The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

[Robert W]

You ‘re funny. You actually think CO2 heats up the atmosphere. What a dufus. The sun‘s energy heats up the atmosphere……Now do some research to find out the role CO2 plays in this process…..go ahead, we’ll wait.

That is not what I told this forum. I did not yet mention the Sun. When did you first hear of climate change? I started studying this in 1980.

 

[Robert W]

I know you deny that evolution is involved with climate change bubba…that means you’re science illiterate
Do you believe in evolution ? Do you even know what it is ?

Actually of course animals that had no fur over time grew fur due to climate change. So what?

 

[Robert W]

You must have been in a coma. I’m not impressed. Johns Hopkins disagrees with your bull shit. Geesus, you can’t even ask or make statements that are backed by science.

What you clowns seem to want to keep doing is discussing those you argue with as opposed to the actual topic. I stick to the topic on purpose.

 

[Dagosa]

What you clowns seem to want to keep doing is discussing those you argue with as opposed to the actual topic. I stick to the topic on purpose.

You are totally off topic and you lied about what I posted. You don’t use science. You just grab ass claims taken out of context and pretend it’s science. You are hilariously ignorant of science or your a scammer and a fraud. Which is it ?

 

[Dagosa]

Actually of course animals that had no fur over time grew fur due to climate change. So what?

If man is not around during times of higher co2 concentration, it’s totally immaterial to what is happening now. Maybe you don’t think our species is important and under assault from the ravages of climate change. That’s fine. Just don’t pretend you’re a freakin expert. History and science indicates you are a fraud.

 

[Dagosa]

My history on that topic goes back to 1980. Were you born then?

Wow. Another braggart. You and Trump and the other deniers have to pretend you actually have a job getting paid to work in science. Well, did you ? That’s how capitalism works. We only pay people in science institutions who don’t make up shit. You bozos keep claiming that science isn’t real at Johns Hopkins and others. You’re hilarious. You can’t get a grant because you’re a fraud. You don’t get paid to practice science because you’re a fraud.

 

[ReinyDays]

What is wrong with demonstrating it in genuine conditions?

Because albedo is so highly variable in the environment ... clouds ... ask any pilot about clouds that can't be seen from the ground ... or are you admitting this can't be demonstrated in the lab, because then we need to talk about what science is and what it is not ...

The thing is ... it's really easy to demonstrate the opposite on our kitchen counters ... get a couple of these clear 2 quart soda bottles each with about an inch of water at the bottom ... thermometer stoppers with thermometers ... and a couple ounces of dry ice ... put the dry ice in one bottle and when the fizzing stops, close them both off with the stoppers ... finally shine a bright light on the two bottles and ...

... presto ...

Like magic, the dry ice bottle is warmer ... the only difference is one bottle holds regular air and the other carbon dioxide ...

Whereas if both bottles were full of regular air, no matter how much light we shine on them, neither will turn into carbon dioxide ... so, as we say in the trades ... ||

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And the truth of Earth climate change is in that image, that Climate Change is all about Earth ice, and Earth ice is about WHERE LAND IS, and LAND MOVES...

Ice dictates ocean levels, temperature, atmospheric thickness, and humidity = CLIMATE


If Earth has no land within 600 miles of a pole, it has no ice...

Who cares?! They have consensus! Oh, and models!

 

[ReinyDays]

Ice dictates ocean levels, temperature, atmospheric thickness, and humidity = CLIMATE

You forgot wind direction ... from the east in tropical climates, from the west in temperature climates ... and then from the east in polar climates ...

Basic meteorology:

Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dagosa]

CrusaderFrank

Who cares?! They have consensus! Oh, and models!

That’s right. Science has consensus of all the dedicated qualified people, and deniers have made up shit.m

 

[Robert W]

Because albedo is so highly variable in the environment ... clouds ... ask any pilot about clouds that can't be seen from the ground ... or are you admitting this can't be demonstrated in the lab, because then we need to talk about what science is and what it is not ...

The thing is ... it's really easy to demonstrate the opposite on our kitchen counters ... get a couple of these clear 2 quart soda bottles each with about an inch of water at the bottom ... thermometer stoppers with thermometers ... and a couple ounces of dry ice ... put the dry ice in one bottle and when the fizzing stops, close them both off with the stoppers ... finally shine a bright light on the two bottles and ...

... presto ...

Like magic, the dry ice bottle is warmer ... the only difference is one bottle holds regular air and the other carbon dioxide ...

Whereas if both bottles were full of regular air, no matter how much light we shine on them, neither will turn into carbon dioxide ... so, as we say in the trades ... ||

I happen to be a pilot and totally understand those issues about clouds. In fact, Clouds are to a major degree, responsible for climate. A good example of clouds that can't be seen from the ground are explained in this case I had. I was flying in the Santa Cruz area of CA when I saw cloud stair steps from above that I am positive those on the ground would not be able to see. The steps formed over the ocean and those on the ground could not see up and over them.

We are in agreement about the greenhouse effect CO2 has. We may not agree on this though. I know CO2 is a heavy gas. 1.5 times as heavy as ordinary air. So it sinks. The ocean as well as plant life grabs a lot of the gas. Plants are vital to producing oxygen. CO2 in effect aids in gas that we need to survive.

 

[Robert W]

CrusaderFrank

That’s right. Science has consensus of all the dedicated qualified people, and deniers have made up shit.m

Science is not like a human. It is a system. It is how to get things done and understand them. Science produced nuclear bombs by understanding them then having experimental explosions. The term denier applies to you and not me nor those who come here to learn. You seem to be a person known widely as a know it all.

 

[ReinyDays]

I happen to be a pilot and totally understand those issues about clouds. In fact, Clouds are to a major degree, responsible for climate. A good example of clouds that can't be seen from the ground are explained in this case I had. I was flying in the Santa Cruz area of CA when I saw cloud stair steps from above that I am positive those on the ground would not be able to see. The steps formed over the ocean and those on the ground could not see up and over them.

We are in agreement about the greenhouse effect CO2 has. We may not agree on this though. I know CO2 is a heavy gas. 1.5 times as heavy as ordinary air. So it sinks. The ocean as well as plant life grabs a lot of the gas. Plants are vital to producing oxygen. CO2 in effect aids in gas that we need to survive.

Yeah ... clouds is why I know it takes more than 500 feet to land a Cessna 182 ...

There's too much motion in our atmosphere for the CO2 to "settle out" ... where we see this phenomena is where the CO2 is oozing out of the ground, like near active volcanoes, and this CO2 fills in the divots in the ground ... but in general, we consider the CO2 to be well mixed ... I'm fine with the Keeling Curve even though it's taken within the splatter zone of the world's largest active volcano ...

[shakes head] ...

The Alarmists like bragging about "7% more water vapor per degree Celsius" ... well, that's 7% more clouds ... conservation of mass ...

 

[Robert W]

Wow. Another braggart. You and Trump and the other deniers have to pretend you actually have a job getting paid to work in science. Well, did you ? That’s how capitalism works. We only pay people in science institutions who don’t make up shit. You bozos keep claiming that science isn’t real at Johns Hopkins and others. You’re hilarious. You can’t get a grant because you’re a fraud. You don’t get paid to practice science because you’re a fraud.

When were you born? I am retired. I studied global climate to become a pilot. Prior to that I was like you are. A person who knew it rains, snows and gets hot in the summer. I did not need to understand climate or weather as it locally is known.
Science is very real. So is politics. This man ruins climate nonsense is a johnny come lately idea as far as science is concerned.
A link was posted by others showing the global system that accounts for our weather. in the explanation it states weather ordinarily can't be predicted more than 10 days in advance except in rare cases up to a month. You fruitcakes tell us you predict climate over a hundred years in advance. You are among quacks. This is why I study actual climate scientists and not the politicians you follow.

 

[Robert W]

Yeah ... clouds is why I know it takes more than 500 feet to land a Cessna 182 ...

There's too much motion in our atmosphere for the CO2 to "settle out" ... where we see this phenomena is where the CO2 is oozing out of the ground, like near active volcanoes, and this CO2 fills in the divots in the ground ... but in general, we consider the CO2 to be well mixed ... I'm fine with the Keeling Curve even though it's taken within the splatter zone of the world's largest active volcano ...

[shakes head] ...

The Alarmists like bragging about "7% more water vapor per degree Celsius" ... well, that's 7% more clouds ... conservation of mass ...

Did you see the full explanation of global climate that a person posted the link to? Where it discusses the cells of weather globally? Polar cells, Ferrel Cells and Hadley Cells? It will confuse non scientists. But it is what I learned to be a pilot.
I have flown in a Cessna 182 a few times but not as the pilot. We will take this off topic fast by discussing landing distances of the various airplane types.

Yes, I know that CO2 does get mixed in the atmosphere. The spinning Earth that faces the Sun differently depending on the time of year guarantees the atmosphere is mixed. We would hate it if the O2 was not mixed into the Nitrogen we breathe. They plan to execute a convict soon using Nitrogen in fact. So we must have O2 mixed. And naturally that creates conditions for the CO2 to also mix. But be honest. The amount of CO2 under discussion is extremely slight. I mean, 400 ppm? Submarines have had more than that and the crew lives fine.

If two guys exchange money, one takes the 400 dollars per million, and the other guy collects the balance, we see the guy with the 400 dollars does not have much cash at all. But the rich guy can do a lot of things as he pleases.

 

[Robert W]

Wow. Another braggart. You and Trump and the other deniers have to pretend you actually have a job getting paid to work in science. Well, did you ? That’s how capitalism works. We only pay people in science institutions who don’t make up shit. You bozos keep claiming that science isn’t real at Johns Hopkins and others. You’re hilarious. You can’t get a grant because you’re a fraud. You don’t get paid to practice science because you’re a fraud.

Braggart you bellow? You who use a famous baseball pitcher as his photo has to be a top ranked braggart. Perish the thought about me getting grants. I don't fall for the blame man for climate group.

 

[Robert W]

If man is not around during times of higher co2 concentration, it’s totally immaterial to what is happening now. Maybe you don’t think our species is important and under assault from the ravages of climate change. That’s fine. Just don’t pretend you’re a freakin expert. History and science indicates you are a fraud.

Again, you try to protect your being a fraud by calling other posters frauds. I know you have next to no comprehension about global climate nor it's many many causes.
This disaster you predict. A true climate scientist can't predict into the future the 100 years you bozos claim you can. You know even weather is next to impossible to accurately predict for a month in the future. But your sad story tries to predict decades into the future based on witchcraft.

 

[mamooth]

This displays the scientific immaturity common on the Democrats side. A false statement is first made, then the insult against a poster is next in line.

I've answered him many times. Did you just not know that, or were you dishonestly ignoring his history of cowardly trolling here?

(And do you especially like the way he blames TheJews for all kinds of things?)

Your side has been faceplanting at the science since the 1970s. Your side has been predicting a new ice age for 50 years running now. You've all been as wrong as it's possible to be. Thus, you're considered to be political hacks and clowns.

In contrast, our side was predicting warming in the 1970s. We've gotten everything right, so we have credibility. If you want the same sort of credibilty, you have to stop failing at every single thing, and do some actual good science. Complaining about how unfair it is that failure doesn't bring credibility will not bring you credibility. There is no affirmative action for denier garbage psuedoscience.

EMH for example backs his statements up with genuine proof from the science community.

If you think he makes a good argument, summarize what you think his good points are, in your own words, and I'll address it.

That is, if you're not just trolling, and you're not too scared to debate me.

 

[Robert W]

I've answered him many times. Did you just not know that, or were you dishonestly ignoring his history of cowardly trolling here?

(And do you especially like the way he blames TheJews for all kinds of things?)

Your side has been faceplanting at the science since the 1970s. Your side has been predicting a new ice age for 50 years running now. You've all been as wrong as it's possible to be. Thus, you're considered to be political hacks and clowns.

In contrast, our side was predicting warming in the 1970s. We've gotten everything right, so we have credibility. If you want the same sort of credibilty, you have to stop failing at every single thing, and do some actual good science. Complaining about how unfair it is that failure doesn't bring credibility will not bring you credibility. There is no affirmative action for denier garbage psuedoscience.



If you think he makes a good argument, summarize what you think his good points are, in your own words, and I'll address it.

That is, if you're not just trolling, and you're not too scared to debate me.

God, discussions are wars the way you handle things. It disgusts me to be blunt. Why are you making stuff up about our beliefs?
You predicted warming? And you think that means climate changed? Specifically where and how did Climate change as you claim you predicted?

As to his remarks against the Jews, I do my best to see it as just noise. And not sweat that crap. I am not the climate scientist. Do you claim you are? I rely on the top rated climate scientists but carefully analyze their findings. I measure that vs my long term learning about global climate that dates back to around 1980 when it started being relevant.

 

[mamooth]

God, discussions are wars the way you handle things. It disgusts me to be blunt.

You started it. Heat, kitchen.

Why are you making stuff up about our beliefs?

Are you actually denying that your side has been steadily predicting a new ice age since the 1970s? Maybe not you personally, but it is the overall denier prediction.

You predicted warming? And you think that means climate changed? Specifically where and how did Climate change as you claim you predicted?

It got a lot warmer. That would be a basic example of climate change.

As to his remarks against the Jews, I do my best to see it as just noise. And not sweat that crap. I am not the climate scientist. Do you claim you are? I rely on the top rated climate scientists but carefully analyze their findings. I measure that vs my long term learning about global climate that dates back to around 1980 when it started being relevant.

So what of EMH's arguments do you think is correct, and that everyone is avoiding talking about?