Hey, alarmists...

[reel]

Here it is again.



The sun shines on the earth, delivering radiative heat energy to the surface.

Some is reflected away by the atmosphere, some radiates back off the surface.

CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat radiating back off the surface, thus increasing the amount of retained heat on the planet. The more CO2, the more is retained.

The added retained heat energy is dumped into the climatic system and disperses.



Show me how any statement in this succession is wrong.



And don't talk to me about Nobel Laureates, qualifications, or credentials.  Don't give me "he said" or "she said".  Use your head.  I don't need to see a goddamn puppet show.

[RW]

Why is it that 10,000 scientific papers can say the same thing yet the one old scientist who disagrees gets equal airtime?  It's not a one to one debate in the scientific community.

[Bricktop]

Here it is again.



The sun shines on the earth, delivering radiative heat energy to the surface.

Some is reflected away by the atmosphere, some radiates back off the surface.

CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat radiating back off the surface, thus increasing the amount of retained heat on the planet. The more CO2, the more is retained.

The added retained heat energy is dumped into the climatic system and disperses.



Show me how any statement in this succession is wrong.



And don't talk to me about Nobel Laureates, qualifications, or credentials.  Don't give me "he said" or "she said".  Use your head.  I don't need to see a goddamn puppet show.

So, by that logic, we are doomed...because the heat will eventually build up to unsurvivable limits.



Has the heat of the planet been warmer than it is now?



If so, what were the consequences?



If so, what happened to that heat that, by your statement, could not escape?



What will happen if we can magically eradicate CO2 from the atmosphere?



Spare me your dogma. Show me your credentials. Show me your supporting data. Thats what Giaever did. Someone who you call a puppet declined to be part of the mantra chanters and took an alternative view.



Don't argue with me. Argue with his historic data.

[RW]

He is arguing with his presented information.  He ripped it apart right off the bat.  What are you on about?

[Romero]

Spare me your dogma. Show me your credentials. Show me your supporting data. Thats what Giaever did. Someone who you call a puppet declined to be part of the mantra chanters and took an alternative view.

Just admit defeat, reel. Your lack of credentials are no match for Spec's YouTube video of some guy saying stuff.

[reel]

Listen bud, i'Ll answer your questions when I have a bit more time.  I'Ll even point out to you what your man Ivar actually said and more importantly what he DIDN'T say, but for the moment, why don't you try and stop being a toady parrot and actually think for yourself.  I gave you my argument.  Refute it or come up with a counter.  On your own.  With your own words.  Think you can muster that?

[RW]

Spare me your dogma. Show me your credentials. Show me your supporting data. Thats what Giaever did. Someone who you call a puppet declined to be part of the mantra chanters and took an alternative view.

Just admit defeat, reel. Your lack of credentials are no match for Spec's YouTube video of some guy saying stuff.

Thanks Romero for your value add to this debate.



 :001_rolleyes:

[Anonymous]

Is it the biggest issue humanity is facing?



Should we throw buckets of money at it?



I thought those were valid questions.

An equivocal no to spending more trillions on "fighting" global warming.

This is likely the only post in this entire thread which is entirely true.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

Maybe I'll comment when there is interest. At the moment, too many long posts and bedtime is looming. Global warming, global cooling, whatever. When earth disintegrates or freezes over, I hope by then I've enjoyed my retirement. Tra la la.

[Anonymous]

Maybe I'll comment when there is interest. At the moment, too many long posts and bedtime is looming. Global warming, global cooling, whatever. When earth disintegrates or freezes over, I hope by then I've enjoyed my retirement. Tra la la.

Good night Azhya.

 

[Anonymous]

There also appears to be a consensus that global warming has entered a pause stage. Depends on who you ask?

Has there been a stabilization in the amount of atmospheric CO2 or a marked decrease in solar radiation?  If not, then the answer is no.  Again, people confuse temperature as a measure of heat gain. We can continue to gain head, but experience a drop in temperature.

There have been many reasons given why the projected increases in temperature did not occur. One study found that the lack of warming is due to heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Most of the same climate modelers have doubled down and are predicting even greater climatic swings in the future.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

Good night Azhya.

 

 :2cdfr50_th:

[reel]

Maybe I'll comment when there is interest. At the moment, too many long posts and bedtime is looming. Global warming, global cooling, whatever. When earth disintegrates or freezes over, I hope by then I've enjoyed my retirement. Tra la la.

Shame about the kids though.

[reel]

There have been many reasons given why the projected increases in temperature did not occur. One study found that the lack of warming is due to heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Most of the same climate modelers have doubled down and are predicting even greater climatic swings in the future.

Melting ice is another reason.  The latent heat required to melt ice is huge, but does not affect temperature at all, but similar to ocean heating, it will accelerate the temperature increase later on.

[Anonymous]

It's important to make the distinction between consensus on whether it is happening and what is happening.



There is consensus that it is happening.  There is not consensus on what precisely is happening.  A lot of people are taking advantage of the latter to obfuscate the fact that it is happening and cherry pick arguments that have nothing to do with whether or not it is happening.



Anthropogenic global warming can't really be denied because the physics are pretty simple and they can be modeled, demonstrated in a lab, etc.  For me that is enough to think we should change.  The precise effects it will have on the planet is much more difficult to determine.  Those can't realistically be modeled and they are difficult to measure.  Did the heat go to melting ice?  Heating the atmosphere?  Heating the ocean?  Shifting a current?  Higher wind speeds?  Higher humidity?  Larger storms?  All of the above in minor amounts?  Who knows?  It's a dynamic system. But why does it matter?  The fact that it is happening should be worrying enough.  Perhaps us not knowing should cause us even more consternation?



Is it an existential threat to humanity?  Probably not.  But it might be.  Will it have wide reaching economic impacts?  Possibly.  Will it do something that impacts humanity?  Almost certainly.

I thought I pointed that out where the consensus is fragile. Both sides are guilty of cherry picking individual climatic events to add weight to their shaky arguments. This is happening in Southern Ontario right now.



I understand your argument. I think it may be Bill Nye's carbon 101 video. But, that should be the starting point not the science is settled end of it.