Global Warming (Assuming It's Happening) is a Blessing From God

[GMCGeneral]

It has been getting warmer for the last 150 years and the number of extinctions have risen. The only increasing segment of the Earth's biomass have been humans and their livestock.

As it should be.

 

[psikeyhackr]

That looks as if you don't actually have a response.

Yeah right, using your brain is a threat to your DENSA membership.

 

[ReinyDays]

As I've told you at least a dozen times now, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. If you'd like to see some of the evidence that has convinced 99% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid, then I suggest you read the document I've recommended to you at least a dozen times: Working Group I's "The Physical Science Basis" from AR6. It may be found at www.ipcc.ch.

I'd really like you to identify the "fucking" lie you think I told, asshole. If its that AGW is based on the peer reviewed studies of thousands and thousands of scientists, standby to receive your ass.

Hey STUPID ... physics uses mathematical proofs ... are you denying 2+2=4? ... yes, we've PROVED temperature is proportional to the fourth-root of irradiation ... lying motherfucker ... but you don't know what a fourth-root is, except it means a runaway greenhouse effect ... even though your 114.7% consensus of all scientists in the universe say we're not experiencing a runaway greenhouse effect ...

Which of these "thousands of scientists" published the ridged mathematical proof of AGW Theory ... and a link is fine ... just make sure YOU read the link yourself first ... you have a habit of posting links that support MY position ... thus the lying motherfucker reputation you have ...

You don't understand climatology, nor meteorology ... why do you insist on pretending you do? ... go through the EV threads and note all my comments ... see? ... I'm not pretending I understand, I'm honest with the other posters ... and my comment are taken in that context ... "if it doesn't make financial sense, then don't buy one" ...

I don't lie, ever ... it's just I never log in with my pride, thus there's no check on my ego ... therapist's idea, yell at her ...

 

[Crick]

Hey STUPID ...

Scientific Proof | Science Exposed

ds-wordpress.haverford.edu

physics uses mathematical proofs

Mathematics contains proofs. Physics does not. The laws of physics are not based on proof but on observations and reason.

... are you denying 2+2=4?

Are you under the impression that arithmetic is some part of physics?

... yes, we've PROVED temperature is proportional to the fourth-root of irradiation ... lying motherfucker

No, we have not.

... but you don't know what a fourth-root is, except it means a runaway greenhouse effect ... even though your 114.7% consensus of all scientists in the universe say we're not experiencing a runaway greenhouse effect ...

I have never used the term runaway greenhouse effect wrt AGW. The consensus among published scientists is quite real. It is just as significant as the complete lack of any consensus for your point of view.

Which of these "thousands of scientists" published the ridged mathematical proof of AGW Theory ...

You just don't know when to stop digging. And I think you meant to use rigid, not ridged.

and a link is fine ... just make sure YOU read the link yourself first ... you have a habit of posting links that support MY position ... thus the lying motherfucker reputation you have ...

I think people on your side of this argument might call me a motherfucker because I continue to embarrass them.

You don't understand climatology, nor meteorology ... why do you insist on pretending you do?

I've never claimed any particular expertise. I'm just an old engineer. But the people I read and the people I quote, they DO understand climatology and meteorology and atmospheric physics and thermodynamics and I know enough science to understand what they're saying. I also know enough about science and the scientific method not to embarrass myself the way you are right now.

... go through the EV threads and note all my comments ... see? ... I'm not pretending I understand, I'm honest with the other posters ... and my comment are taken in that context ... "if it doesn't make financial sense, then don't buy one" ...

Go through the global warming threads and note that I have provided a large number of links to technical and scholarly sources supporting my view (which is unsuprising since my views are based on those sources).

I don't lie, ever ... it's just I never log in with my pride, thus there's no check on my ego ... therapist's idea, yell at her ...

You have now repeatedly accused me of lying and your attempt to show I have, has only exposed your severe ignorance about natural science.

 

[ReinyDays]

Scientific Proof | Science Exposed

ds-wordpress.haverford.edu

Mathematics contains proofs. Physics does not. The laws of physics are not based on proof but on observations and reason.

Are you under the impression that arithmetic is some part of physics?

No, we have not.

I have never used the term runaway greenhouse effect wrt AGW. The consensus among published scientists is quite real. It is just as significant as the complete lack of any consensus for your point of view.

You just don't know when to stop digging. And I think you meant to use rigid, not ridged.

I think people on your side of this argument might call me a motherfucker because I continue to embarrass them.

I've never claimed any particular expertise. I'm just an old engineer. But the people I read and the people I quote, they DO understand climatology and meteorology and atmospheric physics and thermodynamics and I know enough science to understand what they're saying. I also know enough about science and the scientific method not to embarrass myself the way you are right now.

Go through the global warming threads and note that I have provided a large number of links to technical and scholarly sources supporting my view (which is unsuprising since my views are based on those sources).

You have now repeatedly accused me of lying and your attempt to show I have, has only exposed your severe ignorance about natural science.

You've rejected Planck's Radiation Law in your denial of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law ... obviously, you don't understand the science at hand ...

 

[justoffal]

A little geometry. A degree of latitude at the equator covers an area of 1,718,169 square miles. A degree of latitude at, say, 60 degrees north latitude covers half that much area, or 859,085 square miles. So, aside from all the other problems (rising seas, loss of drinking water supplies, crops failing faster than they can be replaced) you're losing more area than your gaining.

Not necessarily. Most of the land loss will be on the coastal areas more or less like a neat ribbon trim. Most of the land gain will be in wide open segments far above sea level that will be farmable. That is also geometry.

But here's a little science for you too... The idea that we can stop this process is utterly ludicrous.

You do realize that the sun is gaining energy everyday as makes its way through midlife and into the red giant stage. Yes I know I know It's several billion years in the future. However it's not going to happen all at once It will happen gradually over the course of that time period. Every second the sun burns 600 million tons of hydrogen into helium. As the sun's density changes so does its radiative profile.

Solar panels and wind turbines cannot stop this process.

 

[Mashmont]

Good to hear. Not true, but good to hear.

Global warming is catholic and so assumes a positive outlook on pretty much everything?

I'm afraid that is both irrelevant and inaccurate. The rate of change of both CO2 and temperature that have taken place since the start of the Industrial Revolution are unprecedented in several million years. And, of course, the Earth has never before experienced the combustion of billions of tons of fossil fuels.

Why? Were humans suffering from the cold? The Earth was cooling but at a geological pace. The forcing from our GHG emissions has easily overwhelmed the cooling that was taking place.

And a larger area to either side of the Equator and along the entire planet's coastlines that will become uninhabitable. And it's not as if there's good soil up there waiting for temperatures to rise. The tundra will turn into a swamp of bubbling muck. Many other areas are rock and gravel. Good soil is built up by healthy flora over thousands and thousands of years. Siberia is not going to turn into Ukraine overnight.

No, it will not.

Only because he'd look like an idiot.

That Russians believe warming will increase the amount of land "attractive to human populations" does not impress me. Neither does your argument. AGW is not a scam. It is not based on Obama, Gore, Gates or Soros but on the peer reviewed studies of thousands and thousands of degreed scientists.

"Peer reviewed studies of thousands of thousands and thousands of degreed scientists."

Your post was so full of hokum that I'll address this final statement. First off, there is no way to 'peer review' predictions. You'd just as well "peer review" the next turn of the roulette wheel. Secondly, what classifies one as a scientist? Shoot, I'm a scientist. I have a degree. This is just another undefined nebulous and false leftwing talking point. And thirdly, there is no evidence that "thousands" of anybody agrees with the climate change fairy tale.

My main point that remains unchallenged is we have no idea where we are in the heating or cooling cycle. Therefore any claim that global warming predictions are reliable and should be followed are decidedly UNscientific.

 

[justoffal]

"Peer reviewed studies of thousands of thousands and thousands of degreed scientists."

Your post was so full of hocum that I'll address this final statement. First off, there is no way to 'peer review' predictions. You'd just as well "peer review" the next turn of the roulette wheel. Secondly, what classifies one as a scientist? Shoot, I'm a scientist. I have a degree. This is just another undefined nebulous and false leftwing talking point. And thirdly, there is no evidence that "thousands" of anybody agrees with the climate change fairy tale.

My main point that remains unchallenged is we have no idea where we are in the heating or cooling cycle. Therefore any claim that global warming predictions are reliable and should be followed are decidedly UNscientific.

There is also no way for anyone to know whether the CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are a direct result of oceanic warming or vice versa.

They will of course see it the way it benefits them to see it.

Jo

 

[Crick]

There is also no way for anyone to know whether the CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are a direct result of oceanic warming or vice versa.

They will of course see it the way it benefits them to see it.

Jo

That is incorrect. There are two ways (that I know of) to determine the origin of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping. The former is able to distinguish CO2 produced from fossil fuels. The latter simply uses existing records to tally up the total amount of fossil fuels that humans have burned and calculate the amount of CO2 that would have been produced. The results of both methods agree closely and find that almost every molecule above the 280 ppm that existed prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

The oceans are still able to absorb CO2. There is, as of yet, no net release. The increasing SST are reducing CO2 solubility but it has not yet pushed the seas to supersaturation.

 

[ReinyDays]

There is also no way for anyone to know whether the CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are a direct result of oceanic warming or vice versa.

Sure there is ... perform an experiment ... take some ocean water and heat it, see if it ejects the CO2 ... kitchen counter science ...

 

[justoffal]

That is incorrect. There are two ways (that I know of) to determine the origin of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping. The former is able to distinguish CO2 produced from fossil fuels. The latter simply uses existing records to tally up the total amount of fossil fuels that humans have burned and calculate the amount of CO2 that would have been produced. The results of both methods agree closely and find that almost every molecule above the 280 ppm that existed prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

The oceans are still able to absorb CO2. There is, as of yet, no net release. The increasing SST are reducing CO2 solubility but it has not yet pushed the seas to supersaturation.

 

[justoffal]

That is incorrect. There are two ways (that I know of) to determine the origin of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping. The former is able to distinguish CO2 produced from fossil fuels. The latter simply uses existing records to tally up the total amount of fossil fuels that humans have burned and calculate the amount of CO2 that would have been produced. The results of both methods agree closely and find that almost every molecule above the 280 ppm that existed prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

The oceans are still able to absorb CO2. There is, as of yet, no net release. The increasing SST are reducing CO2 solubility but it has not yet pushed the seas to supersaturation.

Oh pahleese.... Did you assume that I did not already know about that so-called isotope tracking system? It's just as much hogwash as the temperature records chaos that continue to get exposed for bias and unscientific methodology.

It's just a hunch and has never been anything more than that. It's still being developed and as of yet has not really been fully vetted as an accurate measurement. Here read for yourself.

Tracking fossil fuel emissions with carbon-14 - NOAA Research

Researchers from NOAA and the University of Colorado Boulder have devised a breakthrough method for estimating national emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels using ambient air samples and a well-known isotope of carbon that scientists have relied on for decades to date archaeological sites.

research.noaa.gov

I suspect that your generalization of oceanic CO2 solubility is just as much hocum as your Isotope claim. Solubility is a gradual process that is inversely proportional to temperature.
There is no gateway level that suddenly releases or absorbs. It is a constant process. Higher ocean temps simply mean more Atmospheric co2. There's no argument to be had here.

Jo

 

[Crick]

Oh pahleese.... Did you assume that I did not already know about that so-called isotope tracking system? It's just as much hogwash as the temperature records chaos that continue to get exposed for bias and unscientific methodology.

Based on your comment, I made precisely that assumption and, seeing your comments here, I am making a few more along similar lines. Historical temperature records have not been shown to be biased or to have been produced by any "unscientific methodology". They are not "hogwash".

It's just a hunch and has never been anything more than that.

It is a great deal more than a hunch. From your linked article: "While the link between fossil CO2 emissions and atmospheric 14C has been known for many decades..." Now I'm beginning to make the assumption that you're sufficiently ignorant about basic science to be another [fill-in-the-blank] that believes theories are just guesses. Beyond that failure, you have misconstrued both my pertinent statements and what your linked article is describing. I have been referring to singular calculations which determined the origins of CO2 in the atmosphere at a single instant in time. Your article concerns NOAA's development of a system to continuously monitor current CO2 emissions and current atmospheric levels.

It's still being developed and as of yet has not really been fully vetted as an accurate measurement. Here read for yourself.

Per your article, what is being developed is "the construction of a national-scale emission estimate." From your link: "While the link between fossil CO2 emissions and atmospheric 14C has been known for many decades, the construction of a national-scale emission estimate based on atmospheric 14Crequired the simultaneous development of precise measurement techniques and an emissions estimation framework, largely spearheaded over the past 15 years by NOAA scientist John Miller and University of Colorado scientist Scott Lehman."

Tracking fossil fuel emissions with carbon-14 - NOAA Research

Researchers from NOAA and the University of Colorado Boulder have devised a breakthrough method for estimating national emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels using ambient air samples and a well-known isotope of carbon that scientists have relied on for decades to date archaeological sites.

research.noaa.gov

Informative article. It doesn't help your arguments in the least but thanks for posting it.

I suspect that your generalization of oceanic CO2 solubility is just as much hocum as your Isotope claim. Solubility is a gradual process that is inversely proportional to temperature.

You've never passed a chemistry class have you. Solubility is not a process, it is a characteristic of a liquid. That "-bility" on the end should make you think of the word "ability" The solubility of gas in liquids is inversely proportional to temperature. The solubility of solids in liquids is directly proportional. Henry's Law, which describes the relationship of gas solubility in a liquid to its temperature, was first published in 1803.

There is no gateway level that suddenly releases or absorbs. It is a constant process. Higher ocean temps simply mean more Atmospheric co2. There's no argument to be had here.

As I noted, the ocean is not releasing net CO2 but as temperatures increase, its solubility is decreasing and thus the oceans are becoming less and less of a sink for our emissions. The warming of the Arctic tundras, due to the cold temperatures they have been in, WILL release large amounts of methane and CO2 as the Arctic warms.

 

[ding]

Based on your comment, I made precisely that assumption and, seeing your comments here, I am making a few more along similar lines. Historical temperature records have not been shown to be biased or to have been produced by any "unscientific methodology". They are not "hogwash".

Global temperature reconstructions which do not match ice core trends are warmer temperatures in the past are hogwash.

 

[Crick]

Global temperature reconstructions which do not match ice core trends are warmer temperatures in the past are hogwash.

Show us why we should think so. You know, studies, evidence, links...

 

[ding]

Show us why we should think so. You know, studies, evidence, links...

1. They smooth out climate variability seen from northern hemisphere ice core data.
2. They don't reflect that 8500 years of the past 10,000 years were warmer.
3. They use an arbitrary and misleading reference temperature.
4. They give a false impression of the recent warming trend.

Your own temperature reconstructions show the same exact thing but their global reconstruction doesn't look anything like it. In other words, they dismiss the most important region of the planet when it comes to warming. Global warming should really be called polar warming as that is where more warming occurs incrementally.

 

[Crick]

1. They smooth out climate variability seen from northern hemisphere ice core data.
2. They don't reflect that 8500 years of the past 10,000 years were warmer.
3. They use an arbitrary and misleading reference temperature.
4. They give a false impression of the recent warming trend.

Your own temperature reconstructions show the same exact thing but their global reconstruction doesn't look anything like it. In other words, they dismiss the most important region of the planet when it comes to warming. Global warming should really be called polar warming as that is where more warming occurs incrementally.

Where is the respectable climate scientist telling us that your Greenland ice cores are more reliable; more accurate, than all the multivariate, multi-sample, multi-location proxy studies that everyone else seems to be using?

 

[ding]

Where is the respectable climate scientist telling us that your Greenland ice cores are more reliable; more accurate, than all the multivariate, multi-sample, multi-location proxy studies that everyone else seems to be using?

You need someone to tell you that? You can't figure out the differences on your own?

 

[Crick]

You need someone to tell you that? You can't figure out the differences on your own?

Your inability to address your own errors are beginning to look a little balls-less

 

[ding]

Your inability to address your own errors are beginning to look a little balls-less

There are no errors in placing greater weight on a temperature reconstruction from the northern polar region. Less moving parts (so to speak) with more consistency because it's from the same region. A region that is the bellwether for climate change on this planet. If you want to see climate fluctuations that's where you need to go. It's self evident.