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?
? I don't get the reference there, if there is one to get.Try again, Todd.
"close proximity" is a perfectly acceptable phrase.
You are redundant and mundane.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.Heat islands
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.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?
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.
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?
Those are good questions. You are obviously more intelligent than Z.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.
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?
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.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.
Yes, I believe the greenhouse effect is real. I think Co2's role, at least at the levels we are seeing is being overstated.
I'm fresh out of college? HahahaThat'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.
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.
Are you arguing that heat islands aren't real, or that they do not have anything to do with CO2 levels?Yep. Right over his head. Didn't leave a scratch. I told you. The answer to his CO2 ignorance is posted plainly enough for a 3rd grader to comprehend and he just keeps spinning his same old circular "arguments" round and round. As soon as one gets shelled then just move onto the next. Now it is heat islands.
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? Heat islands are yet another completely discredited idiotic idea proffered for fools because it sounds good to the ignorant. Problem is it doesn't hold up to even a Jr. High level scrutiny.
See how easily your childish ramblings are destroyed? Now move onto the next one because we all have seen it before. As I said, round and round you go because you are not interesting in knowledge you are interested in only in perpetuating ignorance and you have a ripe audience here among this kelp pod.
You are redundant and mundane.
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.Are you arguing that heat islands aren't real, or that they do not have anything to do with CO2 levels?
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.
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.
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: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.