it here:



Paracetamol63 said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> 
> 
> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005557


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It is irrational to take one weather event and attribute it solely to AGW. *
> 
> But that's the entire green handbook.
> There's a wildfire....AGW
> ...



But it isn't how the professionals approach it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Now he'll ask some other stupid question or deny the article.


By the way, Krakatoa, was not mentioned in that link.  Just saying.  It's strange that the troll outsmarts the nontroll huh?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cooling is much worse than warming.



Why?  You must know there are some plants you rely on for food that won't grow in a warmer temperature.  Some of them actually need cooler temps from time to time.

Any claims that warm < cool or cool rules vs warmth is not a sufficiently technical position since it ignores how plants work.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But it isn't how the professionals approach it.


name a professional and let us check it out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Sure!  I gave it here:



Climate sensitivity to ash proves that their CO2 sensitivity claims are correct?

Tell me more!


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> the mountains of evidence that turned into a valley since none can ever be presented.  Models are not evidence.  I know your IQ won't allow that to sink in.  But it is what it is.  I will stand on my firm ground that you cannot present one piece of evidence that man can heat the planet.


You are a fossil fuel whore!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> s you rely on for food that won't grow in a warmer temperature.


which ones?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But it isn't how the professionals approach it.



But that's how the greens approach it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Why?  You must know there are some plants you rely on for food that won't grow in a warmer temperature.  Some of them actually need cooler temps from time to time.
> 
> Any claims that warm < cool or cool rules vs warmth is not a sufficiently technical position since it ignores how plants work.



And there are some plants that die if it gets too cold.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You are a fossil fuel whore!


So nothing as I stated would you present.

BTW, I exist thanks to fossil fuels.  
It's amazing you don't know that.  wow.  
You must have missed out on that education huh.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So nothing as I stated would you present.
> 
> BTW, I exist thanks to fossil fuels.
> It's amazing you don't know that.  wow.
> You must have missed out on that education huh.


I don't give a shit what you are thankful for.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And there are some plants that die if it gets too cold.



Yes!  So you can't just go thinking that warming is obviously ALWAYS preferable.  Sometimes it is NOT.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But that's how the greens approach it.



I honestly don't care what regular folks say on the topic.  I don't even care about Al Gore.  I'm really only interested in what the professionals are thinking.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> which ones?



Ummm, I thought you were going to respond when you demanded the citation for the volcano point.  You didn't when I provided the citation.

Can we stick with one topic at a time?  You need to continue your point about the volcano citation I provided (Mt. PInatubo)

Thanks


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yes!  So you can't just go thinking that warming is obviously ALWAYS preferable.  Sometimes it is NOT.



Sometimes warming is better?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Now he'll ask some other stupid question or deny the article.



He went ahead and simply ignored.

I don't understand why people think they can demand demand demand and then never do anything with it.

It's almost like it's a game to them.   They aren't really interested in the topic (and the paper would be far too complex for the other poster to understand anyway, so I "get" that part of it).


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sometimes warming is better?



Possibly.  Not universally, though.

Why would you assume that?  Have you ever grown a garden at your home?  You surelyl must know that not all plants like heat and some don't like cold.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I honestly don't care what regular folks say on the topic.  I don't even care about Al Gore.  I'm really only interested in what the professionals are thinking.



Maybe you should stop complaining when I point out the errors in what regular folks say?

People will think you care.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Possibly. Not universally, though.



Don't tell the regular folks.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> I don't give a shit what you are thankful for.


Well you wouldn’t be alive without fossil fuel.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Ummm, I thought you were going to respond when you demanded the citation for the volcano point.  You didn't when I provided the citation.
> 
> Can we stick with one topic at a time?  You need to continue your point about the volcano citation I provided (Mt. PInatubo)
> 
> Thanks


I provided a quote from your link, it went to Stann but you can read it.  It doesn’t make your point.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yes!  So you can't just go thinking that warming is obviously ALWAYS preferable.  Sometimes it is NOT.


Do healthy pipes burst in warm weather or in cold?


----------



## BothWings (Sep 12, 2022)

Because liberal elitists at Harvard tell us so. DUH!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I provided a quote from your link, it went to Stann but you can read it.  It doesn’t make your point.


You deliberately ripped a snippet out of its required context and stupidly asked "why?" as if you didn't already know. Just be honest for once and admit you get paid to troll for Big Oil. You'll live longer freed of that guilt at least. 


> 6. Conclusions​[35] We have defined the response to 20th century volcanic forcing on the basis of simulations with the NCAR/USDOE parallel climate model (PCM). In total, there are 16 simulations that include volcanic forcing. These multiple realizations allow us to reduce the noise due to internally generated variability by 65% and to produce a much more well defined volcano response signature than can be seen in a single realization.


-More-


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Address and climate change should not be a political matte, it affects all of us.  I agree with that. But rather than form a whole another infrastructure that's just say x amount of dollars a year will address the issue and it can't be  increased or curtailed by a political party or used for any other purpose.


Thanks Stann: For longterm environmental restoration, and for sustainable energy development,
no these problems aren't going to be solved on a yearly quota basis.

I can foresee consortiums meetings and setting up budgets and longterm projections for
what it will take to solve problems, per site and case.

Restoring wildlife in the Gulf or restabilizing ecosystem populations so they are back on track
is going to take generations of replenishment.

I would say California could refinance their entire state budget by assessing the cost over 20-30 or 50 years
to do the work to restore forest and ocean ecosystems. And create educational internships for longterm
studies to monitor the natural populations.  If the cost for each project is added up, then apply that cost
as the VALUE of that land, California could use this foundation as the basis of monetary credit. And bank
against the true cost of maintaining that land, and let that be their state Reserve system for currency.

So based on the true land value where the natural resources are included as the basis of the economic value,
then that can be counted as capital or equity to base the system of paying for the work and studies to be
done. Students can earn their education while doing public service, and get paid internships and jobs that
are sustainable.

If each area is mapped out for longterm costs of solving problems and creating "sustainable jobs and economy"
then the currency should follow that budget for the labor and time it will involve.

Not the other way.

If you set up the value of the currency based on destroying environment and just using commercial value of time and goods,
then this will be in conflict with the value based on preserving the natural resources as the basis of services, capital and credit.

I recommend looking into what will solve the problems first.
Then base the economy on what work, jobs and services can be sustained.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

emilynghiem said:


> I would say California could refinance their entire state budget by assessing the cost over 20-30 or 50 years
> to do the work to restore forest and ocean ecosystems. And create educational internships for longterm
> studies to monitor the natural populations. If the cost for each project is added up, then apply that cost
> as the VALUE of that land, California could use this foundation as the basis of monetary credit. And bank
> against the true cost of maintaining that land, and let that be their state Reserve system for currency.



You want California to issue their own currency?


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

jc456 said:


> By the way, Krakatoa, was not mentioned in that link.  Just saying.  It's strange that the troll outsmarts the nontroll huh?


I wasn't talking about the article, I use my own specific example out of memory.


----------



## Stann (Sep 12, 2022)

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks Stann: For longterm environmental restoration, and for sustainable energy development,
> no these problems aren't going to be solved on a yearly quota basis.
> 
> I can foresee consortiums meetings and setting up budgets and longterm projections for
> ...


Unfortunately in the end I don't think people will act until they are forced to act and that means it's going to get very bad before it'll start getting better. People keep saying how much is it going to cost if they do it, they never asked the obvious question how much is it going to cost if they don't do it.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Well you wouldn’t be alive without fossil fuel.


You know, whenI first started driving, gas was 29 cents a gallon.


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You know, whenI first started driving, gas was 29 cents a gallon.


The lowest I ever paid was $0.38 a gallon back in PA in the 1960s. I wonder what the final cost of gas will be when it's about to run out. Probably $25 a gallon.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 13, 2022)

Stann said:


> The lowest I ever paid was $0.38 a gallon back in PA in the 1960s. I wonder what the final cost of gas will be when it's about to run out. Probably $25 a gallon.


I'm afraid you're more right than wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You know, whenI first started driving, gas was 29 cents a gallon.


What heated your house?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2022)

Stann said:


> The lowest I ever paid was $0.38 a gallon back in PA in the 1960s. I wonder what the final cost of gas will be when it's about to run out. Probably $25 a gallon.


It will never run out fool! If the core stops we’re dead anyway!


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> I'm afraid you're more right than wrong.


MET Group>when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out?-MET Group January 18th., 2021 50 years may seem far off, but in order to change such a huge system over to renewables, it really isn't. I'm sure most Americans are not ready to let go of their has guzzling automobiles. Change is the only constant in life. And nothing in life comes with guarantees.


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> It will never run out fool! If the core stops we’re dead anyway!


What are you talking about ? The Saudi oil fields are more than 50% depleted now. Even including the yet untouched potential oil fields in the Arctic, oil is due to run out in 51 years at the most. China and India are using more oil than we are now. So that 50 years is probably shrinking at the moment. 50 years is in a long time to switch over everything to renewable energy sources. But I think we'll get the job done. Human beings hate going without.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2022)

Stann said:


> What are you talking about ? The Saudi oil fields are more than 50% depleted now. Even including the yet untouched potential oil fields in the Arctic, oil is due to run out in 51 years at the most. China and India are using more oil than we are now. So that 50 years is probably shrinking at the moment. 50 years is in a long time to switch over everything to renewable energy sources. But I think we'll get the job done. Human beings hate going without.


Who told you that?


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Who told you that?


It's common knowledge. See Post number 2005.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2022)

Stann said:


> It's common knowledge. See Post number 2005.


Hahaha hahaha what kind of crazy


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> It will never run out fool! If the core stops we’re dead anyway!


Do you think there's some kind of connection to the Earth's core with the amount of fossil fuels on the planet ? Just asking because it's a odd statement.


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Hahaha hahaha what kind of crazy


For the past 30 years 90 trillion barrels of oil were taken off of the Saudi oil fields. Did you actually think they'd last forever ? Fossil fuels take millions of years to develop. Coal for example, dead plant material decomposes / rots down into lignite in less than 100 years. When midnight deposits get buried and compressed for millions of years they become the bituminous coal  ( soft dirty coal ) if it is further compressed and heat apply to it due to igneous activity in a few more million years it becomes anthracite coal ( hard, clean coal ) if it is subjected to even more igneous activity and more pressure the final product is diamonds.


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Hahaha hahaha what kind of crazy


This is the reason everyone is switching over to renewables now they don't want to get caught with their pants down. All the big automobile companies know this and they are preparing for the future when there will be no gasoline powered vehicles produced anymore. These hybrid models are a halfway solution. They will eventually give away to others based on renewable energy sources.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2022)

Stann said:


> For the past 30 years 90 trillion barrels of oil were taken off of the Saudi oil fields. Did you actually think they'd last forever ? Fossil fuels take millions of years to develop. Coal for example, dead plant material decomposes / rots down into lignite in less than 100 years. When midnight deposits get buried and compressed for millions of years they become the bituminous coal  ( soft dirty coal ) if it is further compressed and heat apply to it due to igneous activity in a few more million years it becomes anthracite coal ( hard, clean coal ) if it is subjected to even more igneous activity and more pressure the final product is diamonds.


I explained it to you.


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I explained it to you.


You explained what to me ? In one post you replied, " it will never run out fool ! If the core stops were dead anyway. " In the only other post tonight where we exchanged ideas you said, " Hahaha hahaha what kind of crazy ".  These statements don't explain anything. In fact, they reflect poorly on you.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2022)

Stann said:


> You explained what to me ? In one post you replied, " it will never run out fool ! If the core stops were dead anyway. " In the only other post tonight where we exchanged ideas you said, " Hahaha hahaha what kind of crazy ".  These statements don't explain anything. In fact, they reflect poorly on you.


Thanks! We can’t run out!! What else you need


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Thanks! We can’t run out!! What else you need


We can't run out of what ?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2022)

Stann said:


> We can't run out of what ?


What we were discussing. You already forgot? Wow


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> What we were discussing. You already forgot? Wow


One way to earn respect and integrity is to be more forthcoming in your answers. I explained to you that we will run out of oil, it's only a matter of time. Whether it's 50 years from now or 40 years from now it is going to happen there's no doubt about that and long before that happens the cost will be prohibitive to use like we're using now. I know it would be nice to believe that it will never run out but it's running out that's the truth you can accept it or not I don't really care have a good night.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2022)

Stann said:


> explained to you that we will run out of oil


I said we won’t run out. Then you asked of what. Who’s the asshole?


----------



## Stann (Sep 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I said we won’t run out. Then you asked of what. Who’s the asshole?


Something is very wrong with you. I know what you said but you're wrong. You can't argue with science. It took millions of years for the earth to produce all the oil and coal that exists. The human race is going to use it all up in less than 500 years. I never called your names I just questioned your replies. Which don't always make sense and have disconnected ideas in them. Things aren't looking good for your kid. Try to have a good night and get some help, the sooner the better.


----------



## ding (Sep 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Something is very wrong with you. I know what you said but you're wrong. You can't argue with science. It took millions of years for the earth to produce all the oil and coal that exists. The human race is going to use it all up in less than 500 years. I never called your names I just questioned your replies. Which don't always make sense and have disconnected ideas in them. Things aren't looking good for your kid. Try to have a good night and get some help, the sooner the better.


But he's in favor of widespread use of solar power because he doesn't believe it will have an adverse impact on the earth's climate so you should be friends with him.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Something is very wrong with you. I know what you said but you're wrong. You can't argue with science. It took millions of years for the earth to produce all the oil and coal that exists. The human race is going to use it all up in less than 500 years. I never called your names I just questioned your replies. Which don't always make sense and have disconnected ideas in them. Things aren't looking good for your kid. Try to have a good night and get some help, the sooner the better.


You deserve what you get for trying to Converse with ONE-LINE Trolls. jc456's nonsense quips.
he is 100% empty vessel/RW harassment machine.
Ding and Toddster about as bad.
`


----------



## ding (Sep 14, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You deserve what you get for trying to Converse with ONE-LINE Trolls. 100% of jc456's nonsense quips.
> he is 100% empty vessel/RW harassment machine.
> Ding and Toddster about as bad.
> `


JC's on your side.  He loves solar power.  I hate solar power because I think it's a bad idea to reduce solar irradiance in the middle of an ice age.  He sees no problem with it.  He's on your side.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

ding said:


> JC's on your side.  He loves solar power.  I hate solar power because I think it's a bad idea to reduce solar irradiance in the middle of an ice age.  He sees no problem with it.  He's on your side.



*I think it's a bad idea to reduce solar irradiance in the middle of an ice age. *

How is reducing albedo over large areas "reducing solar irradiance"?

It appears you don't know what solar irradiance means.


----------



## ding (Sep 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I think it's a bad idea to reduce solar irradiance in the middle of an ice age. *
> 
> How is reducing albedo over large areas "reducing solar irradiance"?
> 
> It appears you don't know what solar irradiance means.


Kuck sez wut?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Something is very wrong with you. I know what you said but you're wrong. You can't argue with science. It took millions of years for the earth to produce all the oil and coal that exists. The human race is going to use it all up in less than 500 years. I never called your names I just questioned your replies. Which don't always make sense and have disconnected ideas in them. Things aren't looking good for your kid. Try to have a good night and get some help, the sooner the better.


LOL, dude, the demofks have you under their spell.  The earth is molten hot in the inners of the planet.  There will always be oil.  Always, as long as the core is burning.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 14, 2022)

ding said:


> JC's on your side.  He loves solar power.  I hate solar power because I think it's a bad idea to reduce solar irradiance in the middle of an ice age.  He sees no problem with it.  He's on your side.


Aww now ding, why'd you have to lie about me dude?  You know I'm not a solar guy or a windmill guy.  Not fking ever dude. You're the one promoting solar as a cooling device.  Wow.  What a change on the dime for you.  WTF happened?

Hey, Fk Solar Fk Wind.  Give me Nuclear.  Period!!!! Say I'm a solar lover again I'll call you out again. Fk I hate when people flat out lie because they lost an argument.  Fking Karenisk

BTW, ask anyone on either side of this my position.


----------



## ding (Sep 14, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Aww now ding, why'd you have to lie about me dude?  You know I'm not a solar guy or a windmill guy.  Not fking ever dude. You're the one promoting solar as a cooling device.  Wow.  What a change on the dime for you.  WTF happened?
> 
> Hey, Fk Solar Fk Wind.  Give me Nuclear.  Period!!!! Say I'm a solar lover again I'll call you out again. Fk I hate when people flat out lie because they lost an argument.  Fking Karenisk
> 
> BTW, ask anyone on either side of this my position.


Who in their right mind would want to cool the earth during an ice age?  

You're a fuckin' kuck.  Same as Todd.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 14, 2022)

ding said:


> Who in their right mind would want to cool the earth during an ice age?
> 
> You're a fuckin' kuck.  Same as Todd.


bring on the warm.  Again, you're confused with someone that isn't me dude.  I'm all about warming this fking planet.  Give me warm all fking day long.  Keep their ball sack cold.


----------



## Stann (Sep 14, 2022)

jc456 said:


> LOL, dude, the demofks have you under their spell.  The earth is molten hot in the inners of the planet.  There will always be oil.  Always, as long as the core is burning.


Oil has nothing to do with the core of the Earth. You are certifiable if you believe that.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 14, 2022)

Stann said:


> Oil has nothing to do with the core of the Earth. You are certifiable if you believe that.


you think it's dead dinosaurs don't you?  BTW, why is it we continue to find dinosaur bones if they turned into oil?


----------



## Stann (Sep 14, 2022)

jc456 said:


> you think it's dead dinosaurs don't you?  BTW, why is it we continue to find dinosaur bones if they turned into oil?


I never said that, I said it was mostly dead plant materials which is the truth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Aww now ding, why'd you have to lie about me dude?  You know I'm not a solar guy or a windmill guy.  Not fking ever dude. You're the one promoting solar as a cooling device.  Wow.  What a change on the dime for you.  WTF happened?
> 
> Hey, Fk Solar Fk Wind.  Give me Nuclear.  Period!!!! Say I'm a solar lover again I'll call you out again. Fk I hate when people flat out lie because they lost an argument.  Fking Karenisk
> 
> BTW, ask anyone on either side of this my position.



Pointing out his errors has got him so upset, he's turned into a liberal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

ding said:


> Who in their right mind would want to cool the earth during an ice age?



Who in their right mind thinks the lower albedo cools the Earth?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pointing out his errors has got him so upset, he's turned into a liberal.


I noticed that.  Scary disease.


----------



## ding (Sep 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who in their right mind thinks the lower albedo cools the Earth?


I guess you will just have to keep championing solar power.


----------



## ding (Sep 14, 2022)

jc456 said:


> bring on the warm.  Again, you're confused with someone that isn't me dude.  I'm all about warming this fking planet.  Give me warm all fking day long.  Keep their ball sack cold.


I can't hear you over your defending solar power, bro.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

ding said:


> I guess you will just have to keep championing solar power.



Solar power is mostly an expensive waste of time and money.

What it's not is a potential cause of global cooling.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 14, 2022)

Patagonia founder just donated the entire company, worth $3 billion, to fight climate change
					

Moving forward, Patagonia's profits that are not re-invested into the business will be donated to a group of nonprofit organizations fighting climate change.




					www.cnbc.com
				



Too bad 99% of billionaires do the exact opposite. They'll never really save us, you know. Still, it's nice to know that it wears on the conscience of some at least. Crumbs beat none.


----------



## ding (Sep 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What it's not is a potential cause of global cooling.


That's what greenies say.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

ding said:


> That's what greenies say.



That's what everyone who understands the FLoT says.


----------



## ding (Sep 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's what everyone who understands the FLoT says.


You're hilarious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

ding said:


> You're hilarious.



You're sad.


----------



## ding (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're sad.


Your obsessed with me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

ding said:


> Your obsessed with me.



Stop posting stupid physics errors and you'll never see me correct your stupid physics errors ever again.


----------



## ding (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stop posting stupid physics errors and you'll never see me correct your stupid physics errors ever again.


You already conceded that converting photons into electricity was responsible for the incremental cooler temperatures at six solar farms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

ding said:


> You already conceded that converting photons into electricity was responsible for the incremental cooler temperatures at six solar farms.



How much higher are the temperatures at point of use?
How much more energy is retained at 0.05 albedo than at 0.30 albedo?


----------



## ding (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much higher are the temperatures at point of use?
> How much more energy is retained at 0.05 albedo than at 0.30 albedo?


I'm happy with my victory of making you acknowledge the incrementally cooler temperatures at six solar farms was caused by converting photons into electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm happy with my victory of making you acknowledge the incrementally cooler temperatures at six solar farms was caused by converting photons into electricity.



I know, just like the incrementally cooler temperatures inside your fridge show 
you may trigger the next glacial cycle.


----------



## ding (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know


I know you know.  I taught it to you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I know you know.  I taught it to you.



Turn off your fridge, you're causing the next glacial cycle!!!


----------



## ding (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Turn off your fridge, you're causing the next glacial cycle!!!


I can't think of anything that would usher in the next glacial cycle better than replacing fossil fuels with solar. That would have to be the dumbest idea ever in the middle of an ice age.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

ding said:


> I can't think of anything that would usher in the next glacial cycle better than replacing fossil fuels with solar. That would have to be the dumbest idea ever in the middle of an ice age.



You had me with your first 3 words.


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You had me with your first 3 words.


I'm happy with my victory over you making you acknowledge the incrementally cooler temperatures at six solar farms was caused by converting photons into electricity.


----------



## Crick (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm happy with my victory over you making you acknowledge the incrementally cooler temperatures at six solar farms was caused by converting photons into electricity.
> 
> View attachment 696880


You already made this statement six posts back.  Did insufficient numbers take notice of it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm happy with my victory over you making you acknowledge the incrementally cooler temperatures at six solar farms was caused by converting photons into electricity.
> 
> View attachment 696880



And I'm happy to point out your continued ignorance of the FLoT.


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> You already made this statement six posts back.  Did insufficient numbers take notice of it?


I like repeating good news.  Sue me.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> You already conceded that converting photons into electricity was responsible for the incremental cooler temperatures at six solar farms.


what was the emissivity above those farms by the satellites?


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And I'm happy to point out your continued ignorance of the FLoT.


It's because of the FLoT that there was incremental cooling due to photons being converted into electricity.  Which you have already conceded.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You know, whenI first started driving, gas was 29 cents a gallon.


me too


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> It's because of the FLoT that there was incremental cooling due to photons being converted into electricity.  Which you have already conceded.



Some heat was moved from the farm to the city.
The heat wasn't prevented, it was delayed. Very slightly.
How will that trigger a new glacial cycle?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation


_The MYD11A2 results show constant emissivities before and after solar farm constructions because its land type classification algorithm is not aware of the presence of solar farms. _


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Some heat was moved from the farm to the city.
> The heat wasn't prevented, it was delayed. Very slightly.
> How will that trigger a new glacial cycle?


Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power.  So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat.  It's the same in both cases.  Which is not true for solar radiation.  There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels.  So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power.  So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat.  It's the same in both cases.  Which is not true for solar radiation.  There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels.  So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.


how does this new power get to the grid?


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> _The MYD11A2 results show constant emissivities before and after solar farm constructions because its land type classification algorithm is not aware of the presence of solar farms. _


So what?  What do you believe that means?





Differences of MODIS retrieved surface longwave properties averaged over four years before and after the construction of Six Solar Farms. (a) Band 29 Emissivity, (b) Band 31 Emissivity, (c) Band 32 Emissivity, (d) Daytime LST at 1:30pm local time; (e) Nighttime LST at 1:30am local time. Results from the MYD21A2 and MYD11A2 are shown in black and red, respectively. *Note that the MYD11A2 only provides emissivity retrievals for Band 31 and Band 32. Dots show the four-year averaged difference, and the value is calculated by subtracting the change over the solar farm by the mean change over the control fields. Each vertical bar represents*​


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how does this new power get to the grid?


The same way all power gets into the grid.  Incrementally there is no difference. 

Again... Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power. So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat. It's the same in both cases. Which is not true for solar radiation. There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels. So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> The same way all power gets into the grid. Incrementally there is no difference


You claimed waste energy. But is new energy not on the grid yet, technically you’re wrong


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> You claimed waste energy. But is new energy not on the grid yet, technically you’re wrong


Clearly you don't understand what incremental means in the context of replacing fossil fuels with solar.  I'm not sure I can help you understand this concept.  It may be beyond your means.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Clearly you don't understand what incremental means in the context of replacing fossil fuels with solar.  I'm not sure I can help you understand this concept.  It may be beyond your means.


You can’t since you have no idea


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> You can’t since you have no idea


I couldn't have explained it more clearly.  It's beyond your ability to comprehend.  

Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power. So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat. It's the same in both cases. Which is not true for solar radiation. There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels. So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.

If you can't comprehend this I can't help you.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> I couldn't have explained it more clearly.  It's beyond your ability to comprehend.
> 
> Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power. So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat. It's the same in both cases. Which is not true for solar radiation. There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels. So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.
> 
> If you can't comprehend this I can't help you.


So it’s magic to get the new energy to the grid? Hahaha.

Also, it has two lines, one to batteries and then to the grid. But you ignore that!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power.  So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat.  It's the same in both cases.  Which is not true for solar radiation.  There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels.  So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.



If you're changing your claim from, "using solar will trigger a new glacial cycle" to 
"ending fossil fuel use will trigger a new glacial cycle"  just say so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power.  So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat.  It's the same in both cases.  Which is not true for solar radiation.  There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels.  So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.



*So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.*

They didn't measure, "cooling relative to fossil fuels".

DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how does this new power get to the grid?



He knows using the electricity generates the same heat that was moved from the solar farm, but he still thinks stopping the photons from hitting the ground results in net cooling. Very strange.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He knows using the electricity generates the same heat that was moved from the solar farm, but he still thinks stopping the photons from hitting the ground results in net cooling. Very strange.


Exactly


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So it’s magic to get the new energy to the grid? Hahaha.
> 
> Also, it has two lines, one to batteries and then to the grid. But you ignore that!


It's beyond your ability to understand.


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.*
> 
> They didn't measure, "cooling relative to fossil fuels".
> 
> DURR


It's beyond your ability to understand.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> It's beyond your ability to understand.


How so?  are you saying there are no batteries?


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> How so?  are you saying there are no batteries?


I'm saying you don't have the ability to understand how replacing fossil fuels withe solar will have an incremental cooling effect because you can't comprehend that whatever silly losses or waste heat you are trying to discuss make no difference at all because waste heat is effectively the same for all electrical transmission and end uses regardless of the generating source.  The only thing that is incrementally different with replacing fossil fuels with solar is that the amount of photons striking the surface of the planet and producing heat is less with solar.  That's why I say you can't comprehend the concept of incremental.  It's beyond your intellectual capability.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm saying you don't have the ability to understand how replacing fossil fuels withe solar will have an incremental cooling effect because you can't comprehend that whatever silly losses or waste heat you are trying to discuss make no difference at all because waste heat is effectively the same for all electrical transmission and end uses regardless of the generating source.  The only thing that is incrementally different with replacing fossil fuels with solar is that the amount of photons striking the surface of the planet and producing heat is less with solar.  That's why I say you can't comprehend the concept of incremental.  It's beyond your intellectual capability.


I'd say, since it is Todd and me challenging you, that it's you who can't articulate what you're actually trying to say.  See, there is power in the cables that run to the batteries and then out of the batteries.  You can't seem to comprehend that is putting heat back into the atmosphere, waste heat or fking whatever you want to call it.  First off, it never existed until the panels were installed, so it isn't existing energy.


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I'd say, since it is Todd and me challenging you, that it's you who can't articulate what you're actually trying to say.  See, there is power in the cables that run to the batteries and then out of the batteries.  You can't seem to comprehend that is putting heat back into the atmosphere, waste heat or fking whatever you want to call it.  First off, it never existed until the panels were installed, so it isn't existing energy.


I articulated it just fine.  It's beyond your ability to comprehend what incremental means in the context of solar replacing fossil fuels.  Don't feel bad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> It's beyond your ability to understand.



I still understand enough to point out your errors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> whatever silly losses or waste heat you are trying to discuss make no difference at all because waste heat is effectively the same for all electrical transmission and end uses regardless of the generating source.



So the cooling at the solar farm isn't really net cooling? Wow!

Don't tell ding.


----------



## ding (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I still understand enough to point out your errors.


That's nice but I think your mom is going to come in with milk and cookies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> That's nice but I think your mom is going to come in with milk and cookies.



A reward for pointing out your idiocy? Cool!

I was happy to do it for free.


----------



## Stann (Sep 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power.  So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat.  It's the same in both cases.  Which is not true for solar radiation.  There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels.  So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.


I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. But if it's the simple matter that the ground temperature beneath the solar panels is now cooler. That's because the ground is now shaded by the solar panels it's that simple. More so in very hot arid areas. It's the whole reason people wear hats in hot sunny locations. To help cool them off. And as long as the solar panels are darker than the ground surface they are absorbing more of the solar energy in the ground did previously. It can be a win-win farmers can use the ground beneath the solar panels to grow crops better.


----------



## Crick (Sep 16, 2022)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


One of them signed the receipt.


----------



## ding (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> A reward for pointing out your idiocy? Cool!
> 
> I was happy to do it for free.


A reward for you agreeing with me that the incremental cooling affect was due to converting photons into electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

ding said:


> A reward for you agreeing with me that the incremental cooling affect was due to converting photons into electricity.



A reward for explaining the FLoT to you.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. But if it's the simple matter that the ground temperature beneath the solar panels is now cooler. That's because the ground is now shaded by the solar panels it's that simple. More so in very hot arid areas. It's the whole reason people wear hats in hot sunny locations. To help cool them off. And as long as the solar panels are darker than the ground surface they are absorbing more of the solar energy in the ground did previously. It can be a win-win farmers can use the ground beneath the solar panels to grow crops better.


So the transfer of energy doesn’t involve heat?


----------



## Stann (Sep 17, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So the transfer of energy doesn’t involve heat?


Solar radiation is what heats up our planet. I'm sure those panels are hot, anything that absorbs that much energy has to lose some to heat loss, nothing is 100% efficient. But I'm asking questions here I'm not that knowledgeable about it myself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Stann said:


> I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. But if it's the simple matter that the ground temperature beneath the solar panels is now cooler. That's because the ground is now shaded by the solar panels it's that simple. More so in very hot arid areas. It's the whole reason people wear hats in hot sunny locations. To help cool them off. And as long as the solar panels are darker than the ground surface they are absorbing more of the solar energy in the ground did previously. It can be a win-win farmers can use the ground beneath the solar panels to grow crops better.



Don't mention the increased airflow cooling the area, you'll ruin ding's glacial fantasy.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 19, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.*
> About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
> ...



ding "normal for interglacial" ... 'Goes up and down for 50 million years' ... etc



abu afak said:


> *How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural*
> https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...
> 
> *How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...*
> ...


----------



## Stann (Sep 19, 2022)

abu afak said:


> ding "normal for interglacial" ... 'Goes up and down for 50 million years' ... etc


Fortunately the scientific revolution helped create the industrial revolution. As early as 1881 suspicions of what was happening were confirmed by scientists. The process has continued unabated and now is serious.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 20, 2022)

abu afak said:


> ding "normal for interglacial" ... 'Goes up and down for 50 million years' ... etc





			Michael Mann finally loses in DC court – Behind The Black – Robert Zimmerman
		


_Michael Mann finally loses in DC court_​_June 24, 2020 9:16 am Robert Zimmerman
It took almost a decade, but the DC Superior Court has finally ruled against Michael Mann in his lawsuit against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn.
Mann had sued them for libel because they criticized his incompetent and fraudulent global warming research. They demanded evidence of damages, the court agreed and ordered Mann to produce that evidence. He has refused (for almost a decade) and the court has now finally decided that because of his refusal he must pay all the court courts, including Simberg’s and Steyn’s._

This is what you believe in?  hahahahahahahaha Has Mann turned in his data yet?  hahahahahhaahaha

Can't make up what a demofk believes.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 20, 2022)

Stann said:


> Fortunately the scientific revolution helped create the industrial revolution. As early as 1881 suspicions of what was happening were confirmed by scientists. The process has continued unabated and now is serious.


what was happening?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Michael Mann finally loses in DC court – Behind The Black – Robert Zimmerman
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He still owes for some legal judgements against him in Canada.

What a scumbag.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 20, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He still owes for some legal judgements against him in Canada.
> 
> What a scumbag.


I saw that in the link as well.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You want California to issue their own currency?


All states should manage their own resources and local currency or economy for their own citizens first, then reserve federal govt for only what is necessary for the whole nation.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 9, 2022)

emilynghiem said:


> All states should manage their own resources and local currency or economy for their own citizens first, then reserve federal govt for only what is necessary for the whole nation.


Climate change (and CO2 in the atmo) isn't 'local.'
It's warming Globally.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2022)

emilynghiem said:


> All states should manage their own resources and local currency or economy for their own citizens first, then reserve federal govt for only what is necessary for the whole nation.



50 local currencies? Why?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Climate change (and CO2 in the atmo) isn't 'local.'
> It's warming Globally.
> `


And yet you got nothing for China and India. Seems you’re at odds with yourself


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 50 local currencies? Why?


Couldn’t you imagine how that would work? Demofks are indeed fked in the head


----------



## abu afak (Oct 22, 2022)

Earth’s spin, tilt and orbit​



Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit Affect the amount of *solar energy* received by any particular region of the globe, depending on latitude, time of day, and time of year. *Small changes in the angle of Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit around the Sun Cause Changes in Climate over a span of 10,000 to 100,000 years, and are Not Causing climate change today.*

Daily changes in light and temperature are caused by the rotation of the Earth, and seasonal changes are caused by the tilt of the Earth. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the Earth is pulled by the gravitational forces of the Sun, Moon, and large planets in the solar system, primarily Jupiter and Saturn. Over long periods of time, the gravitational pull of other members of our solar system slowly change Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit. *Over approximately 100,000 – 400,000 years, gravitational forces slowly change Earth’s orbit between more circular and elliptical shapes, as indicated by the blue and yellow dashed ovals in the figure to the right.

Over 19,000 – 24,000 years, the direction of Earth’s tilt shifts (spins). Additionally, how much Earth’s axis is tilted towards or away from the Sun changes through time, over approximately 41,000 year cycles. Small changes in Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit over these long periods of time can change the amount of sunlight received (and therefore absorbed and re-radiated) *by different parts of the Earth. Over 10s to 100s of thousands of years, these small changes in the position of the Earth in relationship to the Sun can change the amount of solar radiation, also known as insolation, received by different parts of the Earth. In turn, changes in insolation over these long periods of time can change regional climates and the length and intensity of the seasons.*The Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit continue to change today, but do Not explain the Current Rapid climate change.*




Adapted from Universe Today.

Changes in insolation result in cycles of ice ages, during which ice sheets expand (glacial periods) and contract (interglacial periods). These patterns of ice ages, also called Milankovitch cycles, were predicted by the Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch. Milankovitch predicted that glacial periods occur during times of low summer insolation at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere, which would allow ice sheets to remain from year to year without melting. Subsequently, scientists have found extensive evidence of Milankovitch cycles preserved in the geologic record, especially in layers of sediment and fossils in ocean basins that preserve chemical changes in the ocean and atmosphere during glacial and interglacial periods. Although a major cause of change over long periods of time in the past, Earth’s spin, tilt and orbit changes so slowly that it is not a cause of global warming and climate change today.
Changes in Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit have affected the Earth system in the past on various scales. Some of these ways include:



Increasing or decreasing amount of sunlight that is *absorbed* by different areas of the surface of the Earth. This can affect Earth’s *temperature*.
Increasing or decreasing temperatures, which can alter the distribution of *snow and ice cover*. By increasing snow and ice cover, especially at high latitudes, the *reflection of sunlight* can increase, which in turn decreases the amount of light that is absorbed by Earth’s surface.
Changes in the Earth system that are affected by snow and ice cover, including the *carbon cycle*, and how much carbon (including the *greenhouse gas* carbon dioxide) is transferred between the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean.

'
Visit the *solar radiation* and *Earth’s energy budget* pages to learn more about how changes in the amount of energy in the Earth system can affect global processes and phenomena.



Earth's spin, tilt and orbit - Understanding Global Change​





 ugc.berkeley.edu
`


----------

