Does the snow storm disprove climate change?
- Thread starter ymmot31
- Start date
"If it were an issue with heat islands meaning we were just measuring temperature differently now that we have before and thus the increase in warming, then in what way would that raise global co2 levels? If concrete cities are radiating the heat then why is CO2 being produced and added at a rate never before seen by any living human?"
Don't call me stupid and then ask a question like that. Or the next one.
Suppose there was a room with two thermometers. One of the thermometers is in close proximity to a burning candle and reads 100°F, the other thermometer is across the room and reads 70°F. Do you consider the temperature of the room to be an average of 85°? What adjustment do you make to reconcile the different temps and give an accurate room temperature?
Don't call me stupid and then ask a question like that. Or the next one.
Suppose there was a room with two thermometers. One of the thermometers is in close proximity to a burning candle and reads 100°F, the other thermometer is across the room and reads 70°F. Do you consider the temperature of the room to be an average of 85°? What adjustment do you make to reconcile the different temps and give an accurate room temperature?
From reading this thread:
Red team thinks it's not a thing.
Blue team thinks it's a thing.
So, the truth obviously lies somewhere in the middle.
Red team thinks it's not a thing.
Blue team thinks it's a thing.
So, the truth obviously lies somewhere in the middle.
Sure. So is 'tuna fish.' A perfectly acceptable, completely redundant and unnecessarily wordy phrase.
Yeah, right over his head again and he'll avoid like the plague then move on to the next idiocy. I predict Solar Variation will be his next tired old red herring he wafts up in his never ending circle of ignorance, half-truths, and Big Energy propaganda.
I also greatly enjoy when his cohorts come along and post something like "well there's plenty of disagreement here so therefore it must still be open for debate" or "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" as if some blithering message board nutcase is somehow a legitimate counter to the world's greatest scientific institutions all in agreement. It really is hysterical when you think about it.
Z, Do you honestly think that man can control the climate? That we can fluctuate a trace gas like a thermostat and completely override other MAJOR influences on climate like the sun and oceans?
Nothing is being completely overriden, Bill. You just don't understand the science even at a basic level and I'm not sure you ever will understand. DaBoss is providing excellent videos that are specifically designed to talk down to the level of an utter novice and if you guys can't even grasp those basic fundamentals spelled out in excruciatingly simple detail then there really is no help for you.
Literally everything you two are asking over and over again are completely covered in DaBoss' videos.
It is being completely over ridden, I understand the science. I also understand that other variables are at play, variables with far greater importance.
Temperature does not rise or fall linearly compared to outside forces. It just doesn't, you can't say well Co2 has risen X amount, so temps will as well, especially in a relatively short amount of time.
You're posting a video from a college course on explaining climate change, an effing college class on it!! That in an of itself is ridiculous.
Temperature does not rise or fall linearly compared to outside forces. It just doesn't, you can't say well Co2 has risen X amount, so temps will as well, especially in a relatively short amount of time.
You're posting a video from a college course on explaining climate change, an effing college class on it!! That in an of itself is ridiculous.
The warming, so far, attributed to human emissions of CO2 and other gases is about 1 degree. That can't be described as "completely overriding" anything. It's just pushing the mean a bit higher.
Do you accept that the greenhouse effect is a real thing? If so, how would you argue that changing the concentration of greenhouse gases couldn't possibly have an impact on temperatures? Or do you even accept that we can (and are) changing the concentration of greenhouse gases?
Those are good questions. You are obviously more intelligent than Z.
Yes, I accept that the greenhouse effect is a real thing. No one has even came close to disputing that in this thread.
Not arguing that changing the concentration of ghg's would not affect temperatures. I'm arguing that the warming effect of CO2, with respect to every other contributing factor, has been exaggerated to further an agenda. There is such a thing as a negligible increase.
We are changing the concentration of ghg's. The amount of change and the subsequent effect is what is up for debate. The science is not settled.
No one directly disputed it but I had to ask. It's impossible to have a coherent discussion if you don't know what set of facts are agreed upon. Carbon Dioxide is estimated to contribute anywhere from 9-26% of the radiative forcing of the greenhouse effect (absorption bands of various gases overlap so it's hard to tease out exactly how much each one contributed) and we've increased the concentration of CO2 by over 40%. What leads you to believe that this is negligible?
Yes, I believe the greenhouse effect is real. I think Co2's role, at least at the levels we are seeing is being overstated.
Why is that ridiculous? It's the only thing you guys can understand. Just stop. How many more videos and articles am I going to have to link to shut you up? You lost. It's over. Go home. It's not a conspiracy. Have people politicized it? Yes. Of course. That doesn't change the science that goes back to the early 19th century. This isn't something that we just made up 20 years ago.
That's the problem, you think it's and us versus them item, it's not.
And having a college course on it is ridiculous.
You don't even understand what you're linking, you're a kid fresh out of college that thinks you're smarter than most people, newsflash junior.. You aren't.
And having a college course on it is ridiculous.
You don't even understand what you're linking, you're a kid fresh out of college that thinks you're smarter than most people, newsflash junior.. You aren't.
[QUOTE="ymmot31, post: 3515718, member: 3184Suppose there was a room with two thermometers. One of the thermometers is in close proximity to a burning candle and reads 100°F, the other thermometer is across the room and reads 70°F. Do you consider the temperature of the room to be an average of 85°? What adjustment do you make to reconcile the different temps and give an accurate room temperature?[/QUOTE]
The owner/operator of the candle logically tells you that because of the large size of the room the candle has little overall affect on room temperature? While persons demanding the candle's elimination are insisting the room is forever dramatically altered by the candle's negative influence? Also, do you have NIST traceability for your two measurement devices from a certified calibration lab (e.g. A2LA), within their designated calibration intervals, having used a minimum of 3 (preferably at least 5) points across the full range of each instrument?
The owner/operator of the candle logically tells you that because of the large size of the room the candle has little overall affect on room temperature? While persons demanding the candle's elimination are insisting the room is forever dramatically altered by the candle's negative influence? Also, do you have NIST traceability for your two measurement devices from a certified calibration lab (e.g. A2LA), within their designated calibration intervals, having used a minimum of 3 (preferably at least 5) points across the full range of each instrument?
So you're disputing that Carbon Dioxide is responsible for at least 9% of the Greenhouse effect? Or are you disputing that a 40% increase in CO2 could increase it's effect on radiative forcing?
Does an increase in Co2 raise its percentage of greenhouse effect? If it does what is its effect on other greenhouse gases? Do they go down or up?
If Co2 were a driving force why did the earth go into a glacial period when Co2 was much much higher in the past?
My point is you can't say well Co2 had gone up 40% the temp is going up X amount, it doesn't work that way. There's an enormous amount of variables at play here.
It may not be as simple as "increase CO2 by x and temperature goes up y" because of all the other factors involved (including positive feedbacks like increased temperatures increasing water vapor which in turn increases temperatures) but we do know that increasing the CO2 concentration increases the greenhouse effect. For one, we have observed increasing radiation on the ground corresponding with an increased greenhouse effect, and we've observed less radiation escaping the atmosphere measured by satellites in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs.
And in the past CO2 has generally not been the driving force, it's been a positive feedback. Orbital or solar fluctuations increased the energy reaching Earth and caused some ice to melt, releasing trapped CO2 and methane and reducing the reflectivity of Earth's surface, leading to more warming. It is not typical for massive releases of CO2 to occur as the first event in causing warming, but humans have dug up lots of carbon based fuel and burned it.
Are you arguing that heat islands aren't real, or that they do not have anything to do with CO2 levels?
Perfect. I should fit well in this thread.
The bottom line is that if you do not want to learn then you won't learn. That is rampant in this thread. Science has provided the answers and those answers are universally agreed upon by what amounts to the entire scientific body of the world. You don't get this kind of consensus often as by its very nature science is skeptical.
It is an inconvenient truth and there are people desperate not to believe it and they will go to great lengths to soothe their conscience. They will seize upon the normal contentiousness of science and grab bits and pieces of it as if the disagreement in itself disproves the entire science while utterly oblivious to the fact that the very nature of science depends upon meting out disagreement and skepticism until a consensus emerges.
That process is over. The entire world has arrived at an understanding. You, in your ignorance are free to do as you individually would like and think, but do not for a moment expect the rest of the thinking world to entertain your superstitions and your ignorance. As I have repeatedly said, you simply are no longer relevant to the world around you. You might as well be a fossil.
It is an inconvenient truth and there are people desperate not to believe it and they will go to great lengths to soothe their conscience. They will seize upon the normal contentiousness of science and grab bits and pieces of it as if the disagreement in itself disproves the entire science while utterly oblivious to the fact that the very nature of science depends upon meting out disagreement and skepticism until a consensus emerges.
That process is over. The entire world has arrived at an understanding. You, in your ignorance are free to do as you individually would like and think, but do not for a moment expect the rest of the thinking world to entertain your superstitions and your ignorance. As I have repeatedly said, you simply are no longer relevant to the world around you. You might as well be a fossil.
I know that a comet/asteroid/massive earthquake/volcanic explosion would do a whole lot more to our climate than man made issues. If Yellowstone explodes tomorrow, we're all f**ked.
No, heat islands most certainly are real. What they are is not proof that somehow climate change is fabricated due to heat islands skewing temperature readings. As, once again, DaBoss' videos explained at a very basic level, heat islands have always been taken into account in global temperature estimates.
Also, let's even assume for the sake of tired old arguments that heat islands were not taken into account... even then they are provably useless to debunk climate change because heat islands cannot possible account for the enormous rise in co2 levels which have spiked to 400ppm from 300ppm in just the last century when for the previous 850,000 years it was never above 300ppm.
You can debunk solar variation for much the same as it simply is not adequate to account for increasing co2 levels.
Which also should strongly suggest to you the rise in co2 is not part of any naturally occurring cycle as it is not within the previous range of historical co2 fluctuations. And the rate of the increase in and of itself is alarming. 100ppm increase in a century with the prospect of hitting 600ppm in the next 100 years. That is a massive change to the chemical makeup of the atmosphere and the consequences invariably must be profound. You cannot dramatically increase the amount of a greenhouse gas and NOT expect climate to change. Above all other things everyone should understand how aburd it is to believe we cannot change the climate by dramatically increasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
It is estimated to be 9% to 26%. I prefer my "settled science" to not have such a large variance.
Those videos prove nothing other than the same talking points we've all heard before are good enough to fool most of the people most of the time.
Those videos prove nothing other than the same talking points we've all heard before are good enough to fool most of the people most of the time.
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand. Most people listen with the intent to reply."
Exactly, that's why when I post information from alarmists that state they don't understand why there has been a hiatus in the warming on land and at sea, you overlook it and question the intelligence of someone who would doubt a 40 year forecast.
The settled science is that the greenhouse effect exists, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases including CO2 increases the radiative forcing of the greenhouse effect, and increased radiative forcing increases temperatures. The exact percentage of radiative forcing attributed to one gas in a mix, difficult to measure because of reasons stated above and because of interplay between gases, isn't required to conclude that humans are warming the earth.
We have a theory that predates the warming (global warming as a result of CO2 emissions was predicted prior to 1900), we have the emissions, and we have the warming measured by a number of different methods. You can nitpick specifics but there is an overwhelming weight of evidence that the globe is warming and that we are doing it.
This is why I advocate for an insurance free society. Has no one even seen the majesty of such films as "Armageddon," "Deep Impact," "2012," "The Day After Tomorrow," "San Andreas," "Volcano," or "Godzilla?"
In the link you are provided a peer reviewed published paper (you can download the whole thing) from Stanford University scientists debunking the entire imaginary global warming hiatus:
"Our analysis reveals that there is no hiatus in the increase in the global mean temperature, no statistically significant difference in trends, no stalling of the global mean temperature, and no change in year-to-year temperature increases."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1495-y
Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Rm 140, Stanford, CA, 94305-4216, USA
- 2. Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA, 94305-4216, USA
- 3. Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Sequoia Hall, Stanford, CA, 94305-4065, USA
- 4. Department of Economics, Stanford University, 579 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305-6072, USA
The recent decrease in rate of temperature rise has been
independently observed in both land and sea-surface temperature records. There is also evidence of a slower accumulation of heat in the ocean down to 700 m depth since 2003.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/6/evidence.pdf
Debunk that. The effect of CO2 was exaggerated in the models.
independently observed in both land and sea-surface temperature records. There is also evidence of a slower accumulation of heat in the ocean down to 700 m depth since 2003.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/6/evidence.pdf
Debunk that. The effect of CO2 was exaggerated in the models.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football ****** UK Football Practice Notebook - Sept. 5 ******
- Latest: Ccrawford143
