I will make the next one very easy. If we do - whatever it is you think we should - do about “global warming“

[Seymour Flops]

How much will that lower the temperature of the earth? Make it really easy.

Will it
a) lower the temperature of the earth?

b) hold the temperature or the steady, where it is now?

or

c) slow down the increase, but the earth will keep warming?

No guesses, please only scientific answers allowed.

 

[1srelluc]

End the hoax altogether.

 

[Calypso Jones]

THERE IS NO Global Warming like the political greedy elites want us to believe. These are normal cycles.

 

[Votto]

How much will that lower the temperature of the earth? Make it really easy.

Will it
a) lower the temperature of the earth?

b) hold the temperature or the steady, where it is now?

or

c) slow down the increase, but the earth will keep warming?

No guesses, please only scientific answers allowed.

Turn the thermostat down stupid

 

[Crick]

End the hoax altogether.

What hoax?

Okay, how about this. If there is such a hoax, it involves a LOT of people. Let's imagine a typical member. Let's say he's got a Masters in physics and has specialized in atmosperic physics and meteorology. He works for NOAA or NASA or Hadley or Berkeley Earth. His a mid level tech guy who is involved in the process of collecting, processing and analyzing climate data: temperature, wind speed, pressure, etc, acquired from gjround stations, balloons, aircraft and satellites. He's a crucial cog in the hoax because he's the one that has to change the numbers. It's not easy for himi to figure out how to do that without his data sticking out like a sore thumb from hes neighbor's data. It requires close coordination around the globe with dozens if not hundreds of people in jobs just like his and constantly. That data get collected and processed around the clock. It's a lot of work. And, of course, if he gets caught he'll lose his job and might just go to jail.

My question is WHY? What does our typical cog in the machines here do what he would have to do? It's not going to make HIM rich. It's not going to make HIM powerful. He's just a regular Joe. He doesn't want to end civilization or push us all back to living in bark huts and drinking rainwater. WHY would he involve himself with the hoax you all claim exists?

 

[Seymour Flops]

What hoax?

I’m asking the questions here, sir.

See the OP.

 

[skye]

There is NO Global warming

There is nothing to do.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What hoax?

Okay, how about this. If there is such a hoax, it involves a LOT of people. Let's imagine a typical member. Let's say he's got a Masters in physics and has specialized in atmosperic physics and meteorology. He works for NOAA or NASA or Hadley or Berkeley Earth. His a mid level tech guy who is involved in the process of collecting, processing and analyzing climate data: temperature, wind speed, pressure, etc, acquired from gjround stations, balloons, aircraft and satellites. He's a crucial cog in the hoax because he's the one that has to change the numbers. It's not easy for himi to figure out how to do that without his data sticking out like a sore thumb from hes neighbor's data. It requires close coordination around the globe with dozens if not hundreds of people in jobs just like his and constantly. That data get collected and processed around the clock. It's a lot of work. And, of course, if he gets caught he'll lose his job and might just go to jail.

My question is WHY? What does our typical cog in the machines here do what he would have to do? It's not going to make HIM rich. It's not going to make HIM powerful. He's just a regular Joe. He doesn't want to end civilization or push us all back to living in bark huts and drinking rainwater. WHY would he involve himself with the hoax you all claim exists?

Just answer the question and stop tossing the word salad.

 

[Crick]

There is NO Global warming

There is nothing to do.

There is an enormous amount of data that says there is global warming. If that data isn't coming from a warming planet, someone has to be making it all up. And it all has to look as if it came from a planet whose atmosphere is behaving as thousands and thousands of scientists know it behaves. So making it all up - and there is a LOT of it - would be a lot of work. And that data gets collected three or four times a day or more. Some of it is read out continuously. There are thousands and thousands of data stations around the world that are all read by people... thousands of people. How does all that work and what drives all these people to actually do that? What does it do for THEM?

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is an enormous amount of data that says there is global warming. If that data isn't coming from a warming planet, someone has to be making it all up. And it all has to look as if it came from a planet whose atmosphere is behaving as thousands and thousands of scientists know it behaves. So making it all up - and there is a LOT of it - would be a lot of work. And that data gets collected three or four times a day or more. Some of it is read out continuously. There are thousands and thousands of data stations around the world that are all read by people... thousands of people. How does all that work and what drives all these people to actually do that? What does it do for THEM?

“Climate Scientists” get funding for research as long as their research concludes that global warming is real. Doesn’t take a grand conspiracy to get them to say the same thing. Just pay them.

Now answer the question and stop trying to derail the thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What hoax?

Okay, how about this. If there is such a hoax, it involves a LOT of people. Let's imagine a typical member. Let's say he's got a Masters in physics and has specialized in atmosperic physics and meteorology. He works for NOAA or NASA or Hadley or Berkeley Earth. His a mid level tech guy who is involved in the process of collecting, processing and analyzing climate data: temperature, wind speed, pressure, etc, acquired from gjround stations, balloons, aircraft and satellites. He's a crucial cog in the hoax because he's the one that has to change the numbers. It's not easy for himi to figure out how to do that without his data sticking out like a sore thumb from hes neighbor's data. It requires close coordination around the globe with dozens if not hundreds of people in jobs just like his and constantly. That data get collected and processed around the clock. It's a lot of work. And, of course, if he gets caught he'll lose his job and might just go to jail.

My question is WHY? What does our typical cog in the machines here do what he would have to do? It's not going to make HIM rich. It's not going to make HIM powerful. He's just a regular Joe. He doesn't want to end civilization or push us all back to living in bark huts and drinking rainwater. WHY would he involve himself with the hoax you all claim exists?

No need for a huge conspiracy. Scientists who go along with the doom and gloom can get grants, jobs and make a living. Scientists who disagree, even Nobel Prize winners in science, get canceled.

Even the guys who couldn't get a more rigorous degree and had to settle for climate science can figure out how to go along with the program.

 

[Crick]

There is an enormous amount of data that says there is global warming. If that data isn't coming from a warming planet, someone has to be making it all up. And it all has to look as if it came from a planet whose atmosphere is behaving as thousands and thousands of scientists know it behaves. So making it all up - and there is a LOT of it - would be a lot of work. And that data gets collected three or four times a day or more. Some of it is read out continuously. There are thousands and thousands of data stations around the world that are all read by people... thousands of people. How does all that work and what drives all these people to actually do that? What does it do for THEM?

I made this observation twice now and a day or two has gone by and no one has even attempted to address the issue of where all that data comes from. If a climate scientist from Mars showed up and looked at our climate data, they'd say your planet is getting warmer and its probably from this skyrocketing CO2 you keep making by burning fossil fuels. The scientists can't take data that DOESN'T show global warming and say it does. All that data would have to be falsified. Who do you think is doing that, how and why?

 

[Crick]

And then the Martian climate scientist would tell us "You have a bunch of people spouting some absurd and irresponsible shit about your global warming, that seems to be slowing your response. I can bet you a gleebrat to a snorfdoggle (Martian monetary unit and a sweet, toroidal treat) that that absurd and irresponsible shit is coming from the folks that have been selling you fossil fuels for the last century and a half.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And then the Martian climate scientist would tell us "You have a bunch of people spouting some absurd and irresponsible shit about your global warming, that seems to be slowing your response. I can bet you a gleebrat to a snorfdoggle (Martian monetary unit and a sweet, toroidal treat) that that absurd and irresponsible shit is coming from the folks that have been selling you fossil fuels for the last century and a half.

Yeah, yeah. I see what you mean about the Martians and all.

Now answer the questions in the OP. You can start your own "what would the Martians say?" thread.

Assuming Global Warming is real, what should we do about it?

How much will that lower the temperature of the earth? Make it really easy.

Will it
a) lower the temperature of the earth?

b) hold the temperature or the steady, where it is now?

or

c) slow down the increase, but the earth will keep warming?

No guesses, please only scientific answers allowed.

 

[ding]

I made this observation twice now and a day or two has gone by and no one has even attempted to address the issue of where all that data comes from. If a climate scientist from Mars showed up and looked at our climate data, they'd say your planet is getting warmer and its probably from this skyrocketing CO2 you keep making by burning fossil fuels. The scientists can't take data that DOESN'T show global warming and say it does. All that data would have to be falsified. Who do you think is doing that, how and why?

I'd ask him if he was aware that earth is in an interglacial period which is still 2C colder than previous interglacial periods. Then I would ask him how he was able to determine that CO2 was responsible for a warming trend that began 400 years ago which was 250 years before GHG emissions became a thing.

Is that a good enough of an answer for you?

 

[Crick]

I'd ask him if he was aware that earth is in an interglacial period which is still 2C colder than previous interglacial periods.

Upon which he might say, "No, I wasn't. But how much variation has there been among all these interglacial period maximums?" And then he and you would look at the data and you would have to say,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/glacial-interglacial-cycle

... about 4C.

Then I would ask him how he was able to determine that CO2 was responsible for a warming trend that began 400 years ago which was 250 years before GHG emissions became a thing.

Because the factors that drove the LIA were no longer changing and the contemporary warming, in duration and severity, closely matches the rise in atmospheric CO2 which all sported the isotopic signature of fossil fuel.

Is that a good enough of an answer for you?

Obviously no.

 

[ding]

Upon which he might say, "No, I wasn't. But how much variation has there been among all these interglacial period maximums?" And then he and you would look at the data and you would have to say,

View attachment 897047

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/glacial-interglacial-cycle

... about 4C.


Because the factors that drove the LIA were no longer changing and the contemporary warming, in duration and severity, closely matches the rise in atmospheric CO2 which all sported the isotopic signature of fossil fuel.

Obviously no.

I would say, pretty consistent over the past 4 cycles and confirmed through sea level data that THIS interglacial period is 2C cooler than the last three interglacial periods. Then I would add that upon closer inspection of the data we see climate fluctuations in glacial and interglacial periods so how do you know how much is warming naturally and how much is warming from 120 ppm of CO2?

 

[ding]

Because the factors that drove the LIA were no longer changing and the contemporary warming, in duration and severity, closely matches the rise in atmospheric CO2 which all sported the isotopic signature of fossil fuel.

Sea levels were still rising. The ocean was still heating up. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic was still occurring. All of which take time to raise the temperature of the Arctic which is what is driving the warming since the last glacial maximum. Glacial periods occur when the Arctic is cooling. Interglacial periods occur when the Arctic is warming. The vast majority of heat is stored in the oceans. Not the atmosphere. The ocean drives the climate changes on this planet. Not the atmosphere.

CO2's only contribution to the warming is that which can be proven through physics. And even that is probably not realized at the surface because of convective currents. So of the 0.5C warming that simple physics calculates for an incremental 120 ppm of CO2, only 44% of that is realized at the surface because only 44% of the theoretical GHG effect of the entire atmosphere is realized at the surface.

 

[ding]

the factors that drove the LIA were no longer changing

Which factors were those?

Be careful how you answer this. Because for starters they say they don't know, then describe solar variation as one of the causes but never mention ocean currents. Solar changes affect wind, wind changes affect ocean currents, changes in ocean currents affect heat distribution to the Arctic, temperature changes in the Arctic drives the NH climate.

lastly, if you say natural climate changes caused this cooling and subsequent warming, you can't say natural causes can't be causing this warming.

 

[Crick]

I think it's an old Beatles lyric.... "The Martian would know.... ohhh oh, the Martian would know, eh yay!

I think that's just about enough Ding for the day.