Global warming strikes again folks!!

[Crick]

Of course it is, just like most of what you post.

It think that's supposed to go "Sure you are but what am I?" Third grade. Maybe Fourth.

 

[jc456]

It think that's supposed to go "Sure you are but what am I?" Third grade. Maybe Fourth.

Definitely, your fourth grade English is on full display

 

[Crick]

Definitely, your fourth grade English is on full display

More of the same I see.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

No it isn't. It is a now failed theory propped up by corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, and scientists to strip power away from the people of the world, and for others to make money for doing basically nothing but supporting the fraud.

I have seen that there is a lot of information from what I read and watched from Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, and I would recommend following her for information. I have this following from her.

When we see climate changing, we don't automatically jump on the human bandwagon, case closed. No, we rigorously examine and test all other reasons why climate could be changing: the sun, volcanoes, natural cycles, even something we don't know yet: could they be responsible?

Could it be the sun? No: the sun's energy has been going down at the very time that the average temperature of the planet continues to rise. Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions No, even a Grand Minimum wouldn't save us. RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

Could it be volcanoes? No: though a big eruption emits a lot of soot and particulates, these temporarily cool the planet. On average, all geologic activity, put together, emits only about 10% of the heat-trapping gases that humans do. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011EO240001

Could it be orbital cycles? Are we just getting warmer after the last ice age? No: warming from the last ice age peaked 1000s of yrs ago, and the next event on our geologic calendar was another ice age: was, until the industrial revolution, that is. https://people.clas.ufl.edu/jetc/files/Tzedakis-et-al-2012.pdf

Could it be natural cycles internal to the climate system, like El Nino? No: those cycles simply move heat around the climate system, mostly back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean. They cannot CREATE heat. So if they were responsible for atmospheric warming, then the heat content of another part of the climate system wd have to be going down, while the heat content of the atmosphere was going up. Is this what we see? No: heat content is increasing across the entire climate system, ocean most of all! Nuccitelli et al 2012 Total Heat Content

Could it be cosmic rays? No. Cosmic Rays and Climate moving in opposite directions

How about the magnetic pole moving? Planet Niribu? Geoengineering? What about an unknown factor we don't know about yet? No. Testing for the Possible Influence of Unknown Climate Forcings upon Global Temperature Increases from 1950 to 2000

It has been known since the work of John Tyndall in the 1850s that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared energy, and Eunice Foote was the first to suggest that higher CO2 levels would lead to a warmer planet, in 1856. No one has been able to explain how increasing levels of CO2, CH4 and other heat-trapping gases would not raise the temperature of the planet. Yet that must be done first, if we are to consider any other sources as "dominant". Moreover, when Rasmus Benestad and other scientists examined dozens of published papers claiming to minimize or eliminate the human role in climate change, they found errors in every single one. Hereâs what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

<p>Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.</p>

skepticalscience.com

If you don't think humans are the dominant source of warming, you are making a statement that does not have a single factual or scientific leg to stand on. Yet leaders of science agencies are saying exactly that today. This is the world we live in.

 

[expat_panama]

... the sun's energy has been going down at the very time that the average temperature of the planet continues to rise....

You provided a detailed analysis --which I respect-- but then you seemed to me to be reverting to factional slogans devoid of meaning. The above quote is the kind of statement that I hear a lot and when I ask about climate change, and all I get back is what I experience as stammering followed by the 97% of scientist consensus nonsense.

You'd be helping me out tremendously if you could explore this w/ me. Could you please confirm tha you actually understand that the planet is warming up?

 

[Dagosa]

all I get back is what I experience as stammering followed by the 97% of scientist consensus nonsense.

Why do you automatically call nonsense what the vast majority of the smartest most dedicate people in a field agreed upon. Geesus, if 97% of the medical research people’s agreed upon the best treatment for lung cancer, would you call that nonsense ? How about when over 95% of the time we have a recession or engaged in criminal behavior when one political party is admin in charge, you call that nonsense.

Gessus, what you’re saying is nonsense. We should be embarrassed to say such bullshit.

 

[westwall]

I have seen that there is a lot of information from what I read and watched from Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, and I would recommend following her for information. I have this following from her.

When we see climate changing, we don't automatically jump on the human bandwagon, case closed. No, we rigorously examine and test all other reasons why climate could be changing: the sun, volcanoes, natural cycles, even something we don't know yet: could they be responsible?

Could it be the sun? No: the sun's energy has been going down at the very time that the average temperature of the planet continues to rise. Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions No, even a Grand Minimum wouldn't save us. RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

Could it be volcanoes? No: though a big eruption emits a lot of soot and particulates, these temporarily cool the planet. On average, all geologic activity, put together, emits only about 10% of the heat-trapping gases that humans do. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011EO240001

Could it be orbital cycles? Are we just getting warmer after the last ice age? No: warming from the last ice age peaked 1000s of yrs ago, and the next event on our geologic calendar was another ice age: was, until the industrial revolution, that is. https://people.clas.ufl.edu/jetc/files/Tzedakis-et-al-2012.pdf

Could it be natural cycles internal to the climate system, like El Nino? No: those cycles simply move heat around the climate system, mostly back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean. They cannot CREATE heat. So if they were responsible for atmospheric warming, then the heat content of another part of the climate system wd have to be going down, while the heat content of the atmosphere was going up. Is this what we see? No: heat content is increasing across the entire climate system, ocean most of all! Nuccitelli et al 2012 Total Heat Content

Could it be cosmic rays? No. Cosmic Rays and Climate moving in opposite directions

How about the magnetic pole moving? Planet Niribu? Geoengineering? What about an unknown factor we don't know about yet? No. Testing for the Possible Influence of Unknown Climate Forcings upon Global Temperature Increases from 1950 to 2000

It has been known since the work of John Tyndall in the 1850s that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared energy, and Eunice Foote was the first to suggest that higher CO2 levels would lead to a warmer planet, in 1856. No one has been able to explain how increasing levels of CO2, CH4 and other heat-trapping gases would not raise the temperature of the planet. Yet that must be done first, if we are to consider any other sources as "dominant". Moreover, when Rasmus Benestad and other scientists examined dozens of published papers claiming to minimize or eliminate the human role in climate change, they found errors in every single one. Hereâs what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

<p>Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.</p>

skepticalscience.com

If you don't think humans are the dominant source of warming, you are making a statement that does not have a single factual or scientific leg to stand on. Yet leaders of science agencies are saying exactly that today. This is the world we live in.

It's the other way round. There is no data that supports the claim.

There are computer derived fictions.

Computer models are NOT data.

The AGW cultists don't understand that, apparently.

 

[jc456]

I have seen that there is a lot of information from what I read and watched from Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, and I would recommend following her for information. I have this following from her.

When we see climate changing, we don't automatically jump on the human bandwagon, case closed. No, we rigorously examine and test all other reasons why climate could be changing: the sun, volcanoes, natural cycles, even something we don't know yet: could they be responsible?

Could it be the sun? No: the sun's energy has been going down at the very time that the average temperature of the planet continues to rise. Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions No, even a Grand Minimum wouldn't save us. RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

Could it be volcanoes? No: though a big eruption emits a lot of soot and particulates, these temporarily cool the planet. On average, all geologic activity, put together, emits only about 10% of the heat-trapping gases that humans do. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011EO240001

Could it be orbital cycles? Are we just getting warmer after the last ice age? No: warming from the last ice age peaked 1000s of yrs ago, and the next event on our geologic calendar was another ice age: was, until the industrial revolution, that is. https://people.clas.ufl.edu/jetc/files/Tzedakis-et-al-2012.pdf

Could it be natural cycles internal to the climate system, like El Nino? No: those cycles simply move heat around the climate system, mostly back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean. They cannot CREATE heat. So if they were responsible for atmospheric warming, then the heat content of another part of the climate system wd have to be going down, while the heat content of the atmosphere was going up. Is this what we see? No: heat content is increasing across the entire climate system, ocean most of all! Nuccitelli et al 2012 Total Heat Content

Could it be cosmic rays? No. Cosmic Rays and Climate moving in opposite directions

How about the magnetic pole moving? Planet Niribu? Geoengineering? What about an unknown factor we don't know about yet? No. Testing for the Possible Influence of Unknown Climate Forcings upon Global Temperature Increases from 1950 to 2000

It has been known since the work of John Tyndall in the 1850s that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared energy, and Eunice Foote was the first to suggest that higher CO2 levels would lead to a warmer planet, in 1856. No one has been able to explain how increasing levels of CO2, CH4 and other heat-trapping gases would not raise the temperature of the planet. Yet that must be done first, if we are to consider any other sources as "dominant". Moreover, when Rasmus Benestad and other scientists examined dozens of published papers claiming to minimize or eliminate the human role in climate change, they found errors in every single one. Hereâs what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

<p>Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.</p>

skepticalscience.com

If you don't think humans are the dominant source of warming, you are making a statement that does not have a single factual or scientific leg to stand on. Yet leaders of science agencies are saying exactly that today. This is the world we live in.

huh?

 

[jc456]

Why do you automatically call nonsense what the vast majority of the smartest most dedicate people in a field agreed upon. Geesus, if 97% of the medical research people’s agreed upon the best treatment for lung cancer, would you call that nonsense ? How about when over 95% of the time we have a recession or engaged in criminal behavior when one political party is admin in charge, you call that nonsense.

Gessus, what you’re saying is nonsense. We should be embarrassed to say such bullshit.

75 of 77 scientists are not the vast majority. for fk sake already get over it.

 

[Dagosa]

75 of 77 scientists are not the vast majority. for fk sake already get over it.

Don’t be stooopid. That’s a poll for who is not Republucan. Get your shit together. There are NO climate research facilities in the 30k plus institutes of higher learning that that belong to your fictitious made up shit. That’s where the 97% comes from Dufus. As they each employ dozens of scientists ALL of whom think you deniers are dufus dumbbells.
Go ahead ignoramus, produce just one instituted, govt agency or related corporation that supports you idiots.

 

[expat_panama]

Why do you automatically call nonsense what the vast majority of the smartest most dedicate people in a field agreed upon. Geesus, if 97% of the medical research people’s agreed upon the best treatment for lung cancer, would you call that nonsense ? How about when over 95% of the time we have a recession or engaged in criminal behavior when one political party is admin in charge, you call that nonsense.

Gessus, what you’re saying is nonsense. We should be embarrassed to say such bullshit.

 

[jc456]

Don’t be stooopid. That’s a poll for who is not Republucan. Get your shit together. There are NO climate research facilities in the 30k plus institutes of higher learning that that belong to your fictitious made up shit. That’s where the 97% comes from Dufus. As they each employ dozens of scientists ALL of whom think you deniers are dufus dumbbells.
Go ahead ignoramus, produce just one instituted, govt agency or related corporation that supports you idiots.

Cool, post the link that shows the data set of scientists that represent your version of 97

 

[expat_panama]

Why do you automatically call nonsense what the vast majority of the smartest most dedicate people in a field agreed upon. Geesus, if 97% of the medical research people’s agreed upon the best treatment for lung cancer, would you call that nonsense ? How about when over 95% of the time we have a recession or engaged in criminal behavior when one political party is admin in charge, you call that nonsense.

Gessus, what you’re saying is nonsense. We should be embarrassed to say such bullshit.

Perhaps my calling the 97% story nonsense was misleading. I did not intend the "nonsense" bit to mean that the 97% story was wrong, but rather that it was irrelevant and had nothing to do w/ the question at hand. Imagine you got a grant from the NSF to demonstrate that water is wet. Imagine if you were to just write a note that said "--because everyone says so, so give me my grant money". You would not get your grant money. They would expect you to define "wet" in terms of the adhesive qualities of polar molecules followed by a study showing how the water molecules behaved.


Proof and consensus are related but not the same. Proof leads to consensus, but first there's proof w/o consensus, after there's both proof and consensus, and evenually we often have consensus and the proof is forgotten.

 

[jc456]

Cool, post the link that shows the data set of scientists that represent your version of 97

Dagosa , still waiting for the link for the data full of the scientists representing your 97%? where's it at?

 

[Dagosa]

Cool, post the link that shows the data set of scientists that represent your version of 97

Easy to do foolish. Every climate science institute, gov agency and institute of higher learning and related corps are in on climate change. That’s where the scientists work dufus. You can’t name one that’s a denier.

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa , still waiting for the link for the data full of the scientists representing your 97%? where's it at?

Actually, it’s closer to 99% when you just use climate scientist. Go ahead, name an institution where they work that sides with you…..

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa , still waiting for the link for the data full of the scientists representing your 97%? where's it at?

You have on the net. Scientists work in science research facilities. Name name doesn't support AGW.
You being ignorant don’t seem to understand that. People with opinions aren’t scientist….

 

[buttercup]

 

[jc456]

You have on the net. Scientists work in science research facilities. Name name doesn't support AGW.
You being ignorant don’t seem to understand that. People with opinions aren’t scientist….

I gave you what I found, 75 out of 77. You said that was wrong. So I’m waiting on your data

 

[Dagosa]

I gave you what I found, 75 out of 77. You said that was wrong. So I’m waiting on your data

My proof is, every gov , climate science facility and institute of higher learning supports AGW and that the earth is round. That’s 100%.
Name one that that supports the flat earth and what you idiots believe. That’s zero percent.

Go ahead and one, just one.