Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

[daveman]

You could boil water on the moon in the day, then deep-freeze it at night.

Same sun. Different atmosphere.

Gee, we would be so ****ed if somebody screwed with our atmosphere...wait!

Psssst! The moon doesn't have any atmosphere.

Atmosphere of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelope surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system – less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level.​

The point being made, is that the difference is the cause of Earth's atmosphere, not the sun, so it is reasonable to be concerned if it is being anthropogenicly changed.

Ummm...any difference in the behavior of liquids on Earth and on the Moon is due SOLELY to the presence or lack of atmosphere. Man's activities have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Period.

 

[daveman]

So how do you explain it? You know, the way that denialism is restricted to the right-wing fringe, while AGW science crosses all political boundaries all across the world.

But let me guess. You're going to invoke that favorite cult conspiracy, "THE WHOLE WORLD IS IN ON A SOCIALIST PLOT!".

New Survey: Half Of American Meteorologists Believe Global Warming Mostly Man-Made | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

A comprehensive survey has been conducted of the American Meteorological Society membership to elicit their views on global warming. Only 52% state that the warming is mostly anthropogenic.​

Then again, in February of this year:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims. . . .

More here:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

But the AGW cult believes that the only people qualified to hold opinions on AGW are...you guessed it!...AGW cultists.

If you don't agree that man is killing the planet and we must adopt world socialism, your opinion doesn't count.

 

[westwall]

According to that theory, any scientist can perform brain surgery without the requisite training and experience. Good luck with that.

You might want to check your bullshite statement.

No, but let's look at reality. A PhD geologist for example can teach any climatology class, both under grad and graduate level. There are third year geology classes that are beyond a PhD in climatology. It's as simple as that.

Climatology is a soft science. Geology is a hard science, or it's an EXACT science if you prefer, while climatology is an INEXACT science. Look up the differences....I dare you.

But then, a PhD geologist is an Earth scientist. And the Earth's climate is part and partial to the study of the Earth. Geology is not one of the hard sciences. Only physics, chemistry, and possibly biology can make that claim. Geology relies fundamentally on all of those scientific fields, but is itself an investigative science, not a fundamental science. There is only one fundamental law that can be said to have originated in geology - the law of superposition.

But that has nothing to do with the problem of you claiming that the aerospace engineers you cited have any expertize in climate science.

No, geology is a hard science in that we make predictions that are measurable. We tell you if you do this you will GET that. No "maybes" in geology buckwheat. I thought you claimed you were a geologist. Forgot your tall tale already I see.

 

[westwall]

But then, a PhD geologist is an Earth scientist. And the Earth's climate is part and partial to the study of the Earth. Geology is not one of the hard sciences. Only physics, chemistry, and possibly biology can make that claim. Geology relies fundamentally on all of those scientific fields, but is itself an investigative science, not a fundamental science. There is only one fundamental law that can be said to have originated in geology - the law of superposition.

But that has nothing to do with the problem of you claiming that the aerospace engineers you cited have any expertize in climate science.

Geology is not a 'hard science?" If we needed no other evidence of the brain washed ignorance from the left, that sentence alone should settle it.

Definition of Geology:

Geology is the study of the Earth, the materials of which it is made, the structure of those materials, and the processes acting upon them. It includes the study of organisms that have inhabited our planet. An important part of geology is the study of how Earth’s materials, structures, processes and organisms have changed over time.

What Does a Geologist Do?

Geologists work to understand the history of our planet. The better they can understand Earth’s history the better they can foresee how events and processes of the past might influence the future. Here are some examples:

Geologists study earth processes: Many processes such as landslides, earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions can be hazardous to people. Geologists work to understand these processes well enough to avoid building important structures where they might be damaged. If geologists can prepare maps of areas that have flooded in the past they can prepare maps of areas that might be flooded in the future. These maps can be used to guide the development of communities and determine where flood protection or flood insurance is needed.

Geologists study earth materials: People use earth materials every day. They use oil that is produced from wells, metals that are produced from mines, and water that has been drawn from streams or from underground. Geologists conduct studies that locate rocks that contain important metals, plan the mines that produce them and the methods used to remove the metals from the rocks. They do similar work to locate and produce oil, natural gas and ground water.

Geologists study earth history: Today we are concerned about climate change. Many geologists are working to learn about the past climates of earth and how they have changed across time. This historical geology news information is valuable to understand how our current climate is changing and what the results might be.

What is Geology? - What does a Geologist do? - Geology.com

Probably more climatologist however get their degrees in geography or meteorology than they do geology. But you don't get a geography degree without a lot of geology courses.


Definition of hard science (n)
Bing Dictionary
hard sci·ence
1.natural or physical science: a science such as physics, chemistry, geology, or astronomy in which data can be precisely quantified and theories tested

You're relying on Bing dictionary for your argument? Lol.

Is geology a natural science? Yes. Is it a fundamental physical science like physics or Chemistry? No. Geology is primarily a historical, investigative scientific discipline. It utilizes the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology in its investigations of Earth processes, but is NOT in itself a fundamental science. As I've pointed out, the only law ever ascribed to geology is the law of superposition, and yet it is based simply on the law of universal gravity, which is a fundamental physical law.

By the way, I am a degreed geologist. And you?

Bullshit. No way are you a geologist.

 

[westwall]

You're relying on Bing dictionary for your argument? Lol.

Is geology a natural science? Yes. Is it a fundamental physical science like physics or Chemistry? No. Geology is primarily a historical, investigative scientific discipline. It utilizes the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology in its investigations of Earth processes, but is NOT in itself a fundamental science. As I've pointed out, the only law ever ascribed to geology is the law of superposition, and yet it is based simply on the law of universal gravity, which is a fundamental physical law.

By the way, I am a degreed geologist. And you?

If the theories are testable and the tests are repeatable, it is hard science. Pure and simple. Scientists know that. Sadly, so many AGW religionists do not.

Many scientific disciplines have theories that are testable and repeatable. That alone does not make them a Hard science (i.e., fundamental science). By your definition, psychology is a "hard science".

And sir, based on the quality of your posts I have seen thus far, if you are a degreed geologist, I am the Queen of Sheba. I HAVE degreed geologists in my family and among my closest associations including one tenured professor at the University of New Mexico here. And I'm pretty sure not a single one of them would say that geology is not a hard science.

Some of my closest friends are tenured professors in Geology, such as Dr George Lager, Dr. James Conkin, And Dr. William Ausich. Whether or not any of the people you know would say that geology is a hard science" is debatable since it isn't even clear that you've ever asked them that question. Being a geologist, I don't have to ask. I already know the answer.

What a joke. As Foxy says, you are no geologist. Not even close...

 

[Impenitent]

Psssst! The moon doesn't have any atmosphere.

Atmosphere of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelope surrounding Eairth and most planets of the Solar system – less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level.​

The point being made, is that the difference is the cause of Earth's atmosphere, not the sun, so it is reasonable to be concerned if it is being anthropogenicly changed.

Ummm...any difference in the behavior of liquids on Earth and on the Moon is due SOLELY to the presence or lack of atmosphere. Man's activities have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Period.

Now that the original mudwhistle assertion has disappeared, my response appears to have taken on a slightly different meaning.

Just to get back on track, I'm not talking about the differences in the behavior of liquids on the Earth and moon.

I'm trying to point out that rather than the sun, which man cannot affect, being the most significant reason for life on earth, it is our atmosphere, which allows a temperature range on Earth most amenable for life.

I was pointing out that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no atmosphere, and thus, no life.

And man has the demonstrated ability to change that atmosphere. Can't you see the danger in that?

 

[westwall]

If the theories are testable and the tests are repeatable, it is hard science. Pure and simple. Scientists know that. Sadly, so many AGW religionists do not.

Many scientific disciplines have theories that are testable and repeatable. That alone does not make them a Hard science (i.e., fundamental science). By your definition, psychology is a "hard science".

And sir, based on the quality of your posts I have seen thus far, if you are a degreed geologist, I am the Queen of Sheba. I HAVE degreed geologists in my family and among my closest associations including one tenured professor at the University of New Mexico here. And I'm pretty sure not a single one of them would say that geology is not a hard science.

Some of my closest friends are tenured professors in Geology, such as Dr George Lager, Dr. James Conkin, And Dr. William Ausich. Whether or not any of the people you know would say that geology is a hard science" is debatable since it isn't even clear that you've ever asked them that question. Being a geologist, I don't have to ask. I already know the answer.

By my definition "Psychology is a hard science?" That is really pathetic and you keep digging the hole deeper. I can give you some excellent reasons without referring to any other source why psychology is not and will likely never be a hard science. Nor can you find any credible source that would even suggest that it is. As for your list of 'closest friends', anybody can make a list. But I really think a competent degreed geologist would not put his friends' names out here on a message board without getting permission from those same friends. But why don't you ask them whether geology is a hard science and get back to me on that.

In fact, I am pretty sure one of my friends knows Dr. Ausich, if that is the same professor as the one at Ohio State. (My friend worked on some project at Ohio State a few years ago.) I'll ask him to ask him.

My wife is a PhD in Industrial Organizational Psychology, probably the most exact of the psychological sciences and SHE says psychology is not an exact science. This fool continues to dig his hole ever deeper.

 

[westwall]

You could boil water on the moon in the day, then deep-freeze it at night.

Same sun. Different atmosphere.

Gee, we would be so ****ed if somebody screwed with our atmosphere...wait!

Psssst! The moon doesn't have any atmosphere.

Atmosphere of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelope surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system – less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level.​

The point being made, is that the difference is the cause of Earth's atmosphere, not the sun, so it is reasonable to be concerned if it is being anthropogenicly changed.

What's causing the global warming on the other planets? Whale farts? SUV's in Space? What is the one constant that's out there that affects the whole solar system....what could that be

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Global Warming Detected on Triton

http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/docs/2650.pdf

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists | Space.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, but let's look at reality. A PhD geologist for example can teach any climatology class, both under grad and graduate level. There are third year geology classes that are beyond a PhD in climatology. It's as simple as that.

Climatology is a soft science. Geology is a hard science, or it's an EXACT science if you prefer, while climatology is an INEXACT science. Look up the differences....I dare you.

But then, a PhD geologist is an Earth scientist. And the Earth's climate is part and partial to the study of the Earth. Geology is not one of the hard sciences. Only physics, chemistry, and possibly biology can make that claim. Geology relies fundamentally on all of those scientific fields, but is itself an investigative science, not a fundamental science. There is only one fundamental law that can be said to have originated in geology - the law of superposition.

But that has nothing to do with the problem of you claiming that the aerospace engineers you cited have any expertize in climate science.

No, geology is a hard science in that we make predictions that are measurable. We tell you if you do this you will GET that. No "maybes" in geology buckwheat. I thought you claimed you were a geologist. Forgot your tall tale already I see.

LOL that's the trouble with sock accounts. OR forgot who he was supposed to be posting as.

 

[westwall]

but then, a phd geologist is an earth scientist. And the earth's climate is part and partial to the study of the earth. Geology is not one of the hard sciences. Only physics, chemistry, and possibly biology can make that claim. Geology relies fundamentally on all of those scientific fields, but is itself an investigative science, not a fundamental science. There is only one fundamental law that can be said to have originated in geology - the law of superposition.

But that has nothing to do with the problem of you claiming that the aerospace engineers you cited have any expertize in climate science.

no, geology is a hard science in that we make predictions that are measurable. We tell you if you do this you will get that. No "maybes" in geology buckwheat. I thought you claimed you were a geologist. Forgot your tall tale already i see.

lol that's the trouble with sock accounts. Or forgot who he was supposed to be posting as.

yuuuup!

 

[orogenicman]

Many scientific disciplines have theories that are testable and repeatable. That alone does not make them a Hard science (i.e., fundamental science). By your definition, psychology is a "hard science".



Some of my closest friends are tenured professors in Geology, such as Dr George Lager, Dr. James Conkin, And Dr. William Ausich. Whether or not any of the people you know would say that geology is a hard science" is debatable since it isn't even clear that you've ever asked them that question. Being a geologist, I don't have to ask. I already know the answer.

By my definition "Psychology is a hard science?" That is really pathetic and you keep digging the hole deeper. I can give you some excellent reasons without referring to any other source why psychology is not and will likely never be a hard science. Nor can you find any credible source that would even suggest that it is. As for your list of 'closest friends', anybody can make a list. But I really think a competent degreed geologist would not put his friends' names out here on a message board without getting permission from those same friends. But why don't you ask them whether geology is a hard science and get back to me on that.

In fact, I am pretty sure one of my friends knows Dr. Ausich, if that is the same professor as the one at Ohio State. (My friend worked on some project at Ohio State a few years ago.) I'll ask him to ask him.

My wife is a PhD in Industrial Organizational Psychology, probably the most exact of the psychological sciences and SHE says psychology is not an exact science. This fool continues to dig his hole ever deeper.

I took organizational psychology in college. So she's probably as idiotic as the instructor I had for that course. Hey, you want to make personal attacks against me and then you bring your wife into it - she becomes fare game, asshole.

 

[daveman]

The point being made, is that the difference is the cause of Earth's atmosphere, not the sun, so it is reasonable to be concerned if it is being anthropogenicly changed.

Ummm...any difference in the behavior of liquids on Earth and on the Moon is due SOLELY to the presence or lack of atmosphere. Man's activities have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Period.

Now that the original mudwhistle assertion has disappeared, my response appears to have taken on a slightly different meaning.

Just to get back on track, I'm not talking about the differences in the behavior of liquids on the Earth and moon.

I'm trying to point out that rather than the sun, which man cannot affect, being the most significant reason for life on earth, it is our atmosphere, which allows a temperature range on Earth most amenable for life.

I was pointing out that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no atmosphere, and thus, no life.

And man has the demonstrated ability to change that atmosphere. Can't you see the danger in that?

There is a potential, sure.

But AGW research has yet to put out any credible science to predict what might happen, let alone assigning any culpability to man's actions. Hell, your models can't even predict past climate, when we know what the result is.

Hyperemotionalism and fear-mongering is not science.

 

[daveman]

By my definition "Psychology is a hard science?" That is really pathetic and you keep digging the hole deeper. I can give you some excellent reasons without referring to any other source why psychology is not and will likely never be a hard science. Nor can you find any credible source that would even suggest that it is. As for your list of 'closest friends', anybody can make a list. But I really think a competent degreed geologist would not put his friends' names out here on a message board without getting permission from those same friends. But why don't you ask them whether geology is a hard science and get back to me on that.

In fact, I am pretty sure one of my friends knows Dr. Ausich, if that is the same professor as the one at Ohio State. (My friend worked on some project at Ohio State a few years ago.) I'll ask him to ask him.

My wife is a PhD in Industrial Organizational Psychology, probably the most exact of the psychological sciences and SHE says psychology is not an exact science. This fool continues to dig his hole ever deeper.

I took organizational psychology in college. So she's probably as idiotic as the instructor I had for that course. Hey, you want to make personal attacks against me and then you bring your wife into it - she becomes fare game, asshole.

Actually, no, she doesn't. Your butthurt is not sufficient justification to break the rules.

 

[orogenicman]

My wife is a PhD in Industrial Organizational Psychology, probably the most exact of the psychological sciences and SHE says psychology is not an exact science. This fool continues to dig his hole ever deeper.

I took organizational psychology in college. So she's probably as idiotic as the instructor I had for that course. Hey, you want to make personal attacks against me and then you bring your wife into it - she becomes fare game, asshole.

Actually, no, she doesn't. Your butthurt is not sufficient justification to break the rules.

So sue me, Dave.

 

[Impenitent]

Psssst! The moon doesn't have any atmosphere.

Atmosphere of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelope surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system – less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level.​

The point being made, is that the difference is the cause of Earth's atmosphere, not the sun, so it is reasonable to be concerned if it is being anthropogenicly changed.

What's causing the global warming on the other planets? Whale farts? SUV's in Space? What is the one constant that's out there that affects the whole solar system....what could that be

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Global Warming Detected on Triton

http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/docs/2650.pdf

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists | Space.com

Easy to see that you misunderstand the very warming that you deny. How can you postulate a process is occurring on far reaching planets, while you deny it here?

But regardless, perhaps you confuse weather with climate. Taking pictures of Mars on 2 different days does not reveal a trend. It only show the weather on 2 different days.

A triton year is 164 earth years. Whatever weather is happening there can only be described as seasonal.

Wouldn't every planet in our solar system be warming, if exposed to the same sun? How do you explain the ones that are not?

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is that climate change (global warming) has been observed on at least four other planets in our solar system as well as on larger moons. But the fact that the change is not uniform throughout the solar system simply illustrates that 1) climate change is inevitable and ongoing and 2) while we can speculate and know a lot about climate change, there is more that we still have to learn than what we know.

An interesting scientific essay on that subject, most particularly focused on solar influence, is linked below and suggests that both the AGW warmers and the skeptics should exercise caution before being dogmatic about anything:

The relevant point is that the Sun-climate link proposed by scientists skeptical of global warming claims is indirect and involves mechanisms particular to the Earth system. The fact that we have not observed large changes in total solar irradiance, or large climate shifts on other planets, does nothing to refute the claim that the Sun-Earth climate link is significant. At the same time, some and perhaps even all of the extraterrestrial climate shifts are from mechanisms with no bearing on the Earth's climate. This boils down to the fact that we don't fully understand climate change, either here or elsewhere in the solar system. Those that claim we do (and particularly that we can concentrate on a single mechanism for climate change on Earth) are seriously wrong from a scientific perspective.
Global warming on other planets?

 

[Abraham3]

The changes we HAVE observed in total solar irradiance (of the Earth) have not provided sufficiently increased energy and do NOT match the observed warming patterns. Thus, you've got nothing. Sorry.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The cycle of up and down solar flex doesn't match the temperature data at all the past 150 years

1950s where the max solar output of the past 1,000 years...

 

[westwall]

By my definition "Psychology is a hard science?" That is really pathetic and you keep digging the hole deeper. I can give you some excellent reasons without referring to any other source why psychology is not and will likely never be a hard science. Nor can you find any credible source that would even suggest that it is. As for your list of 'closest friends', anybody can make a list. But I really think a competent degreed geologist would not put his friends' names out here on a message board without getting permission from those same friends. But why don't you ask them whether geology is a hard science and get back to me on that.

In fact, I am pretty sure one of my friends knows Dr. Ausich, if that is the same professor as the one at Ohio State. (My friend worked on some project at Ohio State a few years ago.) I'll ask him to ask him.

My wife is a PhD in Industrial Organizational Psychology, probably the most exact of the psychological sciences and SHE says psychology is not an exact science. This fool continues to dig his hole ever deeper.

I took organizational psychology in college. So she's probably as idiotic as the instructor I had for that course. Hey, you want to make personal attacks against me and then you bring your wife into it - she becomes fare game, asshole.

Sure you did. Let me guess you're a Nobel Prize winner too...right? What a doofus..

 

[westwall]

I took organizational psychology in college. So she's probably as idiotic as the instructor I had for that course. Hey, you want to make personal attacks against me and then you bring your wife into it - she becomes fare game, asshole.

Actually, no, she doesn't. Your butthurt is not sufficient justification to break the rules.

So sue me, Dave.

Nah, she's tougher than you. If you feel the need to break the rules, feel free. She can handle anything a sock puppet twerp like you could ever come up with.

C'mon olfraud, if you can't take the heat best to get out of the kitchen. And you clearly can't take it!