seven stats on climate change

[ReinyDays]

Sorry, but I'll take NASA over a internet fool like you.

This is the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority" ... of course in all things aerodynamic engineering and space travel, we should consult NASA's extensive expertise ... there's none better in the whole world ... but if the question is of the atmosphere and the oceans, then we should consult NOAA ...

Truth be told, NASA does not have an extensive network of instruments ... and relies wholly on NOAA's network ... and generally speaking, those who study the weather hold a more conservative scientific position in this matter than those who build rockets ...

I know I know I know ... my vet provides me with better health care than my doctor as well ... but do you see my point? ...

 

[Silver Cat]

Do we have any real evidence that proves the past changes were due to small variations in earth’s orbit? Of course not.

Where did you get that idea?

Ice Ages - Dive & Discover

"There are several natural forces that together lead to an ice age on Earth.

"The answer lies in how the orbit of the Earth around the sun changes.

"The average temperature on Earth depends on the Earth’s distance from the sun.

"If the Earth were closer to the sun, it would be hotter; if the Earth were further away from the sun, it would be colder

"A Yugoslav astronomer, Milutin Milankovitch, learned how changes in Earth’s orbit can changes in climate to cause ice ages.

"He studied three types of changes in Earth’s orbit: its shape, the tilt of the its axis, and the wobble of the its axis.

And we are just beginning to understand how changes in the sun's output in particular frequencies affects our climate...we know so little about what actually drives the climate that it is bald faced malfeasance to claim that the science of climate is settled..

What determines our climate is complicated with any possible factors.

That does not change that we are experiencing climate change that is primarily due to man made emissions/.

You think scientists are stupid & don;t know about other factors? NASA did not consider orbits or solar cycles or volcanoes or deforestation or what ever orther stupid excuse you use to be stupid.

I think those pseudo-scientists do know about other factors. I'm pretty sure that they know how important those factors are. But they are not interested in the telling you about it. They are interested in the raising of hysteria, and making excuses for additional bureaucratic control of the fuel markets.
If you are ready to believe charlatans - it is your problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the ones this year in Australia might be different, 180 people have been arrested for arson. most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.

Would you say Australia's fossil fueled capitalists qualify as the arsonist's accomplices?

MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"We see firefighters making do with pathetic paper masks, while the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

"We see a military which can mobilise massive force to defend oil and empire in the Middle East, and to capture refugees from those wars and deliver them to an island prison–but is apparently incapable of moving a civilian population to safety with anything approaching urgency.

"We see a political and economic elite that can’t wrench itself away from the industries that have created this disaster.

"Six of the 30 biggest corporations on Australia’s stock exchange are mining or fossil fuel companies–probably a world record. Coal is 15 percent of export revenues.

"Australia’s ruling class is one of the most carbon-addicted sections of a global elite that has always valued power and profit above our planet and our lives."

the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

Writing off business expenses, how horrible!!!!

 

[SSDD]

I have knowledge, you have shit.

So far, you haven't demonstrated it. So far, you have provided opinion pieces as if they were science and have denied and rejected actual science that didn't support your beliefs. When do we start seeing this knowledge you claim to have?

 

[SSDD]

"Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures.

This may come as a surprise to you...but climate models are not empirical evidence...Here is some information based on empirical evidence regarding our CO2 and earth's temperature...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

Clearly there is no correlation between our yearly production of CO2 and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

All of those graphs are based on empirical evidence...not climate models which have been and continue to be spectacular failures.

"The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence).

According to the model...which is not empirical evidence..

"The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined.

According to the model...which is not empirical evidence...

"The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures.

Observed temperatures are empirical evidence...the rest is not based in reality....

"The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."

Do you see how wide that pink line is? It represents the margin of error in the model. More than 1 degree...the margin of error is greater than the total amount of change we have seen over the past 100 years...and that model is the result of constant tweaking in an effort to keep it at least in the same ball park as observation...the models are tweaked multiple times per year as they continue to deviate from reality. Models are not evidence of any kind other than the willingness of climate science to attempt to fool you.

So no...you have, as I said, no empirical evidence to support your beliefs...I, on the other hand have loads of actual observed, measured empirical evidence to support my position.

 

[SSDD]

What did I do? I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.

I cut my carbon footprint in half. And I save money everyday from it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to condone you for this ... and in some of the other posts you've made actually suggest solutions ... fucking cool you've access to geothermal, the hydro I have here is amazing ... I work construction, my rig gets 26 mpg, and I can haul full sheets of plywood easily ... I fill up once a month whether I need to or not ... I vacation locally to avoid airline travel ... but I eat meat every meal, and I'm ashamed of that ...

There's lots of better reasons to curtail fossil fuel use ... starting with it's limited supply ... we'll run out of cheap oil, and then we'll have to burn expensive oil ... the time to start switching over is now, or maybe it was 40 years ago, back when we had to wait three hours in a gas line to buy 5 gallons of gas ...

Saving money is an excellent measure of saving the universe ... none better for the average person ... starting with your internet bill ...

When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil...the market will provide that alternative...but not until a genuine profit motive exists. The best and brightest aren't after government subsidies...nor do they work for the government...

 

[SSDD]

Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..

Why aren't you providing evidence for your claims?

Your inability to provide any empirical evidence challenging my statements is evidence...If there were such evidence, it would be inescapable..it would be everywhere...and yet you can't produce any of it...not a single shred. You can't because there is none..

You show a graph & attach your analysis.

Sorry, but I'll take NASA over a internet fool like you.your

Still no empirical evidence to support your claims...that nasa opinion piece was not peer reviewed..it was produced by someone whose paycheck depends on a climate crisis...if there were no climate crisis, nasa would only be getting money for space study and exploration...not climate and whoever wrote the piece would be out of a job...

You aren't very discerning in where your information comes from...I provided links to the peer reviewed, published studies and the clip from the studies I also provided was not my analysis..they were cut and paste directly from the study. You really are terribly uninformed...aren't you. You can't even look at actual scientific papers and recognize them as such.

 

[RealDave]

Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..

Why aren't you providing evidence for your claims?

Your inability to provide any empirical evidence challenging my statements is evidence...If there were such evidence, it would be inescapable..it would be everywhere...and yet you can't produce any of it...not a single shred. You can't because there is none..

You show a graph & attach your analysis.

Sorry, but I'll take NASA over a internet fool like you.your

Still no empirical evidence to support your claims...that nasa opinion piece was not peer reviewed..it was produced by someone whose paycheck depends on a climate crisis...if there were no climate crisis, nasa would only be getting money for space study and exploration...not climate and whoever wrote the piece would be out of a job...

You aren't very discerning in where your information comes from...I provided links to the peer reviewed, published studies and the clip from the studies I also provided was not my analysis..they were cut and paste directly from the study. You really are terribly uninformed...aren't you. You can't even look at actual scientific papers and recognize them as such.

Look, you post stats & make up your own analysis, Sorry but why would anyone believe a hack like you instead of NASA> You don't like my posts, call NASA & argue with them since you think you know more than they do. And then STFU. I am, tied of you lying & running on circles demanding I post a research paper. Really, assfuck just shut the fuck up & concentrate on finding a way to ruin YOUR children's future without affecting mine.

 

[RealDave]

What did I do? I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.

I cut my carbon footprint in half. And I save money everyday from it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to condone you for this ... and in some of the other posts you've made actually suggest solutions ... fucking cool you've access to geothermal, the hydro I have here is amazing ... I work construction, my rig gets 26 mpg, and I can haul full sheets of plywood easily ... I fill up once a month whether I need to or not ... I vacation locally to avoid airline travel ... but I eat meat every meal, and I'm ashamed of that ...

There's lots of better reasons to curtail fossil fuel use ... starting with it's limited supply ... we'll run out of cheap oil, and then we'll have to burn expensive oil ... the time to start switching over is now, or maybe it was 40 years ago, back when we had to wait three hours in a gas line to buy 5 gallons of gas ...

Saving money is an excellent measure of saving the universe ... none better for the average person ... starting with your internet bill ...

When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil...the market will provide that alternative...but not until a genuine profit motive exists. The best and brightest aren't after government subsidies...nor do they work for the government...

So, you thionk the fossil fuel industry gets mo subsidies?

So, we should remove all taxes on cigarettes because it is government trying to steer people away from smoking?
There are lots of stupid people who still smoke & who still drink & drive and are climate change deniers. Regardless of the statistics & scientific evidence, you continue to do this stupid shit.

AGW is science. Why are you so afraid of it?

 

[RealDave]

But the ones this year in Australia might be different, 180 people have been arrested for arson. most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.

Would you say Australia's fossil fueled capitalists qualify as the arsonist's accomplices?

MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"We see firefighters making do with pathetic paper masks, while the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

"We see a military which can mobilise massive force to defend oil and empire in the Middle East, and to capture refugees from those wars and deliver them to an island prison–but is apparently incapable of moving a civilian population to safety with anything approaching urgency.

"We see a political and economic elite that can’t wrench itself away from the industries that have created this disaster.

"Six of the 30 biggest corporations on Australia’s stock exchange are mining or fossil fuel companies–probably a world record. Coal is 15 percent of export revenues.

"Australia’s ruling class is one of the most carbon-addicted sections of a global elite that has always valued power and profit above our planet and our lives."

the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

Writing off business expenses, how horrible!!!!

It is far more than that.

 

[georgephillip]

Truth be told, NASA does not have an extensive network of instruments ... and relies wholly on NOAA's network ... and generally speaking, those who study the weather hold a more conservative scientific position in this matter than those who build rockets ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Global Climate Change Indicators | Monitoring References | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

"How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?

"A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming.

"This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies.

"The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.

"The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years."

 

[georgephillip]

the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

Writing off business expenses, how horrible!!!!

‘They are pissing inside the tent’: Rupert Murdoch’s son slams Fox News and his dad's other climate-denying media

 

[ReinyDays]

Look, you post stats & make up your own analysis, Sorry but why would anyone believe a hack like you instead of NASA> You don't like my posts, call NASA & argue with them since you think you know more than they do. And then STFU. I am, tied of you lying & running on circles demanding I post a research paper. Really, assfuck just shut the fuck up & concentrate on finding a way to ruin YOUR children's future without affecting mine.

I'm still waiting for you to post anything that would allow me to believe you have any knowledge of the subject at hand ... I see you can cherry-pick information, string that information together and make it look like you understand something ... but in the end, you're just grinding someone else's axe ... you seem to have no axe of your own ...

I'm guessing you're young, as you seem to have great difficulty comprehending the time scales involved ... your children and grandchildren are safe from the effects of climate change ... it's your great-great-grandchildren and great-great-great-grandchildren who will see these effects ... and they won't notice ... these changes take place over centuries, a single human doesn't live long enough ...

 

[georgephillip]

When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil.

Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?

Politics of global warming - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the ones this year in Australia might be different, 180 people have been arrested for arson. most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.

Would you say Australia's fossil fueled capitalists qualify as the arsonist's accomplices?

MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"We see firefighters making do with pathetic paper masks, while the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

"We see a military which can mobilise massive force to defend oil and empire in the Middle East, and to capture refugees from those wars and deliver them to an island prison–but is apparently incapable of moving a civilian population to safety with anything approaching urgency.

"We see a political and economic elite that can’t wrench itself away from the industries that have created this disaster.

"Six of the 30 biggest corporations on Australia’s stock exchange are mining or fossil fuel companies–probably a world record. Coal is 15 percent of export revenues.

"Australia’s ruling class is one of the most carbon-addicted sections of a global elite that has always valued power and profit above our planet and our lives."

the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

Writing off business expenses, how horrible!!!!

It is far more than that.

I know, it's giving cheaper fuel to the poor.

Just awful!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

Writing off business expenses, how horrible!!!!

‘They are pissing inside the tent’: Rupert Murdoch’s son slams Fox News and his dad's other climate-denying media

No fires before we started using fossil fuels, eh comrade?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil.

Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?

Politics of global warming - Wikipedia

Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?

Because that's how economics works.

Marxists are really, really bad at economics, so your confusion was expected.

 

[Redfish]

How would you explain this?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

the explanation: NASA has an agenda, they are part of the AGW religion that is trying to tell us all how to live our lives. fuck em!

That must be it. The scientists are against us & only the fucking moronic deniers can save us.

human beings are polluting the earth's air and water. There is no scientific proof that that pollution is causing the earth's climate to change.

my question is this: everyone wants an unpolluted planet to live on, why isn't fighting pollution enough for you lefties? Why must you insist on a false link between pollution and climate?

If there was a direct link, where was it in the previous cooling and warming periods when there were no humans on earth?

I think I know the answer, because this religion of yours is not about climate or pollution, its about finding a way to control the lives and actions of everyone on earth. your movement is a political movement, not a scientific movement. Your prophet Algore said that by now there would be no ice at the poles and that Florida and much of the east coast would be under water. Was he lying or was he simply wrong?

 

[georgephillip]

When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil.

Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?

Clearly there is no correlation between our yearly production of CO2 and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

There's no shortage of empirical evidence proving human-generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up:

"Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

"The Smoking Gun

"The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature.

"CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

"Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

"The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20).

"But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

"Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

"Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

"The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime.

"The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

 

[georgephillip]

Because that's how economics works.

That's how capitalism works.