Now for some possible really bad news for the Climate

Because small changes accumulate, small changes are globally significant....can you measure .1 on your thermometer probably not but hey its only .1 so how bad can it be?... If sea temps went up only a tiny unmeasureable .1per year for 100 years what does that add up to?...a drop of a measly 3c degrees is ice age conditions, so a gain of 3 degrees puts us into entirely different situation but in denierworld warmer isnt a scary word like cold or ice...

 

Stupid people don't comprehend more snow results from warmer weather, cc is more accurate than gw ."duh, if its getting warmer then why is it snowing in my trailer park? those stupid liberals"...CC should be a less confusing descrpition but apparently not...

 

AGW also must apparently cause more ice and colder weather too.

 

Kind of like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like your health plan you can keep your health plan". Climate change is a good example of creating a giant dangerous straw man that must be defeated by global taxation to enrich factions that have gotten in on the ground floor. There will never be a shortage of gullible people waiting with bated breath to be exploited by "experts" who know better than they do about what's best for them. "Hurry people, the next train for Auschwitz is about to leave!"

 

Can I invoke Godwin's Law here?

 

The funding is given to those who will maintain and limit research, or tweaking models, in regards to co2. For it was decided early on that only co2 was the culprit. No grants are given by the gov't to look into solar activity, which is the primary driver of climate change, if you take out being crashed into by big objects from space, or huge volcanoes, several of them being active enough to affect climate.

Then you take a bright scientist like Freeman Dyson, who maintains co2 isn't a great problem, for it could be controlled by land management, and that we have greater problems to worry about, much more dangerous than co2 could ever be. But people like Dyson are not given any press, for the co2 control machinery is in place, and there is far too much money to be made by a few who are invested in future co2 control.

To show you how little we actually know about co2, half of the estimated release of co2 into the atmosphere is oddly missing. And not a single person knows how it was sequestered. All they know, if that half of it is missing.

To show you the absurdity of the hysterical climate change nuts, and agendas, the land management solution is off the table. For there simply is not the potential for great profits for a few people, from land management, extracting more co2 from the atmosphere, by a natural and positive means.

Also, when the climate models did not yield predictions, they had to change the models to try to explain the lack of warming for 17 years. For a rising co2 level should have given us an increase in temps, worldwide, and not a stopping of temps rising.

The truth is perhaps that we are not as smart as some think they are, and we really only have a very limited knowledge when it comes to climate change, the factors involved. But making claims from a limited knowledge is what science, or some scientists have a bad habit of doing. Especially when money is involved, and that money ends up in their pockets.

Climate has always changed, and if it were changing at the rates earlier claimed, there would not be a lull in temp rise, for 17 years. For it was claimed early on that as co2 increased, temps would not stop rising, but a steady rise would happen.

The fact of the matter is there are probably several factors affecting climate change. Some completely natural, as solar activity, with a bit of it due to co2 rising. It may even have to do with the earths heated core as well. We just don't have enough real knowledge to make the claims that have been made.

 

1. If it's the Sun, then we are getting more heat during the day, and daytime temps should be rising fastest. If it's greenhouse, then we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temps should be rising fastest. In fact, nighttime temps are rising much faster than daytime temps. Smoking Gun #1 for greenhouse.

2. If it's the Sun, then we're getting more total energy, so the entire atmosphere should be warming. When there's a bigger pie, everybody gets a bigger slice. But if it's greenhouse, we're getting the same amount of energy but it's being distributed differently: more heat stays at the surface, and less heat makes it to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, and if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling. In fact, the stratosphere has been cooling for as far back as global records go (the late 1950s). Smoking Gun #2 for greenhouse.

3. If it's the Sun, then Total Solar Irradiance should be increasing, and it specifically should have increased in the latter part of the 20th century. In fact, TSI has declined since the 1960s. Smoking Gun #3 for greenhouse.

4. If it's greenhouse, upwelling IR from the surface to space should be decreasing in the greenhouse gas bands. That has been observed. If it's greenhouse, downwelling IR from the atmosphere to the surface should be increasing in the greenhouse gas bands. That has also been observed. Smoking guns #4 and #5 for greenhouse.

The evidence in favor of the Sun amounts to: an Oil Patch politician said so, so it must be right.

What utter nonsense. Where do you get this stuff? In the first place, we know where it went; and in the second place, it's a lot less than half. If you were the slightest bit curious about the answer, you could have looked it up on any climate change website except the denier sites that you depend upon for your misinformation. (Hint: why is the ocean becoming more acidic?)

It's not at all off the table. Have you read the IPCC report? (OMG, what am I thinking ... a denier, read? Perish the thought.)

Global temps have not stopped rising. You've been lied to. Wanna know why they're lying to you? Look at the price of oil.

The truth is that you are not as smart as you think you are, and you really have only a very limited knowledge when it comes to climate change, the factors involved. Then you falsely assume that everyone else in the world must be just as ignorant as you are. Because you just cannot imagine the possibility that someone else, who has devoted his or her life to studying the problem, might have learned something that you refuse to learn.

There has been no statistically significant change in the rate of global surface temperature increase over the last 17 years, compared to the trend before that time. If you don't believe me, I invite you to do the math yourself. If you can.

Total garbage. We have enough knowledge to rule out the Sun (see above). And we have enough knowledge to rule out the earth's core nonsense, too: if the heat were coming from below, then the lowest depths of the ocean would be heating the fastest, but in fact the uppermost layers of the ocean are heating the fastest, and the depths are not heating at all. So we know that the heat is coming from above, and not from below.

There are only two things above the ocean that can cause that: the Sun, and the atmosphere, via the greenhouse effect. Since we know it's not the Sun (see above), it's greenhouse. Q.E.D.

 

per usual, nothing to see here...

 

Yeah but Dunning-Kruger effect mght be more appropiate..

 

so, if it is greenhouse, wth you gonna do about it? cause you aint gonna stop the third world from burning ever more coal and oil, paving more roads and parking lots, and driving more cars, and having too many kids per woman.

 

Debating solutions with someone who doesn't understand the problem is an exercise in futility.

 

The US and China combined account for 44% of global CO2 emissions, more than the next 27 countries combined. We have recently reached a deal on CO2 emissions with China. So no, it's not impossible.

 

Do you also believe in unicorns? Let's see, we all just take a walk down the yellow brick road and when we get there we get a deal we simply can't refuse. Well, that certainly justifies a tiny nucleus of power centric individuals controlling the rest of us. Than you so much. This information will provide comfort to all.

 

LOL. Will you be man enough to admit you and your ilk were wrong, one day? Or will you deny it to the grave? Since you are so belief ridden, yeah, you will never be able to admit you and the hysterical, were wrong. Hopefully you are a young man, and will live long enough to see the mistake made by using a limited knowledge to make great claims. And at least perhaps, you might admit the mistake to yourself, if not others. I shall hope for that, as it would make you a more humble man. And you need that.

There are some really bright men, scientists, who are not on this bandwagon. But they don't count, right? Only those that back what you want to believe, count, right? Why don't you spend a day reading what these other scientists have said? Are they not worthy of your time? And if so, why is that? Einstein was scoffed at by much of the scientific community, until they finally had to admit he was right. A consensus don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*), and that has been shown time and time again in the history of science. That you ignore that, shows me which one of us is the most intellectually honest. You are just a true believer, and that is all you are.

 

If you have evidence that I'm wrong, and it's better than the evidence I've just walked you through, then I'll admit it today. Since you don't have such evidence, we both know I'm right. It's just that you're not man enough to admit it.

A psychologist would call this "projection".

The difference between you and me is, my beliefs are based on evidence. And yours are based on politics. That's why you've lost this debate, and why Denierstan is continuing to lose more and more people every day. The universe just doesn't work the way you think it works, and no amount of complaining will alter that basic fact.

So, not having any evidence that I'm wrong, you're reduced to wishing for unicorns and rainbows. Perhaps you can see now why the rest of us think the denizens of Denierstan have lost touch with reality. Or perhaps not.

Sure they count. Right now, they're outnumbered 97 to 3. That's a stronger consensus that the number of biologists who believe in evolution. If you went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that you had cancer, would you say, "yippee, I don't have to start chemo" because of the other three?

I've probably spent a LOT more time reading crap from the other three than you've spent reading really good science from the 97. So might I suggest that you take your own advice?

Actually, nobody who understood Einstein thought he was wrong. A scientific consensus is nearly always right. But if it's wrong, and you have convincing evidence to show it, a Nobel Prize awaits. It's that evidence part you keep missing.

So the guy with no evidence, and who therefore takes what his politically biased buddies say on faith, complains that the guy with the evidence is a "true believer".

Projection again.