Addressing Deniers of Global Warming

Well that certainly displays an unwillingness to actually think about the claims you're making on someone else's behalf.

 

The giant assumption made by all scientists in regards to global warming is that the earth's heat is consistent and unchanging. There is no real evidence as to what is in the core of the earth and they are more recently actually putting real work into figuring it out. I am curious what will turn up. This would explain some of the rise in or fall temperature at the surface of the earth and would be important for getting an accurate estimate of how much warming is caused by CO2.

One other item to consider is that we have added a lot of microwaves and radio-waves and produce a lot of heat through combustion itself thus by industrializing we create heating while our devices and engines are in use and I would be interested in how much effect this has also. (Maybe make a world-wide shut-off day and take measurements. )

I feel like there are a lot of variables still left unexplored but if it was all explored and known we wouldn't need scientists researching more about global warming.

 

And methane is an even worse "contributor". I say first we kill all the cows and then the people; problem solved, the world continues

 

The science that 97% of experts think is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is what you're aware of.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any relevant comments to make?

- - - Updated - - -

The terms are interchangeable in most cases. Regional climate change results from overall global warming. The earth overall has warmed about one degree celsius in the past century, which is massive. However, most places aren't entirely dependent on the heat given off by the sun for their climate. Some are mostly driven by cold currents and other such things. The way that global warming throws these off results in a regional cooling, while the earth overall is much hotter.

 

As a scientist and having taken thousands of temperature readings in my career...(using your timeline) and my knowledge of thermometers can you provide the calibration records, training records, instrument logbooks and correction factors used in your 1915 temperature recording? Can you provide them for even a single measurment?
In your 2014 readings were all the instruments certified?
What was the RSD of the last reading? Can you even calculate it with the data supplied?
If you cant supply the information your data isnt worth the paper its recorded on...you have a qualitative opinion only. Nothing more.

 

You mean the bogus 97% political meme.

 

They probably mean the 97% of scientists looking to get published and get grants who think that the effect occurs before the cause since it is clear that the CO2 releases follow the warming periods and not the other way around.

 

Here's something I am doing about it: http://htnresearch.com

 

There's not a single climate scientist out there that believes the earth's heat is consistent and unchanging. I have no clue where you are getting your information from.

 

Nice logical fallacy. Pretty embarrassing.

 

The scientific community overwhelmingly thinks you're wrong.

Seriously though, you can prove using an experiment you can perform in your own garage that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap in heat. Why the hell do you think that this property would suddenly go away when you start pumping massive amounts of them into the atmosphere?

- - - Updated - - -

This is an internet conversation, I'm not going to dig up a bunch of statistics for someone who believes something almost as ridiculous as 9/11 conspiracy theories. I might as well try to reason with a flat earther.

 

Simple minds think in simple terms. You think an experiment in a garage duplicates a chaotic non-linear system considered to be a wicked problem? Well of course you do. You also probably think a computer model that does not come close to duplicating that same system is the last word in prognostication.

 

Im sure youve seen this before

 

theyre not statistics, they are valid documents you are required to supply in order to verify your data was recorded and collected correctly. Without them your data is worthless. Out of the two of us I am the only one requiring we check how the data was collected in your claim. If you cant or refuse to supply it it means your data cannot be used except as your personal opinion. In other words its useless and it would be a violation to use that data in the overall calculation unless you want the entire study invalidated. Any real scientist should have instinctively asked for this regardless of how public the data is and this information should be readliy available for review. If it isnt your global warming claim is the conspiracy not the other way around.

 

I'm pointing out that this is obviously a property of the pollutants we use, and therefore it makes sense to extrapolate from what can be proven in the span of an afternoon that this pattern will continue.

 

Your adherence to your biases has left you blind.
Clearly scientific evidence proves beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that periods of warming and cooling have taken place LONG before man evolved.

"Global Warming" is an AGENDA perpetrated on the weak minded and gullible by those fully aware of their naivety.

By the way...fear of death is a waste of your time....
We're all going to die regardless of ANYTHING man does or can do.
If nothing else, I can GUARANTEE you will die.

 

It raises sea levels, which means say goodbye to Florida, Lousiana, Amsterdam, and anywhere else below sea level. It also means stronger storms. And eventually, once all of the glaciers are melted, a cooling cycle will start ending in a new ice age. This cycle ususally takes millions of years, but with current co2 levels, the next ice age will happen in about 5000 years. However, seas levels will destroy florida, Louisiana, and other places within 100.

 

Yes, pollution is bad but an unproven hypothesis is pretty useless and CO2 is not a pollutant even though government decided to label it one to further the agenda of control. That was a court decision which is the furthest thing from science.

 

See? This is the part that people don't believe. I have to believe there is no time and we are all going to die or else I am like an evolution denier.

But the numbers posted suggest we have plenty of time.

 

Just a couple of clarifications:

1) How do you know what assumptions "all" scientists are making? Have you read ALL of the original literature?

2) As often in these threads heat is confused with temperature. In thermodynamics, heat is measured in joules and is defined as the exchange of thermal energy between systems. In contrast, temperature is measured in Kelvin. For a gas, it is related to the internal energy by a factor of 3/2R. It is generally a measure of how fast molecules/atoms move. Therefore, there is no such thing as the "earth's heat", since heat is not a state variable, but a path variable. It only quantifies energy exchange (flow), not the energy content of a system.

Actually scientists (at least the well educated ones) have known this for a long time. A simple back of the envelope calculation would tell you that the direct heat production by burning fossil fuels and other energy-consuming endeavors is small compared to the heat flow from earth's absorption of sunlight. This is why the forcing (greenhouse effect) by CO2 is so important. It's not that heat production is increased, rather that heat flow out of the atmosphere is decreased. That means that thermal energy (temperature) increases, or, more likely, objects with very high heat capacity (oceans, ice caps) buffer the heat flow first, before the ice caps melt and the REAL temperature effect will be realized.

 

Add to that, CO2 in itself can only warm the climate marginally and relies on an amplifier which is water vapor, the largest greenhouse gas. That is the hypothesis. The warming allegedly is supposed to show in the troposphere first and that is where the hypothesis has broken down as the satellite data that measures the troposphere does not show the predicted increase in the troposphere.

The apparent delay between solar output and temperature change on earth is around 10+ years and the ocean may be the cause of the delay since atmospheric temperature and weather are highly affected by the ocean but the ocean, being the largest heat sink, works much slower, for instance, ENSO. Right now there appears to be a fairly large El Nino forming in the Pacific that might rival the 96-97 El Nino. This would be good for California (sort of) as it would bring rain, but also floods. The Pacific covers almost 1/2 of the planet and is the biggest driver of temperature and weather changes. After that we could go back to El Ninas.

 

Since there is no hope of us lowering emissions enough to backtrack this process (let's be honest, it's not going to happen) - we have a finite time left on this Earth, perhaps a few generations. At the very least, many/most coastal cities will be destroyed.

ie: we're (*)(*)(*)(*)ed. Without hope.

 

Why are we having these conversations? Didn't Al Gore predict for all the ice to melt in the the arctic in 2013? There has only been growth, rather than decline. I do not understand why libs continue to support this guy's agenda. Either way, I don't think he cares about his theory because he has a private plane, one of the largest CO2 emitting machines on Earth.

Just a thought...

 

But he just spent time in Alaska renaming a mountain and talking so passionately about the environment. Surely he must pick up litter, recycle and make sure he doesn't use Air Force 1 so much because he's a true believer, right?

 

95% of all species that have existed are now extinct, is man any different?