Right Vs Left Conspiracies, viewed through Climate Change.

The amount of heat on Earth depends on 2 factors, the Sun and Earth's albedo. If one or both of these factors change, Earth's heat changes. More CO2 means air absorbs more heat and surface absorbs less heat. Less CO2 means air absorbs less heat and surface absorbs more heat. Earth itself does not make heat. The Sun is the source of heat. Earth absorbs heat or reflects heat.

a reply to: mc_squared

You absolutely misread that.

I probably did. To be honest, the number of climatologists who agree on whatever just doesn't interest me that much. Certainly not enough to take up a lot of my time reading through a report on people who are writing reports.

At one point in time, disease was accepted as being due to "bad blood," and doctors regularly bled people to death in a misguided effort to cure them. At one point in time, the earth was considered flat by anyone in the know, and the general population was terrified of traveling too far to sea for fear of falling off the edge. At one time, the generally accepted consensus was that powered flight was beyond the reach of mankind. At one time it was seriously argued that any speed over 30 mph was deadly to humans.

Those make great anecdotal trivia, but I'm just not going to waste my time arguing a moot point.

like that time you disproved it right here on ATS with this amazing thread:

Yes, I'm still pretty proud of that one. My one mistake was expecting my audience to be capable of understanding the math.

Thanks for digging it up.

Seeing as how this is on the internet, it means it came well after you already learned everything you need to know.

You seem to be completely unversed in logic... let me help you out.

The date on that thread shows a date after I had accumulated the aforementioned knowledge. It proves what knowledge I had at that point in time. It does not indicate how long before that thread was authored that I received the knowledge.

If I remember directly, you were one of the people in that thread who couldn't seem to grasp the concept of 2D projection of a 3D object...

Except until I noticed you made a very serious error in that math, which immediately debunked the whole thread flat on its face. Curious how you never even responded to that, just let it die real quick, and disappeared from these forums for, what – a few years? It’s a shame too because I realized later my debunking was actually wrong, since it used numbers from your OP that were also wrong. Evidently the numbers do lie, after all. In any case some recalculations with all the wrongs ironed out proved the whole thing as debunked as ever.

Yeah, that was you. Nice to see you're still wallowing in ignorance. Consistency can be a good thing.

But you are mistaken. I didn't leave the forums for a few years. I have taken a couple months sabbatical from the ignorance from time to time, and sometimes I just don't respond to treads I have no interest in (or not enough knowledge to make an intelligent post... I just read those). The longest time I was AWOL was a year or so ago, when I was trying to care for a sick wife and mother, and simultaneously finish up a degree. Just didn't have time to try and teach elementary geometry to people who didn't want to know it. Sorry if that bothered you.

Anyway now you’re back, talking over people and mansplaining how much better your science is than theirs. Me thinks your math still doesn’t add up.

Talking over? Really? Are you having trouble getting your posts to show up? I'm actually a slow typist, so you probably have the advantage over me.

Oh, and my math adds up just fine. It just won't add up to what you want it to. The title of that thread was accurate: numbers don't lie, no matter how much you want them to.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Are we producing those other gasses at the same rate as CO2???

Oxygen makes up approximately 20% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen makes up approximately 80% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. And none of it matters in consideration of the Global Warming scam. It's not about heat capacity of CO2.

are those gasses being traded or swapped out for the CO2 we are producing???

Why, yes they are. Carbon dioxide is the result of reduction of carbon in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. That's where it comes from, whether that reduction is from combustion or respiration. Every time a carbon dioxide molecule is released into the atmosphere, an oxygen molecule is no longer in the atmosphere. That's why it is called CO2 instead of just C.

are those other heat holding gases being ADDED TO the CO2 we are producing??

No, because the other gases are already there. You might could say we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but not that we are adding the atmosphere to CO2.

The fact that “methane is worse” is ridiculous because we are not producing loads upon loads of metane AND THE METANE IS I ADDITION TO NOT INSTEAD OF!!!

Actually, considering the fact that carbon dioxide is produced from the combustion of methane (and other hydrocarbons), one might could say we are substituting it. In a roundabout way, of course, because the majority of the methane we burn is purposely extracted from the crust, not caught floating up in the air.

You might want to look up how long methane lasts in the atmosphere sometime. It's not a very long-lived molecule, because it is not very stable.

CO2 catches the suns heat..

No. It doesn't. Oxygen does...

Before you have an aneurysm, let me give you a little background on the theory you are trying so desperately to prove you know nothing about...

Global warming theory holds that the earth exists in a barely stable temperature balance. Energy from the sun is absorbed by the earth and re-radiated as black-body radiation in the infrared spectrum. The theory says that because carbon dioxide does absorb and re-emit energy at one narrow bandwidth in the infrared spectrum, too much carbon dioxide will throw off this energy balance.

It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide 'holding heat,' lol. It has to do with carbon dioxide absorbing heat from the earth (not from the sun) and then re-emitting it in a random direction. That means 50% of the energy re-emitted will be heading back to the planet instead of out to space. That much is true: carbon dioxide does absorb energy in the infrared spectrum. The question is whether or not there is sufficient reflection of heat from the amount of carbon dioxide we are experiencing (or are likely to experience), whether or not a couple degrees of warming are enough to become hysterical over, and whether or not the observations and predictions are accurate.

OK, that's enough facts for now. I now return all the readers back to watching you prove just how little you really understand.

It has got to feel good to know that you and the 4 scientists on the payroll of opec are JUST SOOO much smarter than EVERYONE else..

Nah, what feels good is laughing at your continual demonstrations of how little you know about a subject you claim to be so aware of...

TheRedneck

a reply to: YommieG

Oil causes death and destruction. Saudi Arabia uses dirty oil money to buy planes and bombs and massacre Yemenis.

Finally, a post I can agree with! If there were no such thing as carbon dioxide, just the fact that oil is responsible for so many wars and needless death is enough to make me look forward to the day when we can finally get beyond this Global Warming nonsense and get better energy sources.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I honestly don’t know if you actually don’t get it, or you’re just trying to pull a “oh look everybody - it’s my emperor’s new shorts” after getting caught with your pants down.

So I will try to explain slowly.

On the last page you bragged, and I quote:

I learned everything I need to know to disprove the assumptions surrounding Global Warming theory before there WAS an Internet.

To which I directed you to your own ATS thread on the internet, aka chronologically after you’ve supposedly learned “everything” you need to know:

Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

In this thread you tried to disprove global warming by showing it is impossible to raise the temperature of both the atmosphere and the ocean by 1 degree Celsius from man made CO2.

Do you understand that your “proof” is completely bunk because nobody has ever claimed global warming would raise the temperature of the entire ocean by 1 degree? Not even close.

So do you understand how absurd that thought even is - since the oceans are indeed a massive heat sink, and all you did was hide the effects in there? The atmosphere has already warmed 1 degree, while virtually all the ocean warming has occurred above 2000m, even though its’ average depth is twice that.

Finally – do you understand this means you clearly don’t understand this stuff, from which it follows that you absolutely do not “know everything you need to know”?

Is this coming through at all, or is blind arrogance just drowning it all out?

There are other important mistakes in that post, such as how you quantified CO2’s effect to begin with, but the fact that you made such a fundamental blunder in basic thermodynamics demonstrates a severe lack of proper understanding. I wouldn’t harp on it so much, but you keep pontificating here how climate scientists don’t know how to model. Based on that thread, you don’t get the mechanics enough to set up a one-dimensional model, so who are you to judge and tell everyone here what experts do and do not know? Your math speaks louder than your perpetual boasting, and it clearly doesn’t add up, so...Ignorance denied. Case closed. Sleep well tonight.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Also, it would be one thing if you simply didn’t realize your mistake, owned up to it once the thread was debunked, and we all moved on with a better understanding for the effort in the end. That would be an example of a constructive discussion where ATS was actually used to deny ignorance.

But of course you instantly disappeared the moment that thread was debunked, and the ooohs and awes turned into crickets.

And now you’re acting like the whole thing never happened, while pompously proclaiming how complete and all-encompassing your knowledge was, long before you wrote a thread that demonstrates the total opposite.

So just FYI - this is exactly how it happens: That climate denier label you hate so much.

This is how you turn all that supposedly fancy textbook learnin’ into a foolishly overconfident and oblivious ideologue; allergic to the facts, and determined to let your ego define them rather than let them define you.

You can be better than that, but if you prefer to just stubbornly sit there and insist you’re right despite the science - because you’re like, really smart, and a very stable genius - go ahead and knock yourself out. You’ll continue to appeal to a certain base here who love to think just like you (and really dig those emperor’s new threads), while the rest of us will continue to marvel in horror and embarrassment.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Another angle to consider from this right vs. left conspiracy thing is just the constant parallels between climate deniers and Trump supporters.

If there’s one "benefit" I got out of all these pointless, maddening circular debates – at least they long prepared me for the nonsense we’ve all been sucked into now. We’ve seen this behavior from climate deniers for years, and of course it’s absolutely no coincidence that the vast majority of them are also Trump supporters.

Plain denial of reality & facts that can easily be verified? Check.

If you get cornered by some uncomfortable info, like the 97% scientists thing, just declare it a conspiracy|fake news|nothingburger.

If you say something incredibly inaccurate or racist: always play the victim - “oh they call me a (climate denier|racist) just because (I’m skeptical of basic physics|pointed out black people come from sh#thole countries).

And of course: always side with shady billionaires and lobbyists, because they are definitely looking out for your best interests, unlike those pushy (treehuggers|scientists|humanitarians|anyone with a shred of empathy) who just wanna destroy our freedom!

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Hypothetically, there is a payout if a carbon tax is ever passed

This isn't even particularly true. Where I live, British Columbia - one of the only places that actually has a carbon tax - it is revenue neutral. Meaning whatever we pay into it at the pump we get given back to us in the form of lower income taxes, rebates, etc. Nobody makes a dime off it - it is simply there as a deterrent from spending our money on bad things, and using it on better choices instead.

But this point doesn't fit the "they're out to get my monies!" right wing narrative, so it just gets ignored in the debate (like most of the actual facts).

Are you trying to be funny?

Noone could ever prove the leftist mantra of "revenue neutral" carbon tax in BC.

We are taxed to death in BC and noone but liberals believe anything here is neutral...hell even the NDP AND GREENS WILL LAUGH AT THIS.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: amfirst1

The US is already 20 trillion in debt. If they could take over based on debt then what are they waiting for?

In debt to what? To whom?

Debt is a made up tool that's time is up.

Debt is not a motivator..performs no function and provably is a fairytale.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Hypothetically, there is a payout if a carbon tax is ever passed

This isn't even particularly true. Where I live, British Columbia - one of the only places that actually has a carbon tax - it is revenue neutral. Meaning whatever we pay into it at the pump we get given back to us in the form of lower income taxes, rebates, etc. Nobody makes a dime off it - it is simply there as a deterrent from spending our money on bad things, and using it on better choices instead.

But this point doesn't fit the "they're out to get my monies!" right wing narrative, so it just gets ignored in the debate (like most of the actual facts).

Are you trying to be funny?

Noone could ever prove the leftist mantra of "revenue neutral" carbon tax in BC.

We are taxed to death in BC and noone but liberals believe anything here is neutral...hell even the NDP AND GREENS WILL LAUGH AT THIS.

Lol, and there it is, right on cue.

Easily demonstrable facts:

Every dollar generated by the carbon tax is returned to British Columbians through reductions in other taxes. These include:

A reduction of 5 percent in the first two personal income tax rates
A low income climate action tax credit
A northern and rural homeowner benefit of up to $200
Reductions in the general corporate income tax rate
Reductions in the small business corporate income tax rate
An industrial property tax credit
Between 2008/09 and 2015/16, the carbon tax generated about $7.3 billion and provided offsetting tax reductions of about $8.9 billion, bringing an estimated net benefit to B.C. taxpayers of $1.6 billion. These revenues and reductions are reported yearly in the Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Plans and Reports.

BC Government Website

Denier reaction: FAKE NEWS!!!

a reply to: mc_squared

My, my, my... so many assumptions, so many errors, so little time...

But! I'm tired of PCB design, so I'll humor you.

On the last page you bragged

...

To which I directed you to your own ATS thread on the internet, aka chronologically after you’ve supposedly learned “everything” you need to know

Well, let me see how to put this... I said (and I quote):

I learned everything I need to know to disprove the assumptions surrounding Global Warming theory before there WAS an Internet.

Now, that would put me in the what? mid-80s? when I said I already had learned everything I needed to know to disprove Global Warming. That sounds about right... I was well into college, working in a professional technical field, and reading everything I could get my hands on.

So,did I post the thread in question before the mid-80s? Nope.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 14:48

It's in the upper left corner of the OP. Go look for yourself.

Now, I said I learned the things I attempted to communicate to the general ATS membership way back in the 1980s, so why do you think it is impossible for me to still know it in 2009? I simply finalized some equations so they were presentable... I do have this habit of working things out on scratch paper and then filing them away instead of publishing them. It's a personality flaw I need to work on.

Do you understand that your “proof” is completely bunk because nobody has ever claimed global warming would raise the temperature of the entire ocean by 1 degree? Not even close.

Oh, so the surface will warm but somehow conduction will not occur... got it.

You really should publish a paper on that... ocean water is so great a thermal insulator that it will conduct NO heat energy over a time span of decades... I think I'm going to go get some plastic bags and fill them with seawater instead of using that inferior fiber insulation in my house. Just think... zero heat loss!

Oh, and the ocean currents are going to be restricted so no convection takes place either. Got it.

So do you understand how absurd that thought even is

Yes, I wrote a tread on it... Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie. Maybe you've heard of it?

(Incidentally, we have better information about the temperature of the surface of Mars than we do about the temperature of the ocean depths.)

Finally – do you understand this means you clearly don’t understand this stuff, from which it follows that you absolutely do not “know everything you need to know”?

Well, you seem to have left something out there... the phrase "to disprove Global Warming" to be specific. I never know everything I need to know, or at least everything I think I need to know. But I already knew Global Warming was a load of bull pumpkins, based on the knowledge I had. I already knew about absorption spectra, thermal mass, energy transfer mechanisms, albedo, and the life cycle, sufficient to dismiss the reports as fantasy.

you keep pontificating here how climate scientists don’t know how to model.

No, I do not!

I simply state that the scientists do not yet have their models perfected. No model runs perfectly the first time. How dare you accuse me of denigrating hard-working scientists like that? The models are improving with every attempt, but the ecosphere is an extremely complicated critter and it will likely still be some time before we can accurately make predictions beyond a year ahead. That is not because the scientists can't model; it is because the ecosphere is so complex!

That statement you just made indicates that you believe all scientists must be perfect. We're not. Scientists have to work out problems; they don't just sit behind a desk and spit out correct answers all day long. If you had any inkling of what science is, you would realize that.

Of course, perhaps I am being a little hard on you... it is so plainly obvious from every post you make that you don't even know how to speak the language used, so how could you actually understand the subject? Your posts make me imagine someone who only knows English picking up a book written in French and complaining the author can't spell.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Harpua
Is anyone here able to adequately describe the thinking around why climate change ISN'T occurring and why the VAST majority of scientists say it is?

Since the OP and the follow up posts don't seem to adequately encapsulate a solid argument, I am honestly curious if there is a solid argument coming from the deniers.

These scientists claim to know why climate changes...when anyone can clearly see they cannot figure out what it will do next.

It is the arrogant coverups of data that tells entirely different stories of how the planet even works in the first place...much less make models off of incomplete information after that..with flawed datasets to boot.

It is the entirely wrong predictions of these climate screamers on a yearly decadely daily basis lol.

It is the hilarious beliefs that the information and techniques are not biased from the very start to create said models.

The simplistic views that Big Oil hates these scientists when clearly they do not.

If anything the polluters love todays climate scientists..their work is laughably incomplete and seems to be worse than the Dark Ages in approach yet the Left wants it to be true so bad.

Actually yes..WAY more to the story than the bleating herds of do-gooders can ever believe...they WISH it would ever be so easy.

At this rate science has been turned into a complete mockery in this and other fields...with compartmentalized intellectuals all believing the next departments info backs them up.

Amazingly the conservatives are now over 40 years ahead in cognition..and accelerating away.

WE DO want to know all the left CLAIMS to know..but realize real science is hopelessly compromised on incredible magnitudes.

And the left has become the gatekeepers and the obstruction to moving towards those goals.....sad.

Such simple minds...so embedded in the web that noone can save you.

a reply to: mc_squared

So you claim the government tells the truth on this and likely every topic that tells you what you want to hear.

Let us see the tax returns.....

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: TheRedneck

No definitive proof?!?!!


CO2 holds heat..


We are producing a butt load of CO2..

So where is the heat and CO2 going???


Obviously that isn’t hard math..

So what mechanism do you propose that will remove the excess heat from the excess CO2????


That is why 95% of scientists agree..

It is easy math.


Now, what the effects will be and how long it will take to see the effects is 100% fairly debated..

However, climate deniers are claiming the whole thing is a fraud..

It holds heat WHERE...no experiments on the ground can replicate the atmosphere despite all of the bleatings.

Scientists are told what to think and you know it.

It would be akin to a preacher in church saying Lucifer was God' first born son..total heretical behavior.

And the last 100 years has groomed scientists who are politically motivated BEFORE becoming CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

Way too much bias and incomplete data.

Why do we need to accept scientists words who admit they are entirely wrong in the models every dam year...but who also claim "we are on the right track"?

A bunch of guessing loses interest for many of us.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mc_squared

Oh, so the surface will warm but somehow conduction will not occur... got it.

You really should publish a paper on that... ocean water is so great a thermal insulator that it will conduct NO heat energy over a time span of decades... I think I'm going to go get some plastic bags and fill them with seawater instead of using that inferior fiber insulation in my house. Just think... zero heat loss!

Oh, and the ocean currents are going to be restricted so no convection takes place either. Got it.

And you really love to just listen to yourself talk, and extrapolate everything based on feeling instead of researching some facts first to make sure you're not shoving your foot in your mouth over and over. If I wrote a paper on this it would be instantly rejected, because this information is common knowledge among real scientists, not cowboy internet ones.

Sunlight provides a lot of heat to the uppermost layers of the ocean in areas outside the polar regions. The warming sunlight only penetrates to depths of a few tens of meters. Sea surface temperatures range from slightly below freezing near the poles to an annual average near 30° C in the tropics. Wind-driven surface waves and the tides stir the surface layer so the heat is distributed throughout the top few hundred meters of ocean water. Since the surface layer is exposed to the atmosphere, a warming atmosphere can transfer heat to the upper layers of the ocean.

The deeper ocean, which contains about 90% of all ocean water, does not mingle much with the surface layers. Water temperatures in the deep ocean are only between about 0° C and 4° C, and are nearly uniform throughout the world's oceans. Between the surface and deep ocean is a sharp transition between warmer surface called the thermocline at a depth of about a few hundred meters.

scied.ucar.edu...

I swear if there was internet in the 1500s you would be on sailor forums telling people how stupid they are for thinking the Earth is round, because it clearly looks flat from where you're standing.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: mc_squared

So you claim the government tells the truth on this and likely every topic that tells you what you want to hear.

Let us see the tax returns.....

I can see my own. Aren't you implying you live in BC?

But yeah, no no - it's a government conspiracy, keep going with that. If you read through the thread you'll see all sorts of replies from right-wingers outraged that the OP marginalized their noble skepticism into some kooky conspiracy.

originally posted by: YommieG
The amount of heat on Earth depends on 2 factors, the Sun and Earth's albedo. If one or both of these factors change, Earth's heat changes. More CO2 means air absorbs more heat and surface absorbs less heat. Less CO2 means air absorbs less heat and surface absorbs more heat. Earth itself does not make heat. The Sun is the source of heat. Earth absorbs heat or reflects heat.

The earth is not a solid body. It has itself a core...theoretically. It's what makes calculations problematic. When calculating the albedo, or mass of a further body, based on reflexiviness/absorbtion of a known body, in the way we have observed...you are admitting a few assumptions.

Albedo is a contextual term for making some approximations based on Earth's mass and nebulous interior physics and thus applying them to everything we observe in the stars.

a reply to: mc_squared

Absolutely...


There is never a defined perpetrator , motivation, end game nor is the conspiracy ever logistically viable..

It is always a “mustache twirling villian” conspiracy.. never a conspiracy a real life human would do..

a reply to: ParasuvO

Actually you can do an experiment that proves it at your house..


Step 1) Take a 2 three liter coke bottles and Fill them both 3/4 full with water and a couple handfuls of dirt.

Those are your earth analogs..

Step 2) take one bottle and add a alkaselzer to it. Let it dissolve and then slightly twist the cap of that one loose to release the excess pressure to remove pressure as a variable.

Now you have more CO2 in the “alkeselzer bottle”.



Step 3) put both bottles in the sun for a couple hours and then check their temps.



Conclusion) the bottle with the excess CO2 will get 20-40 degrees hotter.




As I said.. it is easy math..

97% of the scientific community doesn’t believe things that are not easy math..


That is why the denial stuff is laughable..

You can test their theory at home..


As far as your “scientists tow the line” stuff.. that is just hilarious.. scientists constantly disprove each other’s theories..


Towing the line doesn’t make you Rich and famous..


Proving everyone wrong makes you rich and famous in science..

a reply to: mc_squared

Absolutely..

Homie just has an intimate knowledge of some crackpot theorist who is the laughing stock of actual scientists..

He assumes if he uses big words it will somehow change the fact 97% of actual working scientists disagree completely..