Global Warming

[abu afak]

All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.....

That's interesting!

`

 

[elektra]

Ffs. What 'little' CO2 is there is heated by what IR radiation hits it. Therefore some radiation escape is hindered, by definition. You are batshit crazy or don't know what words mean, either/or. You yourself said that radiation lost its energy when it hit a CO2 molecule. The only way that can happen is for the energy to be transferred to the CO2 molecule.

"IR radiation", you mean instead of radiation radiation? IR is infrared radiation, there is no need to be redundant by adding the word radiation to the abbreviation of infrared radiation.

"by definition", which definition of what? Yes, batshit crazy and the meaning of words, your little sentence is complete nonsense.

Is there evidence that IR is heated in the atmosphere? Nobody here has ever posted a link to any such evidence.

So, maybe you can explain what the hell you just wrote. "By defintion", yes please explain.

 

[forkup]

Again I'm not a scientist never claimed to be, yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.

How do you know, cause you read a google link? Cause you heard it on TV? Or they dictated so in school? You believe, but you do not know.

I know because the Paris accords. I know because the UN had actual scientists who did the research who then concluded it to be sufficiently likely to be true to speak on it. There's lots of stuff that I have to rely on the knowledge and expertise of other people. In fact I do know that the nature of science makes absolute certainty something that's hardly ever achieved. Meaning that even scientists acknowledge that they can be wrong. Saying that because I, a layman can't determine something to be absolutely true so therefor scientists are wrong would be incredibly arrogant.

 

[elektra]

I know because the Paris accords. I know because the UN had actual scientists who did the research who then concluded it to be sufficiently likely to be true to speak on it. There's lots of stuff that I have to rely on the knowledge and expertise of other people. In fact I do know that the nature of science makes absolute certainty something that's hardly ever achieved. Meaning that even scientists acknowledge that they can be wrong. Saying that because me, a layman can't determine something to be absolutely true so therefor scientists are wrong is incredibly arrogant.

The Paris accords? The UN? Really, instead of just saying so, how about telling us how? What did the paris accords state about the scientists who "believe"? The UN? You mean the IPCC, ha, ha! The IPCC is thoroughly debunked in many threads. Proven liars and destroyers of data and scientists that do not "believe". But hey, go ahead and tell us how the UN gave you the information about the scientists. Did they call you? You read the website? Or did you see them 2nd or 3rd hand that makes a vague reference to the United Nations?

 

[elektra]

That's interesting!

`

CO2 measured over a volcano?

 

[forkup]

I know because the Paris accords. I know because the UN had actual scientists who did the research who then concluded it to be sufficiently likely to be true to speak on it. There's lots of stuff that I have to rely on the knowledge and expertise of other people. In fact I do know that the nature of science makes absolute certainty something that's hardly ever achieved. Meaning that even scientists acknowledge that they can be wrong. Saying that because me, a layman can't determine something to be absolutely true so therefor scientists are wrong is incredibly arrogant.

The Paris accords? The UN? Really, instead of just saying so, how about telling us how? What did the paris accords state about the scientists who "believe"? The UN? You mean the IPCC, ha, ha! The IPCC is thoroughly debunked in many threads. Proven liars and destroyers of data and scientists that do not "believe". But hey, go ahead and tell us how the UN gave you the information about the scientists. Did they call you? You read the website? Or did you see them 2nd or 3rd hand that makes a vague reference to the United Nations?

Threads don't debunk anything. Peer reviewed articles do. Can you speak intelligently about doing brain surgery? If you can't would that mean brain surgery is impossible? What about how to do masonry? I can't, that doesn't mean making a nice brick house can't be done. The thing is using my inability to defend myself against someone who CLAIMS to be able to do the math on the energy requirements of hurricanes does not mean people who can do that are wrong. It just means I can't.

 

[forkup]

I know because the Paris accords. I know because the UN had actual scientists who did the research who then concluded it to be sufficiently likely to be true to speak on it. There's lots of stuff that I have to rely on the knowledge and expertise of other people. In fact I do know that the nature of science makes absolute certainty something that's hardly ever achieved. Meaning that even scientists acknowledge that they can be wrong. Saying that because me, a layman can't determine something to be absolutely true so therefor scientists are wrong is incredibly arrogant.

The Paris accords? The UN? Really, instead of just saying so, how about telling us how? What did the paris accords state about the scientists who "believe"? The UN? You mean the IPCC, ha, ha! The IPCC is thoroughly debunked in many threads. Proven liars and destroyers of data and scientists that do not "believe". But hey, go ahead and tell us how the UN gave you the information about the scientists. Did they call you? You read the website? Or did you see them 2nd or 3rd hand that makes a vague reference to the United Nations?

What about NASA, they don't dispute it. Are they smart enough?

 

[elektra]

Threads don't debunk anything. Peer reviewed articles do. Can you speak intelligently about doing brain surgery? If you can't would that mean brain surgery is impossible? What about how to do masonry? I can't, that doesn't mean making a nice brick house can't be done. The thing is using my inability to defend myself against someone who CLAIMS to be able to do the math on the energy requirements of hurricanes does not mean people who can do that are wrong. It just means I can't.

So, you cant state that most scientists agree that we are causing Global Warming. The only reason I challenge you is because if you look for that answer, you will find that it is impossible to show anything where scientists have come to a consensus on man made global warming. The propaganda states, "most scientists agree". Scientists were not asked.

The IPCC, the threads here, show how they destroyed data to hide results that they disagreed with. The links within the threads show factually, that the IPCC scientists black balled other scientists that had facts that disagreed with the IPCC propaganda. The threads show that the IPCC consistently had to modify computer models to get the results that supports the propaganda. That is not science.

I get it, you heard, we all hear, but it takes a lot of work to uncover the truth about what we hear.

 

[elektra]

What about NASA, they don't dispute it. Are they smart enough?

I can tackle NASA and the Paris Climate accord with one link
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
Feb 5, 2017
Press Release
WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference.

 

[elektra]

and of course, as I have said, thoroughly debunked in these threads
NOAA/NASA temperature data ALL FAKE!!!

 

[forkup]

Threads don't debunk anything. Peer reviewed articles do. Can you speak intelligently about doing brain surgery? If you can't would that mean brain surgery is impossible? What about how to do masonry? I can't, that doesn't mean making a nice brick house can't be done. The thing is using my inability to defend myself against someone who CLAIMS to be able to do the math on the energy requirements of hurricanes does not mean people who can do that are wrong. It just means I can't.

So, you cant state that most scientists agree that we are causing Global Warming. The only reason I challenge you is because if you look for that answer, you will find that it is impossible to show anything where scientists have come to a consensus on man made global warming. The propaganda states, "most scientists agree". Scientists were not asked.

The IPCC, the threads here, show how they destroyed data to hide results that they disagreed with. The links within the threads show factually, that the IPCC scientists black balled other scientists that had facts that disagreed with the IPCC propaganda. The threads show that the IPCC consistently had to modify computer models to get the results that supports the propaganda. That is not science.

I get it, you heard, we all hear, but it takes a lot of work to uncover the truth about what we hear.

Brings me back to this argument, an argument I've yet to see an answer to.

If I'm right these things I just described will just get worse. REALLY HIGH IMPACT
What will happen if you are right? And why take the risk?

 

[abu afak]

That's interesting!

`

CO2 measured over a volcano?

An dead Volcano in the middle of the ocean to avoid contamination by pollution.
The same reason Hawaii has Telescopic observatories.

Oh boy, another beauty here.

and the SAME numbers could be obtained/HAVE been obtained elsewhere.

The Rise is NOT a secret, and NOT disputed by deniers, except the hopeless dunderheads.
They just dispute it's effect.
`

 

[forkup]

What about NASA, they don't dispute it. Are they smart enough?

I can tackle NASA and the Paris Climate accord with one link
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
Feb 5, 2017
Press Release
WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference.

Not for nothing chairman Lamar Smith? Does he have a degree in climatology or anything relevant? I think he is a politician.
In fact the entire article is from the House Committee on science space and technology. A political entity not a scientific one.
In fact. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.
So a retired scientist wrote on a blog, claiming something that he didn't defend in a peer reviewed article? In fact he didn't even raise the issue when the report was written?

 

[elektra]

If I'm right these things I just described will just get worse. REALLY HIGH IMPACT
What will happen if you are right? And why take the risk?

My neighbor has a secret plan to abduct and turn 5 year old girls into sex slaves, I say so. What will happen if we do not throw him in jail and why take the risk.

The plan to save the world costs $100 trillion or more! Wind Turbines, Solar Power Plants, Destruction of industries that do not comply and agree. Complete destruction of the oil industry. No more internal combustion engines. Jail those who do not agree. No more massive drug companies. No industry producing seed for for food. Yes, I see that the plan to save the world actually destroys the world.

We must cover the entire earth with solar panels to save the world.

All of the earths natural resources must be manufactured by heavy industry into solar panels. Only by spending more money ever created on something that is still proving itself not to work can we save the world.

The last time we saw people this loony the Marxists killed a 100,000,000 people.

 

[elektra]

An dead Volcano in the middle of the ocean to avoid contamination by pollution.
The same reason Hawaii has Telescopic observatories.

Oh boy, another beauty here.

and the SAME numbers could be obtained/HAVE been obtained elsewhere.

The Rise is NOT a secret, and NOT disputed by deniers, except the hopeless dunderheads.
They just dispute it's effect.
`

Mauna Loa is an active volcano.

abu afak, how do you get the simple stuff 100% wrong and what does that say about everything you post. There are mistakes of course, there is also simply posting your opinion which is not based on anything but what you believe without any facts to back it up.

 

[Viktor]

Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.

How did they measure temperature in 2500 BC and what video equipment did they use to record it on for us?

The readings are taken from ice core samples drawn in the arctic.
When it freezes, water grabs and retains part of the air above it and
the temperature of that air, once obtained, can be measured.

 

[Viktor]

Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.

How did they measure temperature in 2500 BC and what video equipment did they use to record it on for us?

For that you need a Michael Mann. He does not need a highly accurate thermometer to tell you within 1/10 of a degree accuracy what the temperature was....but is unwilling to show the raw data.
This leaves the rest of the scientists wondering how he does that:

Apparently he can measure tree rings within fractions of a millimeter accuracy, like in 0.1 mm increments which is 4/1000 of an inch. It`s impossible to machine wood to within 4 thou. You can do it with metal on a precision lathe but not with wood because 1 single hardwood fiber is 10 times thicker than a "Michael Mann" temperature increment:

For that you need a time machine. There is no way no how ever, that you can prove what the weather was 5000 years ago. Ever. All the squiggly lines and computers don't mean shit!

The readings are taken from ice core samples drawn in the arctic.
When it freezes, water grabs and retains part of the air above it and
the temperature of that air, once obtained, can be measured.

 

[elektra]

Not for nothing chairman Lamar Smith? Does he have a degree in climatology or anything relevant? I think he is a politician.
In fact the entire article is from the House Committee on science space and technology. A political entity not a scientific one.
In fact. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.
So a retired scientist wrote on a blog, claiming something that he didn't defend in a peer reviewed article? In fact he didn't even raise the issue when the report was written?

NOAA/NASA temperature data ALL FAKE!!!

Dr John Bates' disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the so-called 'Pausebuster' paper is the biggest scientific scandal since 'Climategate' in 2009 when, as Britain's Daily Mail reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a 'trick' to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Britain's Mail on Sunday today revealed astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

The whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

 

[forkup]

If I'm right these things I just described will just get worse. REALLY HIGH IMPACT
What will happen if you are right? And why take the risk?

My neighbor has a secret plan to abduct and turn 5 year old girls into sex slaves, I say so. What will happen if we do not throw him in jail and why take the risk.

The plan to save the world costs $100 trillion or more! Wind Turbines, Solar Power Plants, Destruction of industries that do not comply and agree. Complete destruction of the oil industry. No more internal combustion engines. Jail those who do not agree. No more massive drug companies. No industry producing seed for for food. Yes, I see that the plan to save the world actually destroys the world.

We must cover the entire earth with solar panels to save the world.

All of the earths natural resources must be manufactured by heavy industry into solar panels. Only by spending more money ever created on something that is still proving itself not to work can we save the world.

The last time we saw people this loony the Marxists killed a 100,000,000 people.

-Do you have data to support your claim that your neighbor is doing that, and what are the consequences on the world if you don't react? In the case of global warming the consequences effect everybody. And the data supporting it is sufficiently strong to have the entire world, save 1 country to try to at least curb those consequences. Seems a false equivalency in that light.
- This is one of the most committed countries in the world on climate change. Sweden tackles climate change
Seems their economic growth is pretty nice.Sweden GDP Growth Rate | 1981-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
If going green is so bad why are the countries who fully try to promote it not going bankrupt?
New data shows solar energy creates more jobs in America than any other industry
Seems it's a pretty good job creator.
Wind Energy Foundation | Wind Energy, Jobs, the Economy
So is wind energy.
Electric car manufacturer (just production)
Tesla added twice as many employees in 2018 as it now plans to cut
Etc., Etc. There is cost involved but there is certainly economic opportunity too.
There is a cost to not acting too though. Although that's an argument that will only be established beyond doubt after the fact. The current events don't give much cause for optimism though.Burning money: CA's soaring fire costs

 

[forkup]

Not for nothing chairman Lamar Smith? Does he have a degree in climatology or anything relevant? I think he is a politician.
In fact the entire article is from the House Committee on science space and technology. A political entity not a scientific one.
In fact. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.
So a retired scientist wrote on a blog, claiming something that he didn't defend in a peer reviewed article? In fact he didn't even raise the issue when the report was written?

NOAA/NASA temperature data ALL FAKE!!!

Dr John Bates' disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the so-called 'Pausebuster' paper is the biggest scientific scandal since 'Climategate' in 2009 when, as Britain's Daily Mail reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a 'trick' to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Britain's Mail on Sunday today revealed astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

The whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

WOW, an article from a British Tabloid claiming a scandal, citing the same source I already said to have NOT written a peer reviewed article on his objections and NOT have directly challenged the conclusions on the study he claims to take umbrage to. So can I ask what makes Brittain's mail on Sunday and Dr John Bates such convincing sources? Convincing enough to risk the future of the world?