Religion is a belief system based on ignorant man's imaginings of thousands of years ago. AGW is based on years of current research by highly educated people. Religious institutions have power and wealth. Most climate scientists labor in obscurity for relatively average earnings. Anti AGW scientists work for large organizations that have, and want to keep, power and wealth. Religious followers are expected to do what the priests tell them to do and ostracize all who would inject science into their religious mindset. AGW proponents explain the science and project the impact it will have on the world and rightfully ostracize science deniers. How difficult can it be to see the differences? Oh, wait! I guess it is difficult for some people, especially god fearing religious people who have science denial instilled into them from an early age.
"AGW proponents explain the science and project the impact it will have on the world and rightfully ostracize science deniers." So, you are acknowledging that refusal to consider alternative opinions is a root function of AGW? That doesn't seem to match what I have been told is the scientific method. "How difficult can it be to see the differences? Oh, wait! I guess it is difficult for some people, especially god fearing religious people who have science denial instilled into them from an early age." If you are implying that I am a religious type, I think we have found your problem; you need glasses. The Scopes trial was in 1925; I don't believe you will find near as much ingrained science denial today. The problem is so much hostility and hysteria about a subject that has so many variables that we can't calculate them all. The result is that, whatever truth there may be in it, the hucksters have moved in and taken advantage of the confusion. As long as you have people like Al Gore making millions by stringing together half truths to frighten the rubes, you're going to have a problem projecting reality--whatever it is.
Not to worry. We are approaching a Solar Minimum and its' climatic effects on weather too. Maybe we should breathe harder and burn more CHx to pump up the CO2 a bit in preparation for 2019 - 2020 when this solar event is expected to peak, or valley as a Minimum may be. http://www.newsweek.com/solar-minimum-sun-weird-behaviour-631276 Moi Better a Warm Up than an Ice Ace. r > g Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
The same types who do not understand politics tell us they do understand global climate. Amazing innit? They think of Climate as simple. But it is far more complex than the alarmists admit. They lie about things like sea level rising too. They lie about Antarctica. They pretend glaciers should stop obeying physics laws and go for the man melted them concept. It boggles the mind. https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/01/...limate-change-in-the-21st-century/#more-23162
Frankly, I believe Democrats use Tarot cards to try to predict future climate. The idea they have science to help them only means there is predictable future results. Absent those, it is similar to reading Tarot Cards. Thus far, their predictions have failed. When CA suffered the drought, we were told .... see there, that is climate change. Well, now we are still skiing in July and are told that is just weather. We have plenty of water and snow packs. We are just now opening some of the roads blocked for the winter.
Dr. Tol is an economist who understands that global warming has benefits and that in the year 2100 the average African will have the standard of living similar to that of the average Belgian today. And that it makes no sense to sacrifice economic growth and reduce the adaptability of the human race to future climate conditions.
Those are the same D's who voted against additional water storage reservoirs claiming that global warming would result in perpetual drought for CA so there would be no need for the additional storage capacity. There is absolutely no good reason for any water or electrical energy shortage in CA or any state in the US.
Maybe it was yesterday but I believe on the local TV news they finally discussed expanding a local water reservoir. http://www.ccwater.com/9/Los-Vaqueros We CA voters actually approved in 2014 vast improvements to increase water supply. But notice that of the 7.5 billion dollars voted for, a mere 2.7 billion go for new reservoirs. Democrats again managed to shoot themselves, and we voters too, right in both feet. We have severe restrictions to more reservoirs or expanding existing ones. This starts with an idea, then a proposal, then approval then study then regulations, then fighting and by the time it is over, we might not get expansion nor new reservoirs.
Two questions, much most warming according to the science is due to increased CO2 and why? Also, how much is the current CO2 in the atmosphere warming the planet as it is?
To go to these what happened a thousand or a hundred thousand or a million or a billion years ago arguments are just bullsh!T absolutely garbage science Well you just lost your credibility to me, if you can't comprehend statistics, then all your talking is a knee jerk emotional reaction. Of course it matters what happened in the past to predict the future and we don't have reliable data. .
Not sure why you think I would not understand statistics. In any case I've given up trying to explain/argue science with those who dismiss science. It is no longer interesting. What is interesting, from a scientific curiosity point of view, are those who deny global warming, especially those who do so with such vigor, especially considering the overwhelming evidence that clearly shows the burning of fossil fuels leads to higher average surface atmospheric temperatures. What is it I wonder, that causes one to suspend one's senses in favor of one's beliefs? Why is it, that only those who primarily get their information from right-wing and religious sources, deny global warming? How is it, I wonder, that those who deny the fossil-fuel-burning-caused-global-warming, can claim anything resembling honesty or honor when they base their arguments on falsified, thus fraudulent data and discredited scientists?
Life evolves to fit its environment. In that everything, not just life, evolves, the atmosphere has evolved and evolving animals/plant adapted or died off. However, reading through the demographics, one finds that those who deny global warming, tend to also deny evolution.
The global warming kooks just want more government control of society, and will lie to get it. It's all just nonsense and should be ignored.
Well quite clearly you do not understand the science involved . I will answer with simplicity : /S = E There is nothing we can do to stop the change of entropy of the Earth. Space deposits more and more mass to the Earth each year. People being born increases the Earths entropy every day. i.e The Earth can retain more energy which equals to higher temperatures.
I often wonder, how many of those, who tell me that I don't understand science, ever made a living from their understanding of science. Heat, what we measure as temperature, is the motion of particles. Increase their motion or numbers and temperature increases. Most people think that sunlight is heat but it is not. If it were, the hottest part of the day would be at noon, not four to five hours later. Sunlight consists of gazillions of little packets of energy we call photons. When these photons collide with particles, atoms and molecules, the particle absorbs the energy, ending the life of the photon. This added energy causes, depending on the species, the particle to increase in motion, spinning, vibrating, longitudinal accelaeration, and the like. This added motion is what we experience as heat. All particles want to be in their ground state and eventually give up their added energy as photons. As these tend to come in smaller increments of energy the emitted photons are of a lower frequency than the incoming photons. Most of the atmosphere is molecular nitrogen, N2. N2 is mostly inert and mostly does not participate in the obsorbtion and emission of the photons under discussion. However, certain atmospheric particles, the so-called greenhouse gases absorb, hold, and share four times as much energy as what is average. This translates into things like CO2 having four times the motion, thus four times the heat of other particles. CO2 also seems to prefer absorbing the lower frequency photons mentioned above. Thus increasing the concentration of things like CO2 can do nothing but increase the surrounding average temperature. Please show me where in this bit of science, which I'm sure is in agreement with text books and current scientific understanding, shows that I "clearly do not understand the science involved". By the way, entropy is the tendency for things to go from high concentrations of energy to lower concentrations of energy. An exposion is a good example. Things begin in a small concentrated area and explode outward, decreasing the energy concentration the further one moves from the center of the blast.
He might be, but I am not. And until this issue is treated like other issues of science have always been treated, I will not line up and just accept that man is the primary driver, via co2. For when propaganda tactics, classic ones, are being used to support it, and any debate from other qualified scientists who do not agree with the research, are blacked out, and any debate is ridiculed, you got yourself what looks like to be a conspiracy, to enrich a few elites even greater and to control humanity from a concentrated center of power. Science does not work the way we have seen this play out. Yet this turd in the cereal bowl for some reason is just ignored. But there is a turd in the cereal. And that no one is pointing that out means something very important. And if other scientists see this turd and want to discuss it, they are called names, and then blacked out. Science my arse.
Actually the science has been playing out for over a hundred years. In many ways the global warming issue very much parallels evolution. The idea of evolution came about by scientists studying nature. The opposition to evolution arose, not by scientists with intimate knowledge of the subject, but rather by those who were upset that evolution did not conform to their beliefs. As Darwin is said to have said, "I don't disprove the Bible, nature does." Same with fossil-fuel-burning caused global warming. It began by scientists studying nature. The opposition does not come from knowledgable elements in the scientific community. It comes from people upset that fossil fuel burning caused global warming contradicts their preconceived notions. I was on an atheist forum the other day. The discussion seemed to indicate that there were no atheists who denied global warming. Which, I suppose should be expected as the global warming denial crowd seems to be an extension of the creation-science/intelligent-design crowd. This is why innovators tend to be freethinkers, they aren't blinded by belief.
Sunlight is potential energy, temperature is the measurement of excitation by the interaction of pE c and substance resistant force (permeability) to hf. Have you ever heard of space dust? This bombards the earth all the time increasing the earths mass, quite clearly you are not thinking about thermal retention. ''Earth gains about 40,000 tonnes of dust every year, ''
I'm white too, so that probably discounts everything I say to you, right? Because you're soooo objective and into "science."
I'm talking about the way the atmosphere is warmed. You can go to libraries and check out textbooks with a title having something to do with physical geography. If you can find them, even textbooks 50-60 years old will tell you the basic photon - particle interaction that is involved. It may take further indulgence in quantum mechanics or some of the chemistry disciplines to further understand the transfers of energy, the role of frequency, the heat capacities of various substances, and the like. While, by field theory, photons are but excitations skipping across a field, they still act like the fuzzy particles of quantum mechanics and, by supersymetry, are every bit particles as electrons are. I'm not sure I've ever heard of photons called potential energy. In my college years I played in a band that played in bars, and at dances and weddings. We never settled on a name, changing it from time to time. We used 'Space Dust' at one point.
I'm of Swedish decent with blonde hair and blue eyes. Experience has taught me that those who discount science, and especially those who discount global warming, do not come from a wide demographic.
I am talking about the atmosphere, quite clearly your thoughts about the why's are a bit narrow if you are only considering the atmosphere and not also considering that the Earth itself is also in that atmosphere. I do not personally think the root cause is just the atmosphere itself, I personally think the Earth is heating as well that helps heat the atmosphere by retaining more energy the more mass gain of the earth from the space dust.
You're exactly right. It does seem like it's mostly white, christian, conservative men who see through the BS of global warming. They're also the same people who created all the best countries to live in, too.
