A look at the science behind climate change

a reply to: Phage

Clouds are not water vapor.

A quote from NASA for K-4 kids

A cloud is made of water drops or ice crystals floating in the sky.

www.nasa.gov...

You are being arguably obtuse in your arguments. This is usually done when one realizes their arguments are not true but will not concede the point.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: MykeNukem
S+F.
You won't get any rebuttals that deal with the actual data (data that isn't corrupt). Only Ad Hom's and Spin.
Same as usual.
Great Thread.

I agree. When one side thinks their own opinions are facts and people who have opposing opinions are worthless human beings what is the point of having any discussion. Politics are waste of time. I agree, this thread is the same as usual worthless waste of time.

We live in a society where people are praying for mass extinction of the human race. We live in a World were everyone is disconnected to everyone else. We have no common interests. We have no commonwealth. We have no reason to collaborate with each other to make our quality of life better. Instead, we live in the age of selfishness is God and everyone is just taking as much as they can before the party comes to an end. Why make thinks better for your grandchildren with you can party hardy today? Screw the young. The old will dead soon. Do drugs.

Keep on burning 100 million barrels of oil per day. Who cares what kind of World we leave behind for the next generations. Screw em.

Nice, personal attacks instead of relying on science, well done! /sarcasm

No one is arguing that climate change isnt real, only the amount humans have an effect upon it. Climate change happens all the time, it's a normal thing the earth does. Warming and cooling trends are part of the natural process. What we would like to see is unbiased reporting with undoctored results used as a base line for comparison. As Cowboy pointed out, the placement of the temperature stations is (one) key to understanding just how the data is doctored to fit a false narrative. If you would actually think about it, rather than issue attacks, you might understand it better.

If climate scientists are unsure exactly how impactful humans are regarding their contributions towards climate change, why do so many people here think they actually know the answers? Oh yea, I forgot, the ATS population is smarter by leaps and bounds than the actual experts at any subject matter discussed.

The "coincidence" of heat levels aligning with the industrial revolution (and through the industrial revolutions of evolving countries since), should not be ignored. Just because we don't know the level of human involvement doesn't mean heads should be buried in the sand as a result.

I also think it's hilarious to hear the theories of a "scam." The scam are oil companies convincing people that there is nothing to be seen, and that there are no clean alternatives, and that we MUST rely on oil. Very similar to how many "experts" claimed to a man, that cigarettes posed no health hazard in front of congress. $$$ talks. Oil companies are the ones raking in the money, not supposed clean energy scam artists.

One last thing, the positive feedback mechanisms used in all of the models are provably wrong. All one has to do is look at the trajectory of CO2 in the atmosphere over the history of the planet to know that the feedback mechanisms are negative, not positive.

Every planet tends towards a dead, frozen planet, that is the natural state.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

You are being arguably obtuse in your arguments. This is usually done when one realizes their arguments are not true but will not concede the point.

While statements like this do what?

WATER VAPOR - FCK CLOUDS, DESTROY THEM ALL

Tell me what is untrue in what I said in response to nonsense like that?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Every planet tends towards a dead, frozen planet, that is the natural state.

Like Venus?

a reply to: Phage

Should I give you a prize for pointing out a planet closer to the sun is a warmer, dead planet? Or is there something else you are looking for with this comment?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Should I repeat what you said?

In any case, it's been a very long time since Earth was frozen and dead. And, while it will end up dead, it will not end up cold. The Sun will consume it.

a reply to: Phage

You are in quite the obtuse mood today, aren't you. In honor of that, it is not a forgone conclusion that the sun will consume it. It could easily be pulverized in a myriad of ways before that happens.

a reply to: Dfairlite


Do you mean pedantic?

a reply to: Phage

No... I would say fastidious, but you're not being precise either. Obtuse seems right, but it may be argumentative.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: 1947boomer

Global warming crisis debunked:

CO2 as a warmer is pathetic. It's a logarithmic warmer and for every doubling of it in the atmosphere, we have observed a 1C growth in temperature. We add CO2 in a linear fashion, so the next 1C change will come in about 350 years.

Actually, humans have been adding excess CO2 at an approximately exponential rate since about 1850. See, for example, the following graphic:

cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov...

As I mentioned in another post, that's because the extraction and burning of fossil fuels generally tracks economic activity, and the global economic product of the world has also been growing approximately exponentially.

The logarithm of an exponential rate is, by definition, a linear rate.

a reply to: 1947boomer

You're conflating two different things. Emissions and atmospheric concentration. Your chart is about emissions. I'm talking about atmospheric concentration. Since the 50s the atmospheric CO2 concentration is up about 90-100 ppm (depending on the year you pick as your starting point). In the 100 years prior to that, the concentration rose about 80 ppm. So while our emissions are growing (not anywhere near exponentially) our additions to the atmosphere are much closer to linear than logarithmic.

Furthermore, burning every currently known available drop of fossil fuels will only result in about 700-800ppm (total) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Given that 800 is when we will see another 1C change from now and we have to get another 800 from there to see the next 1C rise, it's safe to say there is absolutely zero worry about with CO2 emissions.

Of course, then there is the inconvenient fact that our adding CO2 to the atmosphere has prolonged life on this planet by hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions). And the ideal atmospheric makeup for plant growth is around 2000ppm of CO2. When you come to accept these facts the worry about CO2 emissions causing any sort of catastrophe becomes nothing but a joke.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

OH man, Temp and heat are forms of expression for ENERGY.

Yeah. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules. Heat is a measure of the energy contained in a system. Which contains more heat, a gallon of water at 100º or a swimming pool at 70º?

The Energy of the Earth is pushing HEATED magma to new locations and the Earth is telling us this with quakes and volcanoes and Ice melting from underneath.

Yes, magma is hot. But it's not causing the Earth to rapidly heat up. That's being caused by CO2 preventing as much infrared radiation from escaping to space.

Ok Phage get ready.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Good source for you I know.


Don't care about evaluations of the possible meanings of the data as much as to use my own head and review the data.

MAGMA POCKETS RISING got my attention, you know it would. Huge or not it is a recent blob relative to this Century.

After you digest that. We can discuss it.

I have much more about Climate Modeling in general, statistical analysis being the key for you to consider.

a reply to: Justoneman

MAGMA POCKETS RISING got my attention, you know it would. Huge or not it is a recent blob relative to this Century.

Yeah, that was discussed last year: www.abovetopsecret.com...


It isn't magma.

Using data from EarthScope, they then observed a localized plume of warm rock beneath central Vermont, western New Hampshire, and western Massachusetts—and found geologic evidence that it’s on the move.

And it's not really very recent, unless you take a very long term view.

The upwelling is likely tens of millions of years old, which would make it a relatively recent development in geological terms, and it’s moving very slowly. For now, it certainly hasn’t gotten close enough to the surface to shape New England’s geography or create a volcano.

It's deep, below the crust. In a region of the mantle called the athenosphere.

Aother recent finding.

www.livescience.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

MAGMA POCKETS RISING got my attention, you know it would. Huge or not it is a recent blob relative to this Century.

Yeah, that was discussed last year: www.abovetopsecret.com...


It isn't magma.

Using data from EarthScope, they then observed a localized plume of warm rock beneath central Vermont, western New Hampshire, and western Massachusetts—and found geologic evidence that it’s on the move.

And it's nothing new

The upwelling is likely tens of millions of years old, which would make it a relatively recent development in geological terms, and it’s moving very slowly. For now, it certainly hasn’t gotten close enough to the surface to shape New England’s geography or create a volcano.

Keep on spinning Spin Miester.

The facts are right there on your on favorite pub. I don't think you can turn down National Geo.

ETA observing a pattern with you that made me come out of the lurker phase and needed an honest data person to talk data to you. Now I am using these to help me and my peers understand the type of personality it takes to avoid the truth for whatever reason.

a reply to: Justoneman

The facts are right there on your on favorite pub.

No really my favorite but yes the facts are there.

1) not magma
2) been there for a long, long, long time.
3) very deep.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Aother recent finding.

www.livescience.com...

And you think that's what's causing global warming. You'd think it would melt that snow in the pictures.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Justoneman
Aother recent finding.

www.livescience.com...

And you think that's what's causing global warming. You'd think it would melt that snow in the pictures.

I think you don't care at all what is happening if you can spin it now.

There are several area's you are too smart to hold onto and yet you do.

It is a philosophical issue I hope and not a tool for the masters one Phage.