Yes, Global Warming is REAL, and it IS CAUSED by man. PROOF!

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: smurfy

Not just CO2 -- although that is profound -- but also methane.

Yes! and of course Methane is lighter than air by being diffuse, (if that's the right word) while CO2 is heavier than air, and by default less diffuse, and while I'm sure CO2 is not made out of Lead... per se, it will still head in the same general direction as Lead, but just take a while longer. Oops! nearly forgot, here's a prepper's guide for preserving your weapon/s..useful information I think! but anyway it's about CO2.



Not real world conditions of course, but interesting.

a reply to: smurfy

Buoyant/aerostat/diffuse....... I don't think the precision of the term matters, because I know what you mean. Diffuse suggests a permeability with other gasses, or a penchant for spreading over a wide area, and I think that is applicable also, because there isn't a hard line between the gasses, but a mixing between their densities.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: smurfy

Not just CO2 -- although that is profound -- but also methane.

Yes! and of course Methane is lighter than air by being diffuse, (if that's the right word) while CO2 is heavier than air, and by default less diffuse, and while I'm sure CO2 is not made out of Lead... per se, it will still head in the same general direction as Lead, but just take a while longer.

I see what you mean about warming up.

It certainly has.

I love days like these on ATS.

Everthing was ok till they started shooting them godamned rockets off into the atmosphere....
Think of all the separate launches of poisonous crap they've seeded the upper atmosphere with.....
Who says that didn't eat some of the Ozone either...
Rocket fuels are not chemically inert ya know....
Im sure its all those rockets up there....

The term that always makes me grin : "models". You have to be extremely careful when anyone uses that term. A "model" is a projection calculated by a person's equation programmed into a server somewhere crunching data. Very dependent on the original equation.Then you have the data. The most critical part. If just one entry is off , the entire model should be tossed.GiGo (Garbage in-Garbage out) . I know we all like to think that the science could not be wrong.Our side is more accurate than the other. If you believe this , see the first part of my post again. Any part of the original equation can be set to "sway" the output in one way or another. Data collection is the same.

For some reason we have made this an us against them topic. Another one.Why ? Everyone refuses to say , we could be wrong.I say quit worrying about the freakin why ." What difference , at this point , does it make?" Oops , I have just quoted Hillary .All too often we blame ourselves. For everything under the sun.Of course, everyone uses that "nasty" energy .They benefit from products that are produced by that same "nasty" energy.So , what does that say for the man made global warming crowd? Hypocrites.Plain and simple. They state the causation , yet continue to contribute. In some cases immensely .

a reply to: Gothmog

exACTly! Models -- especially weather models -- are GREAT at short-term probabilities, because they factor in a lot of data that is gathered weeks prior to the present day, and are fairly good as extrapolated a week or maybe even two weeks ahead. When there is a model consensus, then there is a fair assurance of the weather forecasted will occur. But not always.

Soooo........... unvetted info is programmed into a model -- a computer program -- and is extended over 50 years. This is a computer dartboard, where the dartboard itself is very, very large. That is why the models as used to project CC are continually being re-initialized, because the data doesn't fit neatly into what was forecast. This doesn't seem particularly scientific to me. It makes me dubious.

Factor in the gigantic amounts of money that hinge on legislation derived primarily from these models and I become downright suspicious.

a reply to: argentus
I didnt even add the part that I wanted to....
As a humorous post on topic (I hope)
The very models are produced at NOAA , NASA by super-mega clusters.Clusters consisting of thousands of servers with the corresponding accessories. (storage , switches , routers, you name it). The very models are produced by a system that probably uses as much "nasty" energy in one day as a small city uses in a few months......
Peace

a reply to: Gothmog

What do you expect?

America is the land of hypocrisy.

It's one thing to believe warming is real, it's another thing to believe that man is the cause for a spike in temperature averages. Both of which are wholly separate issues on whether the supposed impact is beneficial or not.

a reply to: Gothmog

The very models are produced at NOAA , NASA by super-mega clusters.Clusters consisting of thousands of servers with the corresponding accessories. (storage , switches , routers, you name it).

Actually, the various models are run at various locations, various countries. On individual supercomputers for the most part, not "clusters."

he very models are produced by a system that probably uses as much "nasty" energy in one day as a small city uses in a few months......

No. Not hardly.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

The very models are produced at NOAA , NASA by super-mega clusters.Clusters consisting of thousands of servers with the corresponding accessories. (storage , switches , routers, you name it).

Actually, the various models are run at various locations, various countries.

he very models are produced by a system that probably uses as much "nasty" energy in one day as a small city uses in a few months......

No. Not hardly.

Actually, the various models are run at various locations, various countries.

Notice the only 2 I mentioned...guess not

The very models are produced by a system that probably uses as much "nasty" energy in one day as a small city uses in a few months......

Notice the "humorous" part ? No I guess not
But i do assure you , the amount of energy used is astonishing.No matter how your electrical system is set up in your home , you could not run even 10 of these servers and the accompanying devices.That would take a small data center.

Although , there is one medium datacenter (not connected with any agency , it is a business) . It was designed to be completely self-sufficient as far as power goes. It does not even have any power lines leading to it .

a reply to: Gothmog

But i do assure you , the amount of energy used is astonishing.No matter how your electrical system is set up in your home , you could not run even 10 of these servers and the accompanying devices.

True. My home is not a city. Small or otherwise.

But so what? There is great demand for time on those computers. If they weren't running climate models they would be running something else.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

But i do assure you , the amount of energy used is astonishing.No matter how your electrical system is set up in your home , you could not run even 10 of these servers and the accompanying devices.

True. My home is not a city. Small or otherwise.

But so what? There is great demand for time on those computers. If they weren't running climate models they would be running something else.

Again , no. They were designed and set up for climate models . That is their only goal in life.
But I am straying off-topic.

a reply to: Gothmog

Again , no.

What was the first "no?"

They were designed and set up for climate models . That is their only goal in life.

False. NOAA, for example.

NOAA’s Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputer System is now running at record speed, with the capacity to process and analyze earth observations at quadrillions of calculations per second to support weather, water and climate forecast models.

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

Not "clusters." Not dedicated to climate models.

a reply to: argentus

Call it the end of my rope when it comes to climate change. When the majority of scientists all agree we are having a devastating impact on this planet but leaders, like Ted Cruz, refuse to believe it and cherry pick their own nonsense to support their claim I get angry. Then regular people who follow that party are now influenced by stupidity. To see we are having a very negative impact on this planet doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Wonder why it is one party so desperately wants to believe the Earth is in good shape and Man has nothing to do with climate change? Oh right, they're all bought and paid for by Big Oil, amongst many others.

But hey, the Democrats suck too. Climate change shouldn't be a partisan issue, it should be a human issue.

I'm sure if Bob was still alive today he'd be on the side of cleaning up this planet and not denying we are causing major harm.

a reply to: Swills

I don't think it's as clear as that. It really isn't a partisan issue. I couldn't care less what Ted Cruz thinks about climate change. What is important to me is the data, and that it not be corrupted as presented to the world.

There have been more than a few instances of the IPCC producing fradulent data. As I said, there is lots of money to be made. Why is that so? Why can't we collectively determine with a good degree of probability what is happening and what must be done to help it? I don't necessarily have a dog in this race. I just want the truth. I am extremely dubious of the IPCC's proclamations.

So, when the OP declares that nuclear tests and bombs are responsible for Global Warming, I want to see data that supports that, not supposition. As you and me agreed, nuclear bombs and testing have changed the Earth, and not for the better. That is a measurable thing, at least insofar as the atmosphere goes. Factor in various nuclear accidents and the picture is not looking better.

IMO, Ted Cruz doesn't know diddly but what he is told to say. Imo, Hillary Clinton doesn't know diddly but what she is told to say. Neither one play a part in the measure of climate change. The entire system of data is suspect. Remove the profit from it is what I say. Only then do we have a chance of seeing what the truth is. That won't happen. President Obama is full on board with carbon credits. Probably any politician that gets elected will be. It stands to make tons of money and political favors.

Disgusting. Human. Fraudulent.

a reply to: argentus

There have been more than a few instances of the IPCC producing fradulent data.

No! And again, No!

You are using an article from 2009 about "climategate", a purely manufactured scandal. Please, update your database:
www.ucsusa.org...

a reply to: Phage

No, I am not. Besides, the 2009 fraud should not be negated simply because that was seven years ago, should it? It still happened. Just swept under the etherial carpet. Two years before was the 2007 scandal. No repercussions.

How about this

Or this,

Or ...........

It gives a person pause. Data should never be fooled with. Data should never be cubbyholed into a preconceived notion. That is completely inconsistent with the scientific process. You are aware of the massaging of the models? Well, hell, no problem, they're computer models they have to be adjusted.

a reply to: argentus

Besides, the 2009 fraud should not be negated simply because that was seven years ago, should it?

There was no fraud on the part of the IPCC. It was a manufactured "scandal." Any fraud was on the part of those who created the "scandal." If you read the link, you would understand that.

How about this

What about it? Edenhofer said that a result of an international carbon trading system would amount to a redistribution of wealth to undeveloped countries.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or this,

What about it?
bbickmore.wordpress.com...

Or ...........

Or, what?

Data should never be fooled with. Data should never be cubbyholed into a preconceived notion. That is completely inconsistent with the scientific process.

Correct. Tell me though, should know biases (inaccuracies) in instrumentation be ignored?

You are aware of the massaging of the models?

No, I'm not. I know that models are refined. I am not aware of any evidence that they are done so to produce any particular result.

I'm not sure nuke testing is the CAUSE, did it help? Certainly not...

I'm fairly sure that human beings aren't the sole cause, be we certainly aren't helping the situation with our ability to alter our environment in ways no other animal has...

The only hope we have to convince climate change deniers is using Project Bluebeam to project the voice of "God" into these people's heads...telling them it's real.

Seriously, unless God "personally tells them" it's real, they'll continue to deny it.

Anyone have any idea how far they got with that Bluebeam tech?

a reply to: smurfy


I don't think it right to accuse only "Man" of creating global warming. Women give off a lot of heat too... The details are beyond the scope of this thread, but just use your common sense.

At any rate, the Earth warms and cools in cycles, so what does it matter if humans are the reason, this time around? People will just have to move to other locations where there's a temperature/climate that they're satisfied with. It's a damn good thing we have Free Will and the Intelligence to adapt!