It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

page: 16
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Uhm, Mars with their 95% CO2 atmosphere is bitterly cold, much, much colder than Earth. It would be more advantageous to your argument to avoid discussing Mars entirely.




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah. It receives quite a bit less sunlight due to the inverse squared rule and it's atmosphere is very thin, after all.

But it would be even colder if its atmosphere were mostly nitrogen.

edit on 7/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

Uhm, Mars with their 95% CO2 atmosphere is bitterly cold, much, much colder than Earth. It would be more advantageous to your argument to avoid discussing Mars entirely.

Indeed, it is quite cold. It is also warmer than the Stefan-Boltzmann law says it should be.

It's advantageous to me because it's the simplest piece of evidence to destroy the notion that pressure causes heat on Venus.

By the way, did you know that carbon dioxide freezes higher up in the atmosphere of Venus?

That doesn't happen on Earth. Why do you suppose that happens on Venus?
edit on 20Sat, 07 Jul 2018 20:19:17 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy




I'm interested in variance studies between equipment used 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 10 years ago and how it correlates with equipment used now.

Time of day of observations. Instrumentation bias. That sort of thing. Yeah, I wonder if it's been considered.

If you're asking those question, you have not tried. Your confirmation bias won't allow it.



I have tried.

*shrug*

If the information was readily avaliable, I'm sure someone would have found it by now.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Or they're better at internetting than you.

I'm confidant that if you really want the information, you'll find it. Others have.

But it's easier to whine.


edit on 7/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
You'd think people wanting to discredit climate science would have already discovered One Weird Trick to put climate science in question.

Makes you go hmmm.... doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: DBCowboy
You'd think people wanting to discredit climate science would have already discovered One Weird Trick to put climate science in question.

Makes you go hmmm.... doesn't it?


Nope.

I'm not the first, I won't be the last.


*shrugs*

Looks like you can't refute or even answer my questions either.

Funny that.




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Or they're better at internetting than you.



They must be.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: DBCowboy
You'd think people wanting to discredit climate science would have already discovered One Weird Trick to put climate science in question.

Makes you go hmmm.... doesn't it?


Nope.

I'm not the first, I won't be the last.


*shrugs*

Looks like you can't refute or even answer my questions either.

Funny that.


Says the person who can't refute:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

The temperature (aka energy distribution) at various altitudes has been measured by many militaries, scientists, and laypeople for many decades - mostly not related to the study of climate change.

Spectroscopy proves the absorptive properties of CO2.

Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2.

Keep ignoring reality.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


The Earth has a lot of geological heat, theirs a guy who is growing veges in a greenhouse, where he has dug eight foot trenches around the structure, then by circulating the air through the now covered in trenches with thermal pipes, he gets regular 18 degrees C summer and winter.
Mars Must be a lot cooler eight feet down, because its lost a lot more heat than Earth, but surely at some point it would have a regular temperature at a certain distance in its interior.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I don't have the data to refute, but you don't have the validated data to prove it either.





posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   
If Einstein was a climate scientist he'd say, "E=MC Squared". . . because I say so!


And people would be cool with it.





posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
I can't help that you don't want to read it:


I guess reality is too disturbing for an engineer.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

It's hilarious how if someone says look how cold it is, so much for global warming, the left is quick to point out global warming isn't local weather. However let it be hot for a couple of days and it's proof of global warming.


It's not a couple of days. It's trends. For example, when I said.. in Colorado, three of the five 105 degree (record high for the state) records were set in the last 6 years. Deniers will only be able to cry "coincidence!" for so long. 125,000 years of oceanic warming.. in 50 years. Trends. Not "omg we had a really hot day holy crap it's global warming!!"

Check out the video I posted by NASA with old arctic ice melting. Slowly.. but steadily and non-stop.. over the last 17 years. It has vastly reduced. It is not an "8 to 10 year cycle." It's steady, it is progressive, and ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

Ocean acidity up 30% since industrial revolution. Increased record highs.. and decreased record lows. Declining arctic ice. Decreased snow cover. Glacial retreating. Oceans are warming. Ice sheets are shrinking - Antarctica loss has tripled in the last 10 years. Temperatures globally have risen. Natural disaster have tripled in the last 50 years, over 90% of them weather related. These are all searchable, undeniable facts. There is not an "agenda" - it's what is happening.

On and on it goes... and completely ignored, because people are worried some solar panel manufacturers might be making money. Even though oil companies have glutted for decades, making them ridiculously rich, while endangering the environment. "It's a natural cycle!" No, it's almost certainly not. The odds of that being the case are low. Very low, if you consider that all these changes coincided with the industrial revolution.

There is a tipping point.. and while I think it's a bit further along than some people think (I think the earth can recover amazingly well from human hazards), there is a point where we are basically screwed. It boggles the mind people are so stubborn in their beliefs, that they won't at least entertain the idea that humans may have a solid impact on the world's climate, and that changes need to be made.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

YAY!

You showed me a graph!

With numbers!

How'd they get the numbers?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

YAY!

You showed me a graph!

With numbers!

How'd they get the numbers?


Go read and see. It's an international standard. One engineers use for applications. I thought you were an engineer?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I asked how they got the numbers.

Not what it was used for.

How did they get the numbers?

Really, it's not a hard question.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I asked how they got the numbers.

Not what it was used for.

How did they get the numbers?

Really, it's not a hard question.


If it's not a hard question, why don't you go find the answer?

You can't have it both ways.
edit on 21Sat, 07 Jul 2018 21:28:31 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

So you don't know how they got the numbers?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

So you don't know how they got the numbers?


Why don't you know, engineer?







 
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join