Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

I am certain that those voting for Democrats have a vastly different definition. So in your home, you turn the heating dial up, do you control your heat or merely influence it?

 

He needs to appeal to his Chinese and Indian audience and stop with this blaming Americans

 

For you non science people....

Let’s give you a more scientific explanation. You’re in a controlled environment in conjunction with a heating system, insulated house with sealed windows and doors. So, you control the heat with a dial. Open the doors and windows and the effort on a real cold day in turning up the dial with be more influential and as you may not now be in “discrete” control of the temperature the same way in a closed environment. Reach a point where your efforts reach a tipping point, like running out of heating oil....control and even influence no longer exist.

The earth is not a a closed environment and though man may exert the biggest influence for now, it may only be for a time and it is not “discrete” do to the variations in different localities.
“Climate change” does not mean the climate cannot change without man’s influence. It means that change is occurring at an accelerated rate and weather patterns are becoming less predictable....not more. So how we be in control ?

 

Thanks but I am the science type.

Think of terms of science then. Carbon Dioxide a very dense gas sinks. And where does it sink to? The ocean grabs about 93 percent of it. Plant grab a lot of it too.

If man persists on believing he controls climate, simply add a bit of plants to the mix and solve it.

Democrats do not want solutions they won't settle for less than massive regulations. That is of course man's contribution. Oh and of course high taxes. That is vital to Democrats.

 

*I am a science person..*
I guess you’re not a science person. You still think man controls the climate. It’s a waste of time talking with you non science people. I asked what level of math you are comfortable with ? No answer. Any one in science knows math is the language of science. “Discrete” as a math term which I emphasized twice, is a key to understanding why man influences but doesn’t control climate. You failed again in your claim you are a science person.
I don’t claim to be an expert by any means......but I’m enough of a science person to appreciate it. You, don’t have a clue.

You’re into being a conservative vs dems and try to bend everything to your way of thinking. It has nothing to do with evidence.
You alluded to taxes. That’s you’re real motive, not global warming. That’s fraudulent.

 

Well, you attack me yet I had not attacked you. Do not try to sell me you are the science guy.
I studied 2 years of Calculus in college. I do think you failed to tell me your level.

If you have something to say, say it.

 

Why don’t you mention what -discrete- is in explaining the influence of man over climate change instead of just sluffing it off as a non factor. It’s an important term used in calculous and easily differentiates the difference, Have we read what AGW refers to.....the descriptions use the word influence, not control.

Why the idea of “throwing plants” out there and not talk about the rate of depletion of plant life man has engaged in for decades building roads and parking lots and malls etc. . That’s math and evidence is staggeringly different.

It’s also peculiar on the part of people who acknowledge they went to college in one breath then diss all colleges for their universal stance on AGW. I’m not attacking anyone. But really..... I just keep asking for a college that agrees with you or any denier.
. I will say, I’m a decades member in the AAAS.

 

A grand minimum will certainly suppress the warming, but it's not going to stop it.

 

It’s the old “Oh, there’s ice on the pond. Must be the end of global warming. “ defense.

 

False. And we've been over this repeatedly. Gases disperse due to Brownian motion. They don't stratify; at least not the way you think. That's a good thing because you'd be dead if they did. Think about it. If the individual gas species stratified by molecular weight then we'd have 6 meters of CO2 hugging the surface and suffocating us, But that doesn't happen. O2 is 21% regardless of whether you at sea level or on top of Pike's Peak. It's the same with CO2.

 

If it has not sunk, how can plants and the ocean grab so much of it??

 

The nice folks at Goddard don't seem to agree with you. Gasp... now what? Interesting choice of language there though. Enough wiggle room in a word like suppress. Of course it will suppress warming. The study mentioned expressed deep concern that what warming we have seen will entirely vanish and temps will start declining rapidly during the next 40-100 years. So, sure, I bet you can say "suppress" and mean it. And let's be clear here. Radiative influence is being effected. So, while the "warming effect" of our atmosphere "won't be stopped", there just won't be enough radiation energy to actually sustain the amount of heat retained that we do today.

Of course "warming" of the planet won't "stop". But having said that, it still doesn't indicate that we'll see any long term temperature support that you inferred.

 

We already have. You’re woefully so far behind this topic, you’re repeating 1900s arguments. We’ve been losing permafrost and sea ice for decades.

 

Perhaps English isn't a first language. The question wasn't what has happened. Clearly, we've warmed since the end of the last little ice age. No one here is disputing that, except for you trying to infer it. Clear enough yet?

The question being discussed is what will happen now. So, while you tried to be snarky, clearly, you are the one who is advancing the historic here. The current observations indicate something different is on the cusp of happening. Perhaps it would be more instructive for you to sit on your hands and watch the show. This conversation thing seems well beyond you.

 

Well I hope not....but we have INCREASED THE RATE of warming since the Industrial Age has started as well. A car can increase its speed over time. That’s called acceleration. Acceleration in the rate of change is apparent by all observations and it occurred in conjunction with the man made effects of the release of co2 in the atmosphere.

Of course we’ve warmed since any ice age....an obvious observation, but the change in the rate has increased; We measure changes in temperature, not just by “ thermometer “readings but by their effects. That has accelerated as well.
Weather science agrees with other sciences whose specialties are affected by change in temperatures. Geology, entomology ( insect life), plant life, you name the natural science. This is why we get such strong concensus by all scientists in all areas.

What do we do ? Obviously we try to reverse the trends that got us here.....seems obvious.

This has got to be way over your head as it’s not straight from Brietbart.

 

The sinks just grab whatever is available. The gas molecules are constantly zipping this way and that at about 1000 mph so they get randomized rapidly. Once one molecule is taken out of circulation it just gets replaced with another pretty much instantly. There is a little bit of gravitational statification in the troposphere, but it's not much at all amounting to only a few ppm difference between the top and bottom. The reason why Earth's gravity cannot stratify the gases is because they are moving at supersonic speeds in random directions. They bump into each other frequently causing them disperse randomly.

 

The radiative forcing difference between the Maunder Minimum and Modern Maximum is about 1.0 W/m2. A doubling of CO2 is about 3.7 W/m2. Can you post a link to what you're seeing from NASA so that I can review it?

 

How can you allege they shoot around at that particular velocity?

 

Your replies seem to me to be the least scientific since others reply using actual science.

 

So, who should be we be listening to on this topic? NASA, NOAA, climatologists, oceanographers?

Or blow hard politicians and they're equally misinformed talking heads? I, for one, am going to go with the experts.

 

Ha ha
You obviously are full of it. If you were scientific , you’d state exactly where. Frauds are afraid to be specific.

Hint, the first derivative of the position function is the rate and the second derivative is acceleration. You are the third derivative.

 

Sure, you’re a science guy. GRAB isn’t exactly a great science term.

 

And they are ?

 

Who are the experts? Did you not read the post?

If you did, it'd be some people from the groups in the first line of my post.

 

But since I have looked this up, it seems that 1000 mph is the ideal speed, not the actual speed which is much slower. I also looked up Graham's law and the kinetic theory of gasses, I am more up to date then previously. Oxygen moves faster than Carbon Dioxide moves by 1.17 times faster.