Any debate on global warming now OVER!?

[ding]

Why do they think man is in charge of climate?

Because they can? I'm amazed by their shoddy science and I'm amazed by their herd mentality and I am amazed by their lack of courage.

 

[alang1216]

Here is the reality. The planet entered into an ice age approximately 3 to 5 million years ago. Plate tectonics led to thermally isolated polar regions. The south pole has a continent parked over it and the north pole has an ocean parked over it that is mostly isolated due to surrounding lands. The difference in how the polar regions are isolated from warm marine currents affects their temperature threshold for extensive glaciation and how far glaciers can spread. The southern pole will glaciate at a temperature that is 4 to 5C warmer than the northern hemisphere but the glaciers will spread in the northern hemisphere much more than they will in the southern hemisphere because of the surrounding lands. The ocean in the southern hemisphere effectively moderates glaciation because it requires a much colder temperature to spread over water than it does land. Whereas in the northern hemisphere glaciation can spread to fairly significant parts of three continents - NA, Europe and Asia - at a temperature that is only 2C colder than today.

It is for this reason that the northern hemisphere has been driving the climate of the planet for the past 3 to 5 million years. When the northern hemisphere glaciates, the entire planet - oceans and atmosphere will cool. When the northern hemisphere deglaciates the entire planet will warm - oceans and the atmosphere.

After you have verified everything that I have just told you I will be glad to share the next part with you but you have to decide which pill you are going top swallow. Do you want to know the truth or are you happy living your life the way it is.

I don't know if you are correct or not but I don't see how it matters. Whatever the natural trend man is capable of affecting it.

 

[ding]

I don't know if you are correct or not but I don't see how it matters. Whatever the natural trend man is capable of affecting it.

I see two problems with that statement. Actually three.

 

[ReinyDays]

That's the "weather is the same as climate" nonsense.


That's a fine deflection from the valid points I raised about your theory.


Well, yeah. Greenhouse gas warming. No fudge factors needed.

Again, if albedo is the sole controlling factor, why haven't we seen albdeo do the controlling in the recent past? Why didn't earth either melt out or freeze up completely and stay that way?

You didn't answer my questions ... "How are you defining "fast warming"?" ... and "are you claiming we're not adding CO2 fast enough?" ... you seem to believe we're experiencing exponential temperature increase, when in fact we're seeing the inverse, logarithmic rise ... if you're not using SB, then whose radiation law are you using? ...

Three easy questions for you ... maybe pull off the teat long enough to answer ...

I gave you an article that explains why albedo is of critical important to climatology ... I guess one only reads what they want to believe ...

The last is just hilarious ... that's not how we mathematically represent the Greenhouse Effect ... and that's why you don't understand any of these processes ... sad ... very sad ...

Greenhouse Effect = ( 15 S (1-a) c^2 h^3 ) / 8 π^5 k^4 T^4 [where S=irradiation, a=albedo, c=speed of light, h=Planck's constant, k=Boltzmann's constant, T=Temperature

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ReinyDays]

does climate have a timeframe?

Climate and weather are exactly the same except weather using dt and climate uses ∆t ... where ∆t equals:

100 years minimum ... this effectively averages out short term, multi-year cycles ... like El Nino and the sunspot cycles ... and to a lesser degree volcanism ...

1,000-year average are better when discussing the glacial/interglacial effect ...

Important truths can be found with 10,000- and 100,000-year periods ... see ding's post #719 above ...

Ice ages occur over 10-million-year intervals ...

dt = the differential of time, an infinitely short time period ... that's college math, sorry ...

 

[jc456]

Climate and weather are exactly the same except weather using dt and climate uses ∆t ... where ∆t equals:

100 years minimum ... this effectively averages out short term, multi-year cycles ... like El Nino and the sunspot cycles ... and to a lesser degree volcanism ...

1,000-year average are better when discussing the glacial/interglacial effect ...

Important truths can be found with 10,000- and 100,000-year periods ... see ding's post #719 above ...

Ice ages occur over 10-million-year intervals ...

dt = the differential of time, an infinitely short time period ... that's college math, sorry ...

So again, technically speaking, climate delta varies? The next thought is, who gets to decide on the delta? If I choose a million year delta and note changes from that timeline, then anyone arguing a thirty year cycle isn't talking about the climate I prefer. They are referring to weather. Cause weather changes all the time during a 24 hour period. I choose not to accept that some version of someone's idea is science.

 

[ReinyDays]

So again, technically speaking, climate delta varies? The next thought is, who gets to decide on the delta? If I choose a million year delta and note changes from that timeline, then anyone arguing a thirty year cycle isn't talking about the climate I prefer. They are referring to weather. Cause weather changes all the time during a 24 hour period. I choose not to accept that some version of someone's idea is science.

The choice of delta will be stated in the peer-reviewed scientific paper ... one of the requirements to get published in reputable scientific journals ...

The National Enquirer isn't considered reputable ... they never provide error analysis ... again a scientific requirement in the scientific media ... not required in the rags the Hystericals read ... brought to you by The Sky is Falling Incorporated ...

 

[jc456]

The choice of delta will be stated in the peer-reviewed scientific paper ... one of the requirements to get published in reputable scientific journals ...

The National Enquirer isn't considered reputable ... they never provide error analysis ... again a scientific requirement in the scientific media ... not required in the rags the Hystericals read ... brought to you by The Sky is Falling Incorporated ...

yeah, I get that, but again, it is a moving target that actually means very little in an argument over weather.

 

[ReinyDays]

yeah, I get that, but again, it is a moving target that actually means very little in an argument over weather.

Moving this target is deceitful ... my only allowance is to split what temperature data we do have in half ... or two 70-year periods to average, and this gives us two numbers, the later one is slightly higher that the earlier one ... thus slight global warming ... and 1ºC is slight ...

You mentioned the 30-year-average and this will give us global cooling during World War Two and all the rebuilding afterwards ... an obvious counter-example to the main AGW argument ...

Again ... in the scientific media, we have to state our time interval ... or we won't get published ... simple ...

 

[jc456]

Moving this target is deceitful ... my only allowance is to split what temperature data we do have in half ... or two 70-year periods to average, and this gives us two numbers, the later one is slightly higher that the earlier one ... thus slight global warming ... and 1ºC is slight ...

You mentioned the 30-year-average and this will give us global cooling during World War Two and all the rebuilding afterwards ... an obvious counter-example to the main AGW argument ...

Again ... in the scientific media, we have to state our time interval ... or we won't get published ... simple ...

Someone should explain to the demofks then.

 

[abu afak]

Moving this target is deceitful ... my only allowance is to split what temperature data we do have in half ... or two 70-year periods to average, and this gives us two numbers, the later one is slightly higher that the earlier one ... thus slight global warming ... and 1ºC is slight ...

You mentioned the 30-year-average and this will give us global cooling during World War Two and all the rebuilding afterwards ... an obvious counter-example to the main AGW argument ...

Again ... in the scientific media, we have to state our time interval ... or we won't get published ... simple ...

I have questions for YOU: one of the many BS artists posting here.
Your whole life is "Physics dropping"/showing off with meaningless greek letters/formulas.
SO:
1. Is the climate warming?
2. Is man (and his GHGs) contributing to this in a significant or majority degree?
YES OR NO?
3. Optional/dependent: How fast is it warming/melting and what would be "Catastrophic" in that respect?

Despite the fact you must know Man is, you spend all your time BuIIshitting with with tangential Physics formulas and not telling your allies they are wrong and not wanting to be call a "lib"/"Leftist"/"Chicken little."

TIME TO SPEAK UP ON THEE ISSUE BOY.
`

 

[mamooth]

You didn't answer my questions ... "How are you defining "fast warming"?"

Because they're not relevent to how I shot down your albedo theory. They're deflections. But since you insist. ...

But hey, fast warming is defined as being much faster than any natural warming we've seen in the past.

... and "are you claiming we're not adding CO2 fast enough?"

Obviously, no. Why ask such a question, given I've never stated or implied such a crazy thing?

... you seem to believe we're experiencing exponential temperature increase,

If you can't debate what I actually say, just say so. Don't make up crazy stories about what I supposedly said.

when in fact we're seeing the inverse, logarithmic rise ...

No, we're seeing basically a linear rise, which is what's expected with an exponential rise in CO2.

if you're not using SB, then whose radiation law are you using? ...

Why do you think I'm not using SB? I'm just pointing out that the S-B law can't explain the current fast warming, so any theory that attributes temperature change purely to albedo change is obviously wrong.

What's more, Earth's albedo has been getting higher (more reflective) over the years.

The sum of land use changes is for higher albedo. Cropland and desert absorbs less sunlight than forests.

Aerosols have caused a higher albedo.

Clouds have caused a higher albedo.

Your theory states that a higher albedo should cause cooling. Instead, we see fast warming. That means your theory is wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Have the uneducated slobs overturned the most robust scientific theory in history yet?

No?

I'll check back later.

 

[mamooth]

Why do they think man is in charge of climate?

If you can't debate what we actually say, just admit it. It's not like you're fooling anyone.

Lying about what we supposedly said just makes you look even more cowardly and disonest.

 

[jc456]

Because they're not relevent to how I shot down your albedo theory. They're deflections. But since you insist. ...

But hey, fast warming is defined as being much faster than any natural warming we've seen in the past.


Obviously, no. Why ask such a question, given I've never stated or implied such a crazy thing?


If you can't debate what I actually say, just say so. Don't make up crazy stories about what I supposedly said.


No, we're seeing basically a linear rise, which is what's expected with an exponential rise in CO2.


Why do you think I'm not using SB? I'm just pointing out that the S-B law can't explain the current fast warming, so any theory that attributes temperature change purely to albedo change is obviously wrong.

What's more, Earth's albedo has been getting higher (more reflective) over the years.

The sum of land use changes is for higher albedo. Cropland and desert absorbs less sunlight than forests.

Aerosols have caused a higher albedo.

Clouds have caused a higher albedo.

Your theory states that a higher albedo should cause cooling. Instead, we see fast warming. That means your theory is wrong.

DEFLECTING

 

[jc456]

Have the uneducated slobs overturned the most robust scientific theory in history yet?

No?

I'll check back later.

Overturned what?

 

[mamooth]

Someone should explain to the demofks then.

This confirms my point, again. Denialism is entirely a political hack movement. That's why the acolytes of the denier cult are always right-wing extremists, and why they're always raving about politics during science discussions.

In contrast, those on the rational side don't rave about politics. Those can talk about science, do. The science backs up everything we say, so we don't have to bring politics into it.

If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish along with it, because denialism is 100% politics.

If left-wing politics vanished, climate science wouldn't change a bit, because it's entirely science.

 

[mamooth]

DEFLECTING

Understood. I talked in detail about the science, you had no intelligent response, so you're deflecting. Yes, it is that obvious.

You add nothing to the discussion here. We've tried to educate you, but we've given up. You know nothing about the topic, and you have no interest in learning. You're only interested in disrupting things. You know, trolling. Any discussion you enter tends to turn to shit, because that's the goal of a troll.

Go away, troll, unless you're willing to actually talk about science.

 

[Robert W]

If you can't debate what we actually say, just admit it. It's not like you're fooling anyone.

Lying about what we supposedly said just makes you look even more cowardly and disonest.

You are not debating at all. You are scared off when I ask a prime question or make a prime statement. If you blame man for the disaster you think is going to hit us, it means man controls climate. Do you believe man controls climate?

 

[mamooth]

You are not debating at all. You are scared off when I ask a prime question or make a prime statement. If you blame man for the disaster you think is going to hit us, it means man controls climate. Do you believe man controls climate?

No, I say man has an influence on climate. "Control" is your word, and it's wrong, as it implies total control, which nobody ever claimed.

That is, you're being deliberately dishonest with your words, as usual.