Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I agree. He is entitled to his own opinions. But as the late Sen. Moynihan once noted, he isn’t entitled to his own facts. Hell. He could even be correct. But if one has to wade through piles of his abundant ego to finally reach is “conclusions,” most people will never see his conclusion. He is a piss poor excuse for a teacher. His own trolling undercuts much of what he has to say.
In that vein, let me ask. If Earth’s current climate is “different” now than it was during the past ice ages and retreats, how exactly is it different and what exactly are those differences? I’ve read that before human industrialization, there were periods of time where the CO2 in our atmosphere was higher than anything we see today. So, at those times, it can’t have been due to humankind.
Which is effectively meaningless.
The key to AGW is global average temperature (more accurately a temperature anomaly which is the temperature relative to a baseline temperature). One single point on the globe is NOT going to show you the overall trend. It isn't nearly that simple.
The global temperature is also NOT going to increase uniformly everywhere. Not even close.
So your local climate is not something you are going to be able to tell if it has increased by 1degC over 50 years. That isn't how any of this works.
Nope. (You COULD cite your source but I doubt you will)
Wrong again. You should look at the actual literature on the topic. There's a reason they call it an Atmosphere-ocean coupled model.
Ocean heat content is integral in this entire discussion.
Ocean heat transfer is not instantaneous. It is a major buffer for additional heat and it takes time to redistribute it.
And I answered in #183 and #184.I agree. He is entitled to his own opinions. But as the late Sen. Moynihan once noted, he isn’t entitled to his own facts. Hell. He could even be correct. But if one has to wade through piles of his abundant ego to finally reach is “conclusions,” most people will never see his conclusion. He is a piss poor excuse for a teacher. His own trolling undercuts much of what he has to say.
In that vein, let me ask. If Earth’s current climate is “different” now than it was during the past ice ages and retreats, how exactly is it different and what exactly are those differences? I’ve read that before human industrialization, there were periods of time where the CO2 in our atmosphere was higher than anything we see today. So, at those times, it can’t have been due to humankind.
Getting warmer IS Climate Change!I have always agreed with global warming ... the NOAA data is plain ... we are experiencing rising temperatures ... it is climate change I disagree with ... unless you can point to a place and say how climate has changed ...
I appreciate your trying. But you aren’t explaining. You’re just making claims. The claims might be spot on or off base. What I’m seeking isn’t found in your assertion. It may be that we are “finding” that the levels appear to have some correspondence with the human use of technology. That could be a good clue. But it doesn’t necessarily establish that the two observations are related other than (roughly) in time.This worth repeating over and over: what you know about earth's climate in the past is due to the same research that tells us that current warming is NOT simply a natural process but requires the input of human activities.
Yes, in the past the atmospheric CO2 has been higher and lower and the temperatures have been higher and lower...but those were due to NATURAL FORCINGS, natural factors.
The field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY exists to explain how the earth's climate has changed and what drives it. Right now we can't point to natural forcings as the cause of this precisely because we've studied how those factors lined up to cause warming in the past.
Right now you can't make sense of the data if you simply rely on the natural forcings. You HAVE to include human activities (greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes, etc.)
We even have a really handy way to track how much excess CO2 WE'VE been responsible for: 13-C/12-C isotope ratios. Plants tend to fix "lighter" 12-C isotopes so when you burn them or you burn vegetal based fuels (like coal) you would expect to see the CO2 in the atmosphere steadily increasing in 12-C isotope. Which is exactly what is happening and it started in the mid-19th century...almost exactly at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (Prior to that the ratio had been relatively stable for thousands upon thousands of years)
Science really DOES work. We KNOW we are largely responsible for the extra CO2 we are seeing in the atmosphere and it is leading (along with other things we do) to increased warming.
Stop your whining, bitching, moaning and groaning. Try to pretend that you’re an adult.And I answered in #183 and #184.
One post in my own words, and one from excellent sources. (Yale, Columbia, NASA, etc)
That's NOT just "My own facts" or "religion."
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
You remain a complete TROLL in this thread/section/board and need to be at least thread banned.
There is No other board that I've ever posted on that would allow all your No topical Content/emptily hostile posts.
Not one.
`
Once again, there’s no question there, babu. Once again it’s your claim and some self serving commentary about you and some more whining about me. I have no actual interest in how highly you think of yourself, babu.And another post I've made scores of times in my own words.
"""Here's the Short version in my own words posted many times in the last few days/years.Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because of the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at an [increasingly] staggering rate.CO2 and other GHGs typically trail and exacerbate Warming after a solar forcing/astronomical/tilting event.NOT the case now.They are perfectly capable of causing warming as they are now/almost uniquely.Scientists have measured radiation-in/radiation-out.Radiation-in has NOT changed in at least 50 years.Radiation out back into space is being blocked by the increasingly thick GHG blanket and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHG gases.That's about the best, but Not Only, of many reasons we now this is AGW.""
If you read it and can understand it, I saved you FIVE YEARS here.
but you aren't even conversant, just hostile.
But at least it was ON topic.
I AM here to post ON TOPIC in ALL sections. (barbs are allowed WITH topical content only. My M-O))
NOT YOU. You just bash my posts.
`
`
Ocean heat transfer is not instantaneous. It is a major buffer for additional heat and it takes time to redistribute it.
Which is effectively meaningless.
The key to AGW is global average temperature (more accurately a temperature anomaly which is the temperature relative to a baseline temperature). One single point on the globe is NOT going to show you the overall trend. It isn't nearly that simple.
The global temperature is also NOT going to increase uniformly everywhere. Not even close.
So your local climate is not something you are going to be able to tell if it has increased by 1degC over 50 years. That isn't how any of this works.
That isn't how any of this works.
Yes it is ... when this is true for all the points on the surface of this sphere
... I've asked you before for any place where temperature has gone down these past 40 years
... I got crickets ... you've brought this up again so I'm asking ... where is average global temperature not increasing uniformly over the past 40 years
... I've only checked a few station and they all conform to the curve ... well enough
A bit more informative. But I’ll have to do some of that shit we used to call “homework.”That is not what AGW is about. The earth's climate is a complex interaction. The average overall temperature can increase while certain areas remain the same or even slightly cool.
Let us take a class of male students in 3rd grade. The average HEIGHT of the kids is about 4'. That does NOT MEAN that every member of the class is exactly 4' tall. Far from it. It means that the DISTRIBUTION of heights has an average that is 4'
Same with global climate change. The AVERAGE global temperature is NOT THE SAME VALUE AS EVERY POINT ON THE GLOBE.
"As the maps show, global warming does not mean temperatures rise everywhere at every time by same rate. Temperatures might rise 5 degrees in one region and drop 2 degrees in another. For instance, exceptionally cold winters in one place might be balanced by extremely warm winters in another part of the world. Generally, warming is greater over land than over the oceans because water is slower to absorb and release heat (thermal inertia). Warming may also differ substantially within specific land masses and ocean basins." (SOURCE)
vide supra
That isn't even how global warming is determine. The temperature station data is compared to a baseline data set (this results in a "temperature anomaly") and it is GRID AVERAGED with other station points around it to cover a much larger region.
Silencing dissent is not science, it's fascism.And I answered in #183 and #184.
One post in my own words, and one from excellent sources. (Yale, Columbia, NASA, etc)
That's NOT just "My own facts" or "religion."
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
You remain a complete TROLL in this thread/section/board and need to be at least thread banned.
There is No other board that I've ever posted on that would allow all your No topical Content/emptily hostile posts.
Not one.
`
Silencing dissent is not science, it's fascism.
Whose "silencing dissent"?Silencing dissent is not science, it's fascism.
Nobody gives a shit who you give credence to, boy.Correct.
But, by the same token, we don't have to give equal credence to those who believe the earth is flat or anti-vaxxers or creationists, etc.
Let's count up everything you can do about it:Whose "silencing dissent"?
WTF wack job?
I am/was BEGGING FOR factual coherent dissent throughout, rather than BackAgain's purely OFF TOPIC insults.
So now he's been Forced to Bluff his way thru the thread adding Token/comical topical objection/challenges.
No facts, No links. Nothing.
He's a Joke/Fraud.
A MAGAt who posted an (also NO evidence/meat) 'Stolen Election' thread in the Conspiracy section.... Or rather had it moved to that loony section
He's not a serious anything.
`
So you have changed your tune/accusation 100% after I refuted your IDIOTIC claim that I was trying to "Silence Dissent."Let's count up everything you can do about it:
1. Throw a little bitch fit. (Not actually effective.)
2. Ignore him. (Never gonna happen. You're way too heavily emotionally invested in this.)
3. Put on your big girl panties and realize people are not obligated to agree with you. (Again -- never gonna happen. You're way too heavily emotionally invested in this.)
That about cover it?
Nobody gives a shit who you give credence to, boy.
