A Climate Hero.

[haveatit]

What did he say that you believe was wrong?

Anything that suggests that what the vast majority of scientists are saying about human caused global warming is wrong for some reason or another. I wonder how much the energy companies are paying him to spout bullshit.

 

[haveatit]

Incorrect. The last eccentricity cycle was nearly circular, so no. Every 4th eccentricity cycle is nearly circular. It's a 400,000 year cycle.

I wonder how much bullshit you expect me to disprove.

 

[ding]

H2O is considered a FEEDBACK because it responds to the warming from added CO2 and adds more warming. That's what a feedback loop is. So yes there is an amplification.

How exactly does it respond to the warming from added CO2?

 

[ding]

Anything that suggests that what the vast majority of scientists are saying about human caused global warming is wrong for some reason or another. I wonder how much the energy companies are paying him to spout bullshit.

So in other words, you can't name ONE single thing that he said that you disagree with?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How exactly does it respond to the warming from added CO2?

Adding CO2 causes and increase in the temperature at the surface due to the greenhouse effect. Increased temperature causes water to evaporate. The water VAPOR is also a greenhouse gas causing more warming.

More CO2-->more warming-->more H2O vapor-->even MORE warming.


It's actually a really simple concept. You can try it some time by putting water in a pot on a kitchen stove. As you increase the temperature and the water warms it EVAPORATES into steam in the air.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most of "what you need" you need because the media tells you that's what you need. Because those who make the "things you need" control the media. I have a video for you on that topic. And as for making a profit, I have a meme for that too.



View attachment 650674

Most of "what you need" you need because the media tells you that's what you need.

I don't buy things based on the media.

And as for making a profit, I have a meme for that too.

Frank, is that you?

 

[ding]

I wonder how much bullshit you expect me to disprove.

You want to disprove orbital forcing? I'm pretty sure even "your" guys - who have convinced you to believe without ever understanding one single thing about what you believe - believe in orbital forcing.

 

[haveatit]

The thermometer of course. But that's not what is happening here. What is happening here is explaining why the thermometer reads what it does. And for that they use models. Models which depending upon which datasets are used yield opposite conclusions. Your guys include urban station temperature data and use the low variability solar output dataset. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset.

No. For that they use thermometers. (And the like) And they already know the reasons why the thermometer reads what it does. It's like if they had the glass sitting on a hot plate set to a certain temperature. They would know why the thermometer reads what it does.

 

[ding]

Anything that suggests that what the vast majority of scientists are saying about human caused global warming is wrong for some reason or another. I wonder how much the energy companies are paying him to spout bullshit.

Like what? Can you name ONE thing?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Most of "what you need" you need because the media tells you that's what you need.

I don't buy things based on the media.

You would be that rarest of humans. There's an entire science of advertising that manipulates you in ways you don't even know.

 

[ding]

No. For that they use thermometers. (And the like) And they already know the reasons why the thermometer reads what it does. It's like if they had the glass sitting on a hot plate set to a certain temperature. They would know why the thermometer reads what it does.

Again... they are using models to explain why the thermometer reads one thing instead of another.

What part of this do you not understand?

 

[haveatit]

They have really fucked you up.

If it is truly an inescapable fact that is worth setting yourself on fire to bring attention to, why haven't you set yourself on fire? Is it possible that the reason you haven't already set yourself on fire is because deep down even you don't believe the Earth will be dead in 30 years?

I'm not a Buddhist like Mr Bruce was. Also, obviously he was a lot more dedicated and optimistic that he could bring attention to the matter in that way than I am.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You would be that rarest of humans. There's an entire science of advertising that manipulates you in ways you don't even know.

I am pretty rare.

 

[ding]

Adding CO2 causes and increase in the temperature at the surface due to the greenhouse effect. Increased temperature causes water to evaporate. The water VAPOR is also a greenhouse gas causing more warming.

More CO2-->more warming-->more H2O vapor-->even MORE warming.


It's actually a really simple concept. You can try it some time by putting water in a pot on a kitchen stove. As you increase the temperature and the water warms it EVAPORATES into steam in the air.

It also means more evaporation, increasing cloud reflection, decreasing water vapor from cloud formation, decreasing water vapor in the upper troposphere and increased ocean mixing sequestering extra heat in the deep ocean.

So, no. It's not even close to being simple.

 

[ding]

I'm not a Buddhist like Mr Bruce was. Also, obviously he was a lot more dedicated and optimistic that he could bring attention to the matter in that way than I am.

So what you are saying is that you aren't certain at all.

 

[ding]

It's probably worth restating that the geologic record is littered with examples of decadal warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forces. So the assumption can't be made that the recent warming trend is due to increased CO2. Correlation - in and of itself - does not necessarily prove causation. So it is particularly disturbing that the IPCC routinely tunes their climate models to not produce natural climate change.

 

[haveatit]

Limiting yourself to a merely sustainable existence is a recipe for extinction. The societies that were merely sustainable in the past, were destroyed when the first big catastrophe came along. The only societies that have a chance to survive are those who are capable of creating enough excess to take them through dark times.

Your idea off history is flawed at best. Next, what we are doing is the opposite of sustainability. Infinite growth is itself unsustainable. Such as population growth is unsustainable. The population growth of latino countries is unsustainable. They breed like bacteria. Like a cancerous growth. Letting them invade our country is no solution to that problem. Any "excess" we create they just eat up in order to breed more. Our world is dying. The oceans are dying. The catastrophe that is coming will kill just about everything. Unfortunately, those most responsible will have enough money and resources to be among the last to go.

 

[haveatit]

You want to disprove orbital forcing? I'm pretty sure even "your" guys - who have convinced you to believe without ever understanding one single thing about what you believe - believe in orbital forcing.

Orbital forcing? What in the hell are you talking about. On second thought, don't tell me.

 

[haveatit]

So what you are saying is that you aren't certain at all.

No. I'm absolutely certain. I'm just not going to set myself on fire to prove it.

 

[ding]

Adding CO2 causes and increase in the temperature at the surface due to the greenhouse effect. Increased temperature causes water to evaporate. The water VAPOR is also a greenhouse gas causing more warming.

Which is exactly why they need to show the calculation in two parts because they are separate phenomenon. Each component needs to be evaluated on it's own merit. Combing two separate phenomenon makes it difficult to see the predicted contribution of each, adds unnecessary complexity and confusion to the peer review process, can be seen as intentionally misleading and in short is not transparent. Science thrives on transparency.