Biggest conspiracy in history, Climate change denial.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Your post makes little to no sense.

Nobody in their right mind is looking at just CO2, rather they are choosing to FOCUS on co2 emissions for obvious reasons.

Please try and think before you post.

Thanks!

Originally posted by unityemissions
Your post makes little to no sense.

Nobody in their right mind is looking at just CO2, rather they are choosing to FOCUS on co2 emissions for obvious reasons.

Please try and think before you post.

Thanks!

I actually think better than all the AGW circus put together.

And if you seriously at this point in time are claiming that the AGW followers do not blame atmospheric CO2 for the ongoing Climate Change, you are only delluding yourself.

BTW, there is NO OBVIOUS REASON to FOCUS on CO2 emissions....

...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Obvious reasons....

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Essan

So where do you think the Asian brown cloud comes from? Though obviously it has no effect on climate because nothing humans do affects climate, eh?

So tell us Essan, why is it that the areas which had/have been warming the most have ALL been far away from major sources of pollution if anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming?

Even NASA had to admit to this fact.

...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

It should be obvious to everyone that if anthropogenic CO2 has been the cause of the warming the areas that should have been warming the most should have been on areas of large pollution, like large cities. So why isn't this so?

It's terribly frustrating to even reply to this moronic post, but I feel I must in order to show other members that you have no clue what you're talking about.

It mattered very little where co2 is emitted, because once it's in the air....get this....it travels around the globe. Who woulda thunk that, I know...but it does happen....

I don't know the exact science of why AGW is seen more drastically as you go towards the poles, but it intuitively makes sense.

Again, please think before you spew put a bunch of nonsense.

Just because you're ignorant, doesn't give you the right to claim a con on everything you don't understand.

You seem to be fairly bright, but feel challenged by people who are smarter than you. So, you have a defense mechanism that labels things as a con, when you just can't grasp what's going on.

It's pathetic, really.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Again, you're just too damned ignorant, to realize you're so damned ignorant!



I can't grow you a brain so you can see how retarded your "logic" is.

Hopefully more members can see this, and won't be influenced by your rubbish.

End of conversation with you.

You just can't fix stupidity!

bull and poppycock!

When I think for myself I realise without any question that where I live, the sea is much colder during winter than what it was 15 years ago when we swam and surfed in winter. Now, it is far to cold.

Even in Italy (north) where we lived for 5 years, it is getting much, no MUCH, colder. 70 times more snow than 15 years ago.
But still, the poor catholics in Italy love feeling guilty, and global bull#t warming is an excellent reason for guilt! Hey it has a built in advantage of not being 'solvable', so it ensure ongoing repentance. !

Often had this conversation in Italy:
me: "wow it is snowing a lot this year!
oh, and last year and the year before"

reponse: "si! what a mess!"

me: " did it always snow so much? my husband told me it never snowed more than an hour a year here in this area"

Response: "This is true. It must be global warming"

So, guys, global warming is also causing global cooling????????????????????????????????????

Yah right. Poor Italians, will remain hooked on global warming until the world has frozen over!

It is getting colder where I live, that is for sure. And on the other continent where i lived till 2010.

Wont fall for this utter rubbish. Climate always chaged. This is nothing new.

You wanna feel guilty? Find a better cause.

Originally posted by unityemissions

It's terribly frustrating to even reply to this moronic post, but I feel I must in order to show other members that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Really?... So let's actually take a look at your so called "logic" shall we?...

Originally posted by unityemissions

It mattered very little where co2 is emitted, because once it's in the air....get this....it travels around the globe. Who woulda thunk that, I know...but it does happen....

Wow, really?, so according to your logic if one were to built a campfire it should be warmer the farther away you get from the source? BTW, for your information the source is the fire, in case your logic doesn't allow you to know what the source I am refering to is...

Great "logic" you got there working for you pal...

So if you are cold you are the type of person that would get far away form the fire to get warmer... And that to you is "intuitively logical"....

Also, as I have stated and proved the areas that have warmed the most are the areas with LESS atmospheric CO2... The colder the atmosphere is the LESS atmospheric CO2 it can hold. Since the most warming has occurred in cold regions such as Siberia, the poles, etc, and since there is LESS atmospheric CO2 at these regions than in warmer areas there is no possible way that atmospheric CO2 is the cause for the warming...

IF AGW was real, it should be warmer at the sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but it is not, hence AGW is nothing but a religion of the ignorant masses... and you are an example of "the ignorant masses"...

Originally posted by unityemissions
I don't know the exact science of why AGW is seen more drastically as you go towards the poles, but it intuitively makes sense.

What the heck is the above sentence even supposed to mean?... You don't know why you think the oceans and landmasses which are far away from anthropogenic CO2 sources have been getting warmer than at the sources of anthropogenic CO2, but to blame anthropogenic CO2 "intuitively makes sense to you"?... And you think you are a bright person?...

Originally posted by unityemissions
Again, please think before you spew put a bunch of nonsense.

Look in the mirror pal, obviously you NEVER think at all before "spewing a bunch of nonsense"...

Originally posted by unityemissions
It's pathetic, really.

Yeah, it is really pathetic, that all you have for an answer is to claim "you have no idea exactly of what you are talking about, yet you believe in your failed logic "intuitively"... and then you claim I am the ignorant person on this topic...

Really, you should stop posting, before you embarrass yourself any longer...

Originally posted by chiefsmom Can you please explain to me how they have found tropical plant fossils under the ice in Greenland?

Antarctica has not always been a frozen land at the bottom of the world – it was actually habitable for most of Earth’s history.

Permanent ice began to form on the continent some 70 million years ago, but it is only within the last 5 million years that the cold conditions have been severe enough to quash most life there.

Here. The thing is that some of this time is in continental drift. But when it was attached to Australia, when it was pretty much in the place it is now? It was still considered habitable.

How large is the settlement civilization in Antarctica?

McMurdo, with as many as 1200 people, is the largest settlement. But many other countries have bases, and the total population of the continent is about 4000 during the summer. It is only about 400 during the winter.

Here. So, that's plenty enough scientists and support to study down there.

Jane - Well the interesting thing is that even though more than 99% of Antarctica's covered in ice, the most common fossil that you can find in Antarctica is probably fossil wood. And what we can do is use fossil plants that we find in the rocks, so fossil wood, leaves, even the flowers. We can use those to reconstruct the vegetation and from there we can work out what the temperature was. So if we go back say 50 million years ago, to what we call sub-tropical to warm temperate which means very nice indeed thank you, warm summers and warm winters.

Here. By 50 mil, it's separated from all but Australia, and is starting to ice up, I thought? For both to be true, it would be permanent ice on mountains, with Louisiana temperatures for the winter. But she later says, no sign of ice at all by 50 mil., so meh.

Jane - Well the most interesting thing is that Antarctica actually has been over the South Pole for at least 100 million years so when I say that there were forests in Antarctica people usually say to me "oh well does that mean the Antarctic continent was on the equator?" And that's not the case at all.Geologists have looked at the rocks and they've found signals in the rocks to show us Antarctica was over the South Pole. So that means the earth's climate was much warmer in those days. Probably that's partly because there was higher levels of carbon dioxide. So that's one reason why we look into the past and do these paleoclimate studies, it really is a mirror image of what we might be seeing in future with higher carbon dioxide levels. But also Antarctica was part of a much bigger landmass in the past called Gondwana. And all the southern hemisphere continents were amassed together so there was this big landmass over the pole. So Antarctica wasn't sort of isolated in its icy tomb of water as it is now.

Jane - Yes. Well what we think happened is that the ocean currents that flowed around the equator were warmed up by the equatorial temperatures and because of the position of the coastlines around Gondwana, those warm water masses were pushed all the way down to Antarctica. So they could get rid of all this warm moist air over the continent and keep the continent warm. And then those water currents went back to the equator again and warmed up. Whereas today you see Antarctica is completely isolated, South America, South Africa and Australia moved away millions of years ago. And now we have the circum - Antarctic current and it flows around Antarctica and that keeps it really cold. That water, that current never gets the chance to warm up, and so Antarctica is just frozen inside.

Chris - Doesn't the same thing happen in the air above Antarctica in the sense that you end up with this big sort of whirlpool going round in the air which is why you end up with CFCs and things dumping there which is why we ended up with an ozone hole.

Jane - Yeah it's a very specific, small, climate of it's own above Antarctica. I always think of it as a big deep freeze. It has a big block of ice on it that's up to 3, 4 kilometres thick and it's just sitting there. It's so big it has it's own internal freezer in it.

Well, if this is the truth about how Antarctic stays the Antarctic, then it will take more than merely global warming to get to centre-most ice--especially since it's predominantly on land--you would have to change air and water currents--whic even with climate change has not happened yet. Now, that's something that you'd never hear unless you dig and reason for yourself.

If they are wrong, then we're missing information needed to come to the conclusions our media portrays.

While humans can do things to change the environment, are we actually in control at all?

This is a pretty interesting aside in the global warming/cooling discussion. Learn all about the progression cycle of the Earth as it orbits the sun.

originally posted by: unityemissions

I don't know the exact science of why AGW is seen more drastically as you go towards the poles, but it intuitively makes sense.

Because in the poles there is relatively less direct solar radiation, therefore the emissivity from the atmosphere is proportionally a larger fraction of the radiation reaching the ground. So an increase in that emissivity from human activities changing the chemical composition will proportionally result in more heat-inducing forcing in polar latitudes.

These next numbers are made up but should get you the idea: equatorial latitudes, 400 W/m^2 optical, 20 W/m^2 infrared. polar latitudes 100 W/m^2 optical (half the year!), 15 W/m^2 infrared. Now increase the infrared by X%---the proportional change in overall forcing in poles is higher, and therefore more temperature change from baseline. Of course the absolute temperature will still be lower at poles, but that's not under question. There are probably other effects, maybe like polar regions have more dry air, so relatively more of the forcing is from long lived greenhouse gases vs water (which humans obviously don't directly control---that is a fast acting feedback).


Global warming comes from the same physics and chemistry that scientists have been using for a century to study and understand all the rest of the physical world. We don't turn off our brains when the facts happen to result in an emotionally and economically unpleasant conclusion.

originally posted by: dbates
While humans can do things to change the environment, are we actually in control at all?

We are in control of some things and not in control of others.

Yes, the Milankovitch cycles are quite important in climate. As we understand it, the most recent peak in orbital warming was about 6000 to 8000 BC, and sure enough in the record, there has been a little bit of steady cooling since then; up until the modern period of fossil fuel burning and emissions, which results in much sharper warming.

All is as predicted by physics.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


Also, as I have stated and proved the areas that have warmed the most are the areas with LESS atmospheric CO2... The colder the atmosphere is the LESS atmospheric CO2 it can hold. Since the most warming has occurred in cold regions such as Siberia, the poles, etc, and since there is LESS atmospheric CO2 at these regions than in warmer areas there is no possible way that atmospheric CO2 is the cause for the warming...

Oy vey.

IF AGW was real, it should be warmer at the sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but it is not, hence AGW is nothing but a religion of the ignorant masses... and you are an example of "the ignorant masses"...

To the readers of the ATS. The above is a great example of somebody who is very firm and thinks they are being clever and seeing through the 'nonsense', and is utterly and deeply wrong.

It presupposes that the writer really knows how the physics and theory works, when there are massive and deep physical blunders that a first-year graduate student would quickly understand.

What the heck is the above sentence even supposed to mean?... You don't know why you think the oceans and landmasses which are far away from anthropogenic CO2 sources have been getting warmer than at the sources of anthropogenic CO2, but to blame anthropogenic CO2 "intuitively makes sense to you"?... And you think you are a bright person?...

The person is correct. The point is that contrary to the denialists, the increase in temperatures is not seen only in 'urban areas' which is erroneously pre-supposed to be an artifact of development and not actual warming. (And the Berkeley Earth Project re-analyzed all raw data outside the climate community and the previously skeptical head turned into a firm agreer (not a believer, it isn't belief, it is understanding) with climate science consensus.)

Next the greenhouse gases are sufficiently well mixed in the atmosphere so that the increase is globally important (this is experimental fact, don't you think this is one of the first things they would measure? This was done decades and decades ago), and the proportional influence is predicted to be larger in areas with less direct solar radiation, all because of standard physics which was understood by 1950. It isn't called global warming for nothing: both words have rock solid scientific backing.

Yeah, it is really pathetic, that all you have for an answer is to claim "you have no idea exactly of what you are talking about, yet you believe in your failed logic "intuitively"...

and then you claim I am the ignorant person on this topic...

Really, you should stop posting, before you embarrass yourself any longer...

A higher ratio of science to insults is a better idea.

a reply to: Atzil321

Are you kidding me?... First of all, learn the difference between "climate change denial" and "skepticism about anthropogenic climate change. If you don't know the difference by now it is you who has ignored all the evidence and observations that show AGW is a hoax, and it is people like you who has fallen for the well known, and globally funded religion that is AGW. If you don't agree, so be it. But it doesn't mean people are "shills for oil business". Seriously, that's the stupidest claim anyone can come up with. "If you don't agree with me you are a shill"... Grow the hell up... The same could be said of the people who believe in AGW without knowing what the heck it is all about.

a reply to: Atzil321

The Earth is Over 4 Billion Years Old , it will Still be a Habitial Planet Long After Man eventually becomes Extinct . Adapt or Die Out , All life on Earth Must Except that Fate , Climate Change is the Least of our Worries , Get Over it Already , you are Being Played a Fool .

Again, can anyone tell me how CO2, at less than one percent of the total atmosphere, can do so much damage? its actually 0.393% of the atmosphere.

And yes CO2 is less than 1% of the atmosphere, but 99% of the atmosphere is not a greenhouse gas - so it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation. It's just a trick propagandists use to try and make things seem insignificant. But it has all the logical relevance of me telling you a vial of poison can't hurt you because it's nowhere near the size of an elephant.

CO2 makes up about 10% of the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and studies have shown it's impact ranges from something like 9-26%.

Just would like to point out, ppm to percentage is wrong.
C02 is 0.0392 percent of the atmosphere.
The magic number for percentage to ppm is 10,000.
PPM / 10,000 = percent
percent x 10,000 = ppm