Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

There are two significant problems with this line of thinking.

First, we have no way of knowing that the end result, in terms of the degree of warming, would be the same in the absence of human contribution. For example, if the factors that create the next ice age were set to hit in 100 years, but our contributions naturally made the planet 5 degrees warmer, then the ice age might not ever materialize or it might just pause the warming at that point before continuing on its runaway course.

Second is the amount of destruction associated with a timescale of change that you posited at 10x. Imagine having 1000 years to adjust to a sea level rise of 10 feet. Now imagine having to make that adjustment in 100 years. And that's with a 10x speed, Volstok Ice Core data suggests that we are altering the climate closer to a 75x or even 100x faster rate.

 

Are you disputing the information or just being you old lovable self?

 

What? No Star Trek fantasies this time? Just more unproven theories and a false narrative? Spock thinks you should just settle down.

 

Still waiting on you to stop dodging and just answer the last two questions I posed.

1) Do you, buckybadger, personally believe humans could theoretically travel to Mars and alter its climate given a few hundred years, hundreds of thousands of man hours, and advancing technology that more efficiently produces climate altering effects?

2) Can you identify even a hypothetical example of something that you would consider "actual proof" that humans are currently warming the planet?

 

1) No, and for a very simple reason. Have we altered the moon's climate? No, the moon has no atmosphere. Why not? Because the moon's gravity is too weak to hold it. Similar with Mars. Mars lost its water because it's atmosphere was too weak to hold it or other elements and compounds. Our only chance of living on Mars would be to build biosphere's, possibly underground, because we can't alter the climate. The practicality of doing it on a large enough scale is a complete fantasy, just as it is a fantasy that rich fat white Americans are ruining the Earth's climate.

2) If there's no possible proof then why are liberals always claiming they have it?

 

As an initial matter, using the fact that we havent altered the climate on the moon yet is a really poor method for answering the question of whether we could alter the climate on Mars if we devoted hundreds of years and millions of man hours toward that end.

As to the other question, there already is a mountain of proof, but those do not qualify as "real proof" according to several folks on this thread. So, I am asking for an example, even a hypothetical one, of what @BuckyBadger , @guavaball , and now you, would consider "actual proof." Is it temperature measurements taken across the planet and over decades? Is it Ice Core Data that can track temperature and CO2 across hundreds of thousands of years? Do you want proof that the Greenhouse effect is real? Or that humans are the reason that Greenhouse gases are increasing at rates roughly 75x faster than the natural rate?

 

It's hilarious to watch you delve into fantasy because you can't provide proof to the theory you support. Here on Earth. Not even in the present, but you need to advance technology and the time frame hundreds of years in the future.

lol

 

Still watching you dodge some very basic questions.

 

I really don't care about your futuristic Sci-fi fantasies. You even going down that road says a lot.

 

Still watching you respond with another dodge.

 

Here you are being imprecise, so it's difficult to address your point. Define "greenhouse process". Define "other variables".

What is happening here is one of the false equivalences that The Church makes when attempting to describe Greenhouse Effect. This particular false equivalency is attempting to compare a closed convective system (a greenhouse) with an open convective system (Earth). There is no "lid" on Earth's atmosphere. Heat is not reduced in Earth's atmosphere like it is inside of a greenhouse.

No, they are quite literally what The Church argues. I've heard the arguments countless times, and most of them funnel down into those two arguments. Then, the temperature of Venus typically gets brought up at some point, like you bring up later in this post of yours.

And here is where you make the 2nd false equivalency of the Magick Blanket Argument. Heat is NOT thermal energy itself. Heat, rather, is specifically "the FLOW OF thermal energy".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but from the last bit of it, you are obviously attempting to trap heat. It is not possible to slow or trap heat. It is only possible to increase or reduce it.

Glad to hear that you don't like the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument.

AND here is what I will call the Venus Argument. The answer is simple.

It's not. That's right. Venus is not hotter than Mercury. You are simply failing to consider "other variables". These "other variables" are as follows:

[1] The apparent truth that Venus has a higher emissivity than Mercury, allowing Venus to absorb sunlight more efficiently.

[2] The incredibly long day of Venus. A day on Venus is about as long as 117 days here on Earth, compared to Mercury, which only has a day about 58 2/3 Earth days long.

[3] Atmospheric pressure. Mercury has a very thin atmosphere, while Venus has an atmosphere about 900 times thicker than the atmosphere here on Earth. The thick atmosphere of Venus allows for Venus to very easily pick up thermal energy from the surface by conductive heating, and it moves that thermal energy around so well that nighttime temperatures on Venus are virtually identical to daytime temperatures. At an altitude in the atmosphere that is similar in the atmospheric pressure to Earth, temperatures are much cooler.

Thus, the presence of an atmosphere does NOT increase the temperature of a planet. You are just measuring the temperature much lower down into the planet. Of course it's going to be much warmer in comparison.

 

Mars may be a constant loss scenario, in which we would not devote that much resources to make the surface habitable, but would be cheaper underground...especially since it isn't geologically active so as to make it dangerous. Earth is not a constant loss scenario for greenhouse terraforming by injecting otherwise sequestered stuff into the atmosphere.

Understanding that we can terraform is a first step in accepting we are.

 

Just curious - and understand that all of your assertions are simply inaccurate understandings of the science - but do you have any real life credentials on this subject?

 

When your data set is as limited as it is, and the data is manufactured by folks who's livelihood is dependent on creating alarm, I don't call that weather. I call it corruption. But sure. So, tell us again, what is the temp supposed to be?

 

If that is the example then that you're going to use, how can you then explain the existence of coldest ever temps? We saw an entire region experience those in the US not too long ago. If, as you suggest the existence of a single high temp record is sufficient, why aren't the coldest ever examples? Your logic defies logic...

 

I never used a single temperature as a reason for believing AGW. I use it as a data point that gets added to billions of others collected each year that all point to the same conclusion.

Global Warming is very real and humans are the most significant cause.

 

Can you identify an example, even a hypothetical one, of "real proof" that would convince you that the AGW theory is valid?

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...8-fourth-warmest-year-ever-noaa-nasa-reports/

 

Always worthwhile to consider more data.

 

Okay, let's look into your "whole host of indicators"...

This is an attempt at only one "indicator", not a "whole host of indicators". But okay, let's address this one.

One spot on a planet is not the planet itself. Just the surface level (bottom of the atmosphere) does not include way high up in the atmosphere. If you're attempting to pick out a few spots on Earth and call that The Earth, then that's a False Equivalence Fallacy. If you're attempting to pick out a few spots on Earth and create a statistical analysis from that, then you are violating various axioms of Mathematics, including but not limited to: using raw unbiased data, selecting data by randN, normalizing data by paired randR, declaring and justifying a variance, and calculating a margin of error using said variance.

Let's be super nice and even provide you with an unrealistic amount of 100,000 thermometers that are unrealistically uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer. Given that Earth has 197 million sq miles of surface area, that would amount to ONE thermometer for every 1,970 sq miles of surface area, which would be an area semi-comparable to the State of Rhode Island.

Tell me, what is the temperature of Rhode Island right now. You can't?? Obviously, 100,000 thermometers isn't good enough either... Therefore, you are just placing your faith in some random number that someone came up with. Another word for an 'Argument of Faith' is a 'Circular Argument'. At the root of it all, you believe that the Earth is warming because, well, the Earth is warming. You have no proof that it indeed IS warming. You only have faith that it is.

Yes it is, as described above.

 

Wikipedia summarily discarded on sight. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source with me.

False Authority Fallacy. Wikipedia is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

So, you're answer is, you don't know. got it.

 

Sure. That the ~<4% of total CO2 produced by man as an expression of total CO2 output is entirely and exclusively the cause of all warming since 1850. Meaning that no other function, or process, or natural condition can, or could be either additive or contributory to the hypothesis.

 

There is no frequency term in the Stefan Boltzmann Law. It applies to all frequencies.

CO2 absorbing IR emitted from Earth's surface is not "trapping heat". CO2 cannot, in turn, re-emit that energy and heat the surface with it. Heat does not flow from cold to warm.

 

It's kind of laughable, really. What was the title of the thread again? Hottest day ever in..... never mind I doubt you'll be honest.