The Earth Should Be Cooling. My Question to ATS: Why Isn't It?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012
But you seem to think that acknowledging that global temperatures "may" be rising is problematic. Why? Why is planning for that so abhorrent? How does saying "it's not 100% certain" accomplish anything at all?

Planning for it isn't. Prove what is causing it and let's fix it. All I was getting at. Legislate cow farts for all I care. Don't claim cow farts are the major cause of global climate change without proof.

a reply to: superman2012

I JUST showed you proof of the physical mechanism - aka the causation and you went right back to talking about temperature records and how "correlation doesn't equal causation".

Yikes

a reply to: superman2012
You seem to be denying that there's a problem. "Prove that it's warmer now that it was 300 years ago. Meh, it was warm before, it'll be warm again. So what?"

Don't claim cow farts are the major cause of global climate change without proof.

No one is claiming that. But there are those who deny AGW who say "What next? Legislate the CO2 we exhale?"

What more "proof" do you want? How long are you willing to wait for it?

a reply to: Phage

Water vapor only remains in the cycle if temperatures allow it (I think you know that).

Sadly I don't think I actually do. What ultimately happens to the water formed by combustion? I would think it remains as water in some state (not necessarily remaining in the atmosphere).

This is the actual NASA comment I mentioned

NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.

www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: superman2012

I JUST showed you proof of the physical mechanism - aka the causation and you went right back to talking about temperature records and how "correlation doesn't equal causation".

Yikes

You showed me the proof for what you wanted to show....not for what I asked for. Longer period of time would be a better control don't you think???? Maybe you don't. meh.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012
You seem to be denying that there's a problem. "Prove that it's warmer now that it was 300 years ago. Meh, it was warm before, it'll be warm again. So what?"

Don't claim cow farts are the major cause of global climate change without proof.

No one is claiming that. But there are those who deny AGW who say "What next? Legislate the CO2 we exhale?"

What more "proof" do you want? How long are you willing to wait for it?

I'm not saying there isn't a problem.

I shall say it once more for the hard of reading:

The world has been around for a long time. With the limited data we have, we cannot jump to conclusions based on 150 or so years of empirical data. Am I saying man isn't harming the environment? No. I'm saying a correlation does not equal causation. I also cannot tell the future.

What more "proof" do I want? I'll settle for definitive proof. I might be waiting many lifetimes for that though. At least they are keeping better records for future generations.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I would think it remains as water in some state (not necessarily remaining in the atmosphere).

Right. And water vapor that is not in the atmosphere does not contribute to radiative forcing.

This is the actual NASA comment I mentioned

You should know that cirrus clouds are not composed of water vapor. The article is about radiative forcing induced by high altitude clouds (ice crystals).

a reply to: superman2012

What more "proof" do I want? I'll settle for definitive proof. I might be waiting many lifetimes for that though. At least they are keeping better records for future generations.

So...it's their problem then.
Got it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

What more "proof" do I want? I'll settle for definitive proof. I might be waiting many lifetimes for that though. At least they are keeping better records for future generations.

So...it's their problem then.
Got it.

Sure pal...that's what I said.
Edit: Star for you!

a reply to: superman2012
I'm guessing you don't have kids.

a reply to: superman2012

What "longer period of time"? Do you realize what's even being proven here - the physical mechanism of the enhanced greenhouse effect happening right now. It's being observed in real time. It has nothing to do with temperatures 200,000 years ago.

If you want a longer period of time then maybe learn a little bit about John Tyndall, who first proved this effect in 1859. His experiment has been repeated now for over 150 years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012
I'm guessing you don't have kids.

I'm guessing you aren't married.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: superman2012

What "longer period of time"? Do you realize what's even being proven here - the physical mechanism of the enhanced greenhouse effect happening right now. It's being observed in real time. It has nothing to do with temperatures 200,000 years ago.

If you want a longer period of time then maybe learn a little bit about John Tyndall, who first proved this effect in 1859. His experiment has been repeated now for over 150 years.

So in your expert opinion, what exactly is the cause. Can you narrow it down to one thing?

a reply to: superman2012

Not anymore.
Interested?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

Not anymore.

I thought so.

Yes, I have 3 kids. In anticipation of your next question, yes, I will be encouraging them to read and learn all they can while not accepting only one way of thinking (as I have seen on here) so that they may challenge the status quo and challenge themselves to keep learning.

a reply to: superman2012

Learning is good. Life is for learning.
It is also for trying to give our offspring a better world. I've failed at that. Of course, my parents didn't do much better.

Then there's this. From this thread.

Which seems to show that the Earth is indeed cooling. Which would be one answer to the OPs question.

a reply to: superman2012

Huh. A single location shows the Earth is cooling. Imagine that.
I wonder if we could find another location that shows the opposite.

a reply to: superman2012

I'm not a climate scientist so I don't have an expert opinion. I trust the climate scientists who are experts and have definitively stated man made emissions are causing most of the observed warming we are experiencing now.

I do have a physics degree so I understand the basis of their argument. I understand that an enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to lead to warming, so I get where their story adds up.

I'm also a wild conspiracy guy though and I've been endlessly told how all the scientists are apparently lying and corrupt. Except I like to think for myself instead of just mindlessly nod along with every tinfoil pronouncement - so I've spent a great deal of time investigating these claims, and every time - I mean literally: every. single. time. it turns out the "skeptics" making these accusations are the ones lying and being corrupt.

^So there you go - that's my "expert" opinion as a critical thinking conspiracy theorist with a slightly better knowledge of physics than your average blog-reading bear.

Well, I was in another thread and was called a libtard. That's weird because I do have some conservative views. I used to think libtard was what you labeled a person that excepted some science but not others so now I am wondering what those people are actually called.


WTH am I supposed to think now? BTW why isn't the earth cooling? There has to be a reason, but no one has volunteered that info yet.