Remember me
▼ Content

How do you argue with someone who believes all the evidence for climate change is fabricated?



Page 1 of 212>
How do you argue with someone who believes all the evidence for climate change is fabricated?04-06-2018 10:02
Strange_quark
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.
04-06-2018 13:51
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.



...This graph from NASA tends to disagree with what you said.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/0/134/files/2014/07/TemperatureCO2_1900-2000_small-1gpennr.png
04-06-2018 13:56
Strange_quark
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.



...This graph from NASA tends to disagree with what you said.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/0/134/files/2014/07/TemperatureCO2_1900-2000_small-1gpennr.png


How does that graph disagree with what I said?
04-06-2018 14:43
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Strange_quark wrote:
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.



...This graph from NASA tends to disagree with what you said.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/0/134/files/2014/07/TemperatureCO2_1900-2000_small-1gpennr.png


How does that graph disagree with what I said?



...Anyone can see the curve as CO2 levels rose and that the temperature fell below the curve when it used to be above of it.
Edited on 04-06-2018 15:17
04-06-2018 17:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature.

It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or how much CO2 is being emitted by any global source.
Strange_quark wrote:
At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades.
Which is true.
Strange_quark wrote:
The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical summary.
Strange_quark wrote:
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature

There is no trend. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Strange_quark wrote:
and compare that to CO2 emissions.

No data. It's not possible to measure CO2 emissions from any global source.
Strange_quark wrote:
After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public.

I wouldn't call them experts, but he's right.
Strange_quark wrote:
He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.

They aren't taking measurements. The data is fabricated. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global sea level, the global ice content, global sources of CO2, or the global concentration of CO2. There's this little thing called statistical math, you see. It places demands on the data for any summary, and it places demands on the summary itself.
Strange_quark wrote:
How can you argue with someone like that?

You might try leaving the Church of Global Warming.
Strange_quark wrote:
If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons,

Climate 'scientists' deny science. They do not use or create any theory of science. They deny mathematics too. So does the entire Church of Global Warming.

Governments do not make profit. Their only success metric is to expand and grow. One of the best ways to do that is to manufacture a 'crisis' for them to solve (without ever doing so). They're happy to lie to gain power.

The Church of Global stems from the Church of Karl Marx. It is using this 'global crisis' to further Marxism.

Strange_quark wrote:
then all of science may as well be thrown away.

You already threw it away.

Science isn't a government agency, society, academy, university, research program or study.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

The Church of Global Warming denies science. Specifically, it denies the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

The Church of Global denies mathematics as well. To build any statistical summary, you must first have the raw data sufficient to cover for population variance. This is required so you can calculate the margin of error, a required number for any statistical summary.

You don't.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2018 18:46
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
Strange_quark wrote:

.....How can you argue with someone like that?.....


Won't work.
04-06-2018 19:18
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.


Can you account for the times when the temperature was high and the CO2 low?

Such as the early bronze age which was hotter than now?
06-06-2018 21:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
I just sent this to the OP;

Hi,

You seem to be unwilling to reply to any of the posters on the thread you created.

I realise that most of the inhabitants here are mad but there are some who are not.

I would like to see an inprovement in the general standard of debate here.

I ask that you reply to the sensible posts.

Thanks

Tim The Plumber.
Edited on 06-06-2018 21:17
06-06-2018 21:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.



...This graph from NASA tends to disagree with what you said.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/0/134/files/2014/07/TemperatureCO2_1900-2000_small-1gpennr.png


How does that graph disagree with what I said?



...Anyone can see the curve as CO2 levels rose and that the temperature fell below the curve when it used to be above of it.


Hardly disproves the correlation between the 2 data sets.

Change the axis for one of them a bit and job done.
06-06-2018 21:43
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.



...This graph from NASA tends to disagree with what you said.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/0/134/files/2014/07/TemperatureCO2_1900-2000_small-1gpennr.png


How does that graph disagree with what I said?



...Anyone can see the curve as CO2 levels rose and that the temperature fell below the curve when it used to be above of it.


Hardly disproves the correlation between the 2 data sets.

Change the axis for one of them a bit and job done.


..This suggests it's not CO2. Why ? Between 1920 and 1940 there wasn't any "global warming caused by CO2";

COLUMBUS , Ohio – Two researchers here spent months scouring through old expedition logs and reports, and reviewing 70-year-old maps and photos before making a surprising discovery:

They found that the effects of the current warming and melting of Greenland 's glaciers that has alarmed the world's climate scientists occurred in the decades following an abrupt warming in the 1920s.

https://news.osu.edu/news/2007/12/06/grnlndice/


...I think most people consider that period of warming to have happened more quickly than the current warming. This is one of the reasons why I consider waste heat from urbanization and industrialization and the effects of ozone depletion to be a bigger threat.
06-06-2018 22:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.



...This graph from NASA tends to disagree with what you said.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/0/134/files/2014/07/TemperatureCO2_1900-2000_small-1gpennr.png


How does that graph disagree with what I said?



...Anyone can see the curve as CO2 levels rose and that the temperature fell below the curve when it used to be above of it.


Hardly disproves the correlation between the 2 data sets.

Change the axis for one of them a bit and job done.


..This suggests it's not CO2. Why ? Between 1920 and 1940 there wasn't any "global warming caused by CO2";

COLUMBUS , Ohio – Two researchers here spent months scouring through old expedition logs and reports, and reviewing 70-year-old maps and photos before making a surprising discovery:

They found that the effects of the current warming and melting of Greenland 's glaciers that has alarmed the world's climate scientists occurred in the decades following an abrupt warming in the 1920s.

https://news.osu.edu/news/2007/12/06/grnlndice/


...I think most people consider that period of warming to have happened more quickly than the current warming. This is one of the reasons why I consider waste heat from urbanization and industrialization and the effects of ozone depletion to be a bigger threat.


Urbanization and industrialization is not waste heat.

The ozone is not being depleted. See the Chapman cycle.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2018 08:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
James___ wrote:
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change. I was telling him about the strong correlation between CO2 emmisions and average global temperature. At first he started to rant about the typical "the weather and temperature are never same two years or two decades. The temperature rising these last decades is just a simple variation."
I told him you have to look at the general trend of the temperature and compare that to CO2 emissions. After this he just started saying that you can't trust the experts because they are paid to decieve the public. He went on to say that whenever the climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that? If he believes all climate scientists and governments are trying to decieve the public because of economic reasons, then all of science may as well be thrown away.



...This graph from NASA tends to disagree with what you said.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/0/134/files/2014/07/TemperatureCO2_1900-2000_small-1gpennr.png


How does that graph disagree with what I said?



...Anyone can see the curve as CO2 levels rose and that the temperature fell below the curve when it used to be above of it.


Hardly disproves the correlation between the 2 data sets.

Change the axis for one of them a bit and job done.


..This suggests it's not CO2. Why ? Between 1920 and 1940 there wasn't any "global warming caused by CO2";

COLUMBUS , Ohio – Two researchers here spent months scouring through old expedition logs and reports, and reviewing 70-year-old maps and photos before making a surprising discovery:

They found that the effects of the current warming and melting of Greenland 's glaciers that has alarmed the world's climate scientists occurred in the decades following an abrupt warming in the 1920s.

https://news.osu.edu/news/2007/12/06/grnlndice/


...I think most people consider that period of warming to have happened more quickly than the current warming. This is one of the reasons why I consider waste heat from urbanization and industrialization and the effects of ozone depletion to be a bigger threat.


Ozone is nothing to do with temperature.

The effect on the figures of urbanisation and land use changes may well be the cause for the percieved warming or most of it.

This is not any sort of threat. It cannot get vast.
07-06-2018 13:30
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Tim the plumber wrote:

Ozone is nothing to do with temperature.

The effect on the figures of urbanization and land use changes may well be the cause for the perceived warming or most of it.

This is not any sort of threat. It cannot get vast.



...This is why we are debating things, right ? One piece of information I have not been able to find on the net is the amount of energy ozone depletion is letting into our atmosphere. If this link is accurate, it's for over North America, at least a 25% reduction in the amount of ozone.
After the year 2020 ignore their projections, am only concerned about up to now. https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Future_ozone_layer_concentrations.gif
..How much energy is contained in the extra UV-B rays being allowed into our atmosphere ? Also this can impact life on our planet more quickly than any warming. It can effect food crops among other things.
..From an environmental standpoint the ozone layer does matter.
...With any warming, you know I think deep faults and hydrothermal vents warm the sea floor north of Iceland https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm.
..This is where I think watching Greenland's glaciers will tell us if we need to be concerned about any extra warming associated with the interglacial warming period that we are now in.
..From ice core research we know that more warming than we have experienced does happen as part of a natural cycle. And with me, I don't think that the amount of heat being released into the atmosphere from North America and Europe has been properly quantified. For all we know a better solar panel might be the answer.
..The glacier mentioned in the story is next to the Greenland Sea.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenlands-glaciers-melti/
https://www.bing.com/maps?q=Kangerdlugssuaq+Glacier&FORM=HDRSC4#
07-06-2018 17:37
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
The amount of energy in UV that is intercepted by the ozone is tiny. Of no heat budget significance.

The prospect of not having an ozone layer was very alarming. It would mean that no food crop could be grown outdoors and you would be severly restricted in going outside without extreme protective equipment. Very bad.

The ozone issue has been solved due to not using CFC's and the like.

Nobody has opposed the oppression of such chemicals except some producers who should have been shot.

Before you think about the effect of melting glaciers calculate the amount of ice melt required for 1mm of sea level rise. It is easy to do.

Then when they talk about a melting glacier you will be able to see it in perspective.

Edited on 07-06-2018 17:38
07-06-2018 18:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Ozone is nothing to do with temperature.

The effect on the figures of urbanization and land use changes may well be the cause for the perceived warming or most of it.

This is not any sort of threat. It cannot get vast.



...This is why we are debating things, right ? One piece of information I have not been able to find on the net is the amount of energy ozone depletion is letting into our atmosphere. If this link is accurate, it's for over North America, at least a 25% reduction in the amount of ozone.


The ozone layer is not being depleted. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2018 18:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The amount of energy in UV that is intercepted by the ozone is tiny. Of no heat budget significance.

The prospect of not having an ozone layer was very alarming. It would mean that no food crop could be grown outdoors and you would be severly restricted in going outside without extreme protective equipment. Very bad.

The ozone issue has been solved due to not using CFC's and the like.

Nobody has opposed the oppression of such chemicals except some producers who should have been shot.

Before you think about the effect of melting glaciers calculate the amount of ice melt required for 1mm of sea level rise. It is easy to do.

Then when they talk about a melting glacier you will be able to see it in perspective.


While a lot of this is correct, the idea that CFC's destroy ozone is just flat wrong.

CFC's don't react with ozone. They are effectively inert. You can inject it into a tank of ozone and nothing will happen.

Chlorine gas is extremely reactive. If, somehow, CFC's broke apart into chlorine (that takes a fair bit of energy), the chlorine will react with something else long before it reaches even a few dozen feet, much less the ozone layer.

The whole thing was concocted by DuPont because they were losing the patent rights on R-12, and like a bunch of idiots our government believed them.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-06-2018 18:30
07-06-2018 19:05
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The amount of energy in UV that is intercepted by the ozone is tiny. Of no heat budget significance.

The prospect of not having an ozone layer was very alarming. It would mean that no food crop could be grown outdoors and you would be severly restricted in going outside without extreme protective equipment. Very bad.

The ozone issue has been solved due to not using CFC's and the like.

Nobody has opposed the oppression of such chemicals except some producers who should have been shot.

Before you think about the effect of melting glaciers calculate the amount of ice melt required for 1mm of sea level rise. It is easy to do.

Then when they talk about a melting glacier you will be able to see it in perspective.



...Tim,
..I have my own perspective. I disagree with what is currently being said. So I do not agree with you or with them. I have explained what I believe is the cause and effect of how ice ages cycle and how we might be influencing that cycle today. You didn't consider it for a moment because you went with "what they say". They don't know why ice ages are cyclical.
Edited on 07-06-2018 19:22
07-06-2018 20:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The amount of energy in UV that is intercepted by the ozone is tiny. Of no heat budget significance.

The prospect of not having an ozone layer was very alarming. It would mean that no food crop could be grown outdoors and you would be severly restricted in going outside without extreme protective equipment. Very bad.

The ozone issue has been solved due to not using CFC's and the like.

Nobody has opposed the oppression of such chemicals except some producers who should have been shot.

Before you think about the effect of melting glaciers calculate the amount of ice melt required for 1mm of sea level rise. It is easy to do.

Then when they talk about a melting glacier you will be able to see it in perspective.



...Tim,
..I have my own perspective. I disagree with what is currently being said. So I do not agree with you or with them. I have explained what I believe is the cause and effect of how ice ages cycle and how we might be influencing that cycle today. You didn't consider it for a moment because you went with "what they say". They don't know why ice ages are cyclical.


Ice ages happen when we have land at the poles. Today we have ice at the South pole and an almost land locked sea at the North.

The intensity of the ice age varies due to the variation of the earth's orbit and tilt.

Neither are much use in accounting for variations in climate over a couple of centuries.

That said why would you expect the climate to be absolutley static? It obviously wanders about within limits. Today we are in a warmish period.
07-06-2018 21:13
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The amount of energy in UV that is intercepted by the ozone is tiny. Of no heat budget significance.

The prospect of not having an ozone layer was very alarming. It would mean that no food crop could be grown outdoors and you would be severly restricted in going outside without extreme protective equipment. Very bad.

The ozone issue has been solved due to not using CFC's and the like.

Nobody has opposed the oppression of such chemicals except some producers who should have been shot.

Before you think about the effect of melting glaciers calculate the amount of ice melt required for 1mm of sea level rise. It is easy to do.

Then when they talk about a melting glacier you will be able to see it in perspective.



...Tim,
..I have my own perspective. I disagree with what is currently being said. So I do not agree with you or with them. I have explained what I believe is the cause and effect of how ice ages cycle and how we might be influencing that cycle today. You didn't consider it for a moment because you went with "what they say". They don't know why ice ages are cyclical.


Ice ages happen when we have land at the poles. Today we have ice at the South pole and an almost land locked sea at the North.

The intensity of the ice age varies due to the variation of the earth's orbit and tilt.

Neither are much use in accounting for variations in climate over a couple of centuries.

That said why would you expect the climate to be absolutley static? It obviously wanders about within limits. Today we are in a warmish period.



...Nevermind.
08-06-2018 00:57
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Tim the plumber wrote:

Ice ages happen when we have land at the poles. Today we have ice at the South pole and an almost land locked sea at the North.

The intensity of the ice age varies due to the variation of the earth's orbit and tilt.

Neither are much use in accounting for variations in climate over a couple of centuries.

That said why would you expect the climate to be absolutley static? It obviously wanders about within limits. Today we are in a warmish period.



...Was kind of hoping you would've had something better to say. Ice ages are primarily a northern hemisphere event. And the reason it probably warms in Antarctica during an ice age is because wind patterns change.
..An example of wind patterns changing is the Antarctic because of the hole in the ozone layer there. This is why one side of Antarctica is warming while the other side is getting colder.
..Because Antarctica has a land mass it's temperature varies by about 1/2 as much as the Arctic. This suggests that what's responsible for a temperature variance is found either in or close to the Arctic. Currently a diminishing ice pack has been given credit for this but some scientists have been saying geologic activity on and under the sea floor.
..You see, with me I watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and saw no science in it. Saying that because glaciers are melting and CO2 levels are rising is saying that we have circumstantial evidence. That's not actual science.
..As for an ice age, I think when the deep faults and thermal vents close then the necessary drop in temperature occurs.
..This link (https://binged.it/2sPBjuH) is to the attached image if it attaches. If you notice the drop in temperature after warming has peaked, I think that's because glaciers have quit melting, the rebound (uplift) of the tectonic plates (Eurasian and North American) and the magma exposed to the cold water of the sea floor starts solidifying.
..Ice ages last a long time, warm interglacial periods can be short lived. Such as once our planet starts cooling then 10,000 years or less. That's a long time for us. But if we're smart we'd manipulate the warming of the Arctic to prevent moving towards the next ice age. I guess it only matters if people are going to be around for a while or not.
Attached image:

08-06-2018 17:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting. This causes the temperature where the snow is to never get warm in the summer as it does not absorb the sunshine's energy.

I watched a TV show which said that the last one started with a particularly unpleasant glen/swamp in Scotland being the place where the snow did not melt first.

With our present industrial civilisation we are able to put out lots of dirty soot which would cause the snow to not reflect the sunshine and thus if we were faced with the prosect of a returning ice age we can do stuff about it.

Crop failures like we had in the little ice age would be moderately nasty though.

Edited on 08-06-2018 17:45
08-06-2018 19:19
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting. This causes the temperature where the snow is to never get warm in the summer as it does not absorb the sunshine's energy.

I watched a TV show which said that the last one started with a particularly unpleasant glen/swamp in Scotland being the place where the snow did not melt first.

With our present industrial civilisation we are able to put out lots of dirty soot which would cause the snow to not reflect the sunshine and thus if we were faced with the prosect of a returning ice age we can do stuff about it.

Crop failures like we had in the little ice age would be moderately nasty though.



...Tim,
..Nothing personal but as I mentioned, my own opinion is that deep faults and hydrothermal vents https://www.iceagenow.info/underwater-volcanoes-melting-arctic-ice-says-geologist/ start closing. With the warming in England and in France it can be associated with air being warmed by equatorial waters flowing north. This would be because the Gulf Stream is slowing.
..https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-is-slowing-down-faster-than-ever-scientists-say-10128700.html
.With this, if heat is rising from the sea floor north of England then as the current slows going by England and France it will release more heat.
08-06-2018 20:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

True.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This causes the temperature where the snow is to never get warm in the summer as it does not absorb the sunshine's energy.

Not true. If it were, snow would never melt.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I watched a TV show which said that the last one started with a particularly unpleasant glen/swamp in Scotland being the place where the snow did not melt first.

Sounds like speculation to me. I don't think anyone knows where it did not melt first.
Tim the plumber wrote:
With our present industrial civilisation we are able to put out lots of dirty soot which would cause the snow to not reflect the sunshine and thus if we were faced with the prosect of a returning ice age we can do stuff about it.

Do you think we can waste enough carbon based fuel for this? Remember, it's cold!
Tim the plumber wrote:
Crop failures like we had in the little ice age would be moderately nasty though.

Crop failures are always unpleasant. This is obvious.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2018 20:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting. This causes the temperature where the snow is to never get warm in the summer as it does not absorb the sunshine's energy.

I watched a TV show which said that the last one started with a particularly unpleasant glen/swamp in Scotland being the place where the snow did not melt first.

With our present industrial civilisation we are able to put out lots of dirty soot which would cause the snow to not reflect the sunshine and thus if we were faced with the prosect of a returning ice age we can do stuff about it.

Crop failures like we had in the little ice age would be moderately nasty though.



...Tim,
..Nothing personal but as I mentioned, my own opinion is that deep faults and hydrothermal vents https://www.iceagenow.info/underwater-volcanoes-melting-arctic-ice-says-geologist/ start closing. With the warming in England and in France it can be associated with air being warmed by equatorial waters flowing north. This would be because the Gulf Stream is slowing.
..https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-is-slowing-down-faster-than-ever-scientists-say-10128700.html
.With this, if heat is rising from the sea floor north of England then as the current slows going by England and France it will release more heat.


The Gulf Stream isn't slowing. It also has almost nothing to do with the North Atlantic drift current.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2018 20:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

True.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This causes the temperature where the snow is to never get warm in the summer as it does not absorb the sunshine's energy.

Not true. If it were, snow would never melt.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I watched a TV show which said that the last one started with a particularly unpleasant glen/swamp in Scotland being the place where the snow did not melt first.

Sounds like speculation to me. I don't think anyone knows where it did not melt first.
Tim the plumber wrote:
With our present industrial civilisation we are able to put out lots of dirty soot which would cause the snow to not reflect the sunshine and thus if we were faced with the prosect of a returning ice age we can do stuff about it.

Do you think we can waste enough carbon based fuel for this? Remember, it's cold!
Tim the plumber wrote:
Crop failures like we had in the little ice age would be moderately nasty though.

Crop failures are always unpleasant. This is obvious.


Snow melts as it warms up due to the sun's heat energy being absorbed by the snow and due to heat energy being absorbed from warm air or rain.

If there are patches of dark stuff, rocks or dirt or open water for example, they will absorb the radient heat from the sun and hea the surrounding snow.

When the summer is cool and does not warm the snow enough it will not melt. Trouble.

The center of the last ice age is where the glaciers radiate out of. Fairly easy to work out with enouigh groundwork.

There is 200 year supply of coal under Labrador. Labrador is not unusual. Coal is very abundant. Britian sits on an ocean of coal. We have stopped mining it due to it being cheapeer to get it from open cast mines around the world now humanity can use the very large excavators called shit shifters. If we need lots of dark dirt to make the snow melt we can just add a little coal slag into the mix. That will do it fine.
08-06-2018 22:49
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Tim the plumber wrote:

[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

Into the Night wrote:
True.
/color]



...That's because the ground or water has cooled, not the air. Kind of why it can be frigid on a sunny day, plenty of snow reflecting solar radiation. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed, just the warmth coming from the earth.
..But what causes the earth itself to cool ? It's rotational velocity is increasing. Why is it's rotational velocity increasing ?

..Pieces of a puzzle. Until you know how they all fit together all you have is a small part of the puzzle.
08-06-2018 22:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

Into the Night wrote:
True.
/color]



...That's because the ground or water has cooled, not the air. Kind of why it can be frigid on a sunny day, plenty of snow reflecting solar radiation. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed, just the warmth coming from the earth.
..But what causes the earth itself to cool ? It's rotational velocity is increasing. Why is it's rotational velocity increasing ?

..Pieces of a puzzle. Until you know how they all fit together all you have is a small part of the puzzle.


But what what about warm days with snow on the ground??


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2018 23:43
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

Into the Night wrote:
True.
/color]



...That's because the ground or water has cooled, not the air. Kind of why it can be frigid on a sunny day, plenty of snow reflecting solar radiation. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed, just the warmth coming from the earth.
..But what causes the earth itself to cool ? It's rotational velocity is increasing. Why is it's rotational velocity increasing ?

..Pieces of a puzzle. Until you know how they all fit together all you have is a small part of the puzzle.


But what what about warm days with snow on the ground??



...I thought we were discussing ice ages, interglacial periods and not day to day weather.
09-06-2018 00:25
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Strange_quark wrote:
I was recently talking to someone, and the conversation turned into a debate about climate change I was telling him about the strong correlation ... average global ... rant ... "the weather"... decades ... temperature rising... more decades ... variation ... general trend ... CO2 emissions ... can't trust the experts ... paid to decieve ... ('i' before 'e' except after 'c') ... went on to say ... climate scientists are taking measurements, the data they get is all fabricated.
How can you argue with someone like that?


Look.
You present his case well - don't.
Leave the gay bar immediately before you both get beaten up.
Come here and mock them.
Edited on 09-06-2018 00:28
09-06-2018 00:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

Into the Night wrote:
True.
/color]



...That's because the ground or water has cooled, not the air. Kind of why it can be frigid on a sunny day, plenty of snow reflecting solar radiation. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed, just the warmth coming from the earth.
..But what causes the earth itself to cool ? It's rotational velocity is increasing. Why is it's rotational velocity increasing ?

..Pieces of a puzzle. Until you know how they all fit together all you have is a small part of the puzzle.


But what what about warm days with snow on the ground??



...I thought we were discussing ice ages, interglacial periods and not day to day weather.

I'm not talking about day to day weather.

I'm saying that snow does not prevent warm air.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2018 03:18
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

Into the Night wrote:
True.
/color]



...That's because the ground or water has cooled, not the air. Kind of why it can be frigid on a sunny day, plenty of snow reflecting solar radiation. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed, just the warmth coming from the earth.
..But what causes the earth itself to cool ? It's rotational velocity is increasing. Why is it's rotational velocity increasing ?

..Pieces of a puzzle. Until you know how they all fit together all you have is a small part of the puzzle.


But what what about warm days with snow on the ground??



...I thought we were discussing ice ages, interglacial periods and not day to day weather.

I'm not talking about day to day weather.

I'm saying that snow does not prevent warm air.



...Just wasting other people's time. That's what you're doing.
09-06-2018 04:42
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
It also teaches poor programming techniques ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesting_(computing)

Good nesting determines a result.
This place is a great bad example of quite a lot.
Where's 'bad leg black wake' these days?
He hopped off somewhere else?
09-06-2018 05:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

Into the Night wrote:
True.
/color]



...That's because the ground or water has cooled, not the air. Kind of why it can be frigid on a sunny day, plenty of snow reflecting solar radiation. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed, just the warmth coming from the earth.
..But what causes the earth itself to cool ? It's rotational velocity is increasing. Why is it's rotational velocity increasing ?

..Pieces of a puzzle. Until you know how they all fit together all you have is a small part of the puzzle.


But what what about warm days with snow on the ground??



...I thought we were discussing ice ages, interglacial periods and not day to day weather.

I'm not talking about day to day weather.

I'm saying that snow does not prevent warm air.



...Just wasting other people's time. That's what you're doing.


I'm saying that snow does not prevent warm air.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2018 12:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

Into the Night wrote:
True.
/color]



...That's because the ground or water has cooled, not the air. Kind of why it can be frigid on a sunny day, plenty of snow reflecting solar radiation. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed, just the warmth coming from the earth.
..But what causes the earth itself to cool ? It's rotational velocity is increasing. Why is it's rotational velocity increasing ?

..Pieces of a puzzle. Until you know how they all fit together all you have is a small part of the puzzle.


The amount of heat coming up fom the ground is measurable.

It is also generally constant unless you are on an active volcanoe.

It is not what causes ice ages, normally.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=energy+cycle+climate+image&safe=strict&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=DFA951-giTPmJM%253A%252Ck_OzCMffPnzYWM%252C_&usg=__plZOYZuGHM3igMkOktXxSgVkHDQ%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1vbOsuMbbAhVJDcAKHdMnD14Q9QEINjAE#imgrc=DFA951-giTPmJM:
09-06-2018 12:10
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
monckton wrote:
It also teaches poor programming techniques ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesting_(computing)

Good nesting determines a result.
This place is a great bad example of quite a lot.
Where's 'bad leg black wake' these days?
He hopped off somewhere else?



..I've been wondering about that too. It seems a little too quiet without him.
He might've got to missing litebeer. He posted with him more than just about everybody else. literbeer got banned for posting updates on Arctic warming. That was considered spamming.
09-06-2018 12:32
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Well, let's hope so.
It's always a worry when someone with 'the right stuff' goes missing for a few weeks.

09-06-2018 12:35
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
An ice age starts with the snow of last winter not melting.

Into the Night wrote:
True.
/color]



...That's because the ground or water has cooled, not the air. Kind of why it can be frigid on a sunny day, plenty of snow reflecting solar radiation. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed, just the warmth coming from the earth.
..But what causes the earth itself to cool ? It's rotational velocity is increasing. Why is it's rotational velocity increasing ?

..Pieces of a puzzle. Until you know how they all fit together all you have is a small part of the puzzle.


The amount of heat coming up fom the ground is measurable.

It is also generally constant unless you are on an active volcanoe.

It is not what causes ice ages, normally.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=energy+cycle+climate+image&safe=strict&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=DFA951-giTPmJM%253A%252Ck_OzCMffPnzYWM%252C_&usg=__plZOYZuGHM3igMkOktXxSgVkHDQ%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1vbOsuMbbAhVJDcAKHdMnD14Q9QEINjAE#imgrc=DFA951-giTPmJM:




...Tim,
..I made your link clickable. This is something that I consider;
https://www.google.com/search?q=tropopause&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj03_3qusbbAhUH0YMKHfhKD9IQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=769

..The tropopause is about -56° C. and the mesopause is about -80° C.
.The stratosphere is about 0° C. Since the tropopause is below the warm stratosphere, what's heating the troposphere ?

.Layers of our atmosphere measured by Constant trends in average air temperature (which changes with pressure and radiation).
https://binged.it/2l31uL3

.Air pressure by altitude
https://binged.it/2l2Mr3D

..It seems that above 30 km (the middle of the stratosphere) that only the amount of radiation in our atmosphere changes. What changes the temperature above it or the amount of radiation ?
.This is why I have a tendency to believe that atmospheric gasses do store a fair amount of heat (KE).
.Of course I'd be the guy that says the Van Allen Radiation Belts effects our upper atmosphere. Since there is an inner and outer belt https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=van+allen+radiation+belt&FORM=HDRSC2 this could account for why it's warmer above the tropopause and mesopause.
Edited on 09-06-2018 12:44
09-06-2018 12:39
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Maybe he's still at the barbecue?
Lovely weather for it these days.

09-06-2018 15:42
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
monckton wrote:
Maybe he's still at the barbecue?
Lovely weather for it these days.




...That's one reason why I wouldn't mind moving to Australia;

The Rules of a Great Aussie BBQ
https://sleepinginsomniacs.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/the-rules-of-a-great-aussie-bbq/

https://photos.app.goo.gl/K4SchnT8ZJqAjcPS6
Edited on 09-06-2018 15:46
09-06-2018 18:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
..The tropopause is about -56° C. and the mesopause is about -80° C.
.The stratosphere is about 0° C. Since the tropopause is below the warm stratosphere, what's heating the troposphere ?

The surface and infrared light from the Sun.
James___ wrote:
.This is why I have a tendency to believe that atmospheric gasses do store a fair amount of heat (KE).

It is not possible to store heat. You are talking about thermal energy, not heat.
James___ wrote:
Of course I'd be the guy that says the Van Allen Radiation Belts effects our upper atmosphere. Since there is an inner and outer belt, this could account for why it's warmer above the tropopause and mesopause.

The Van Allen belts are well outside the atmosphere. They are not a factor.

Still unaware of the Chapman cycle, eh?

The stratosphere has a temperature inversion due to the production and destruction of ozone by different frequencies of UV light.

The thermosphere has a temperature inversion because of the increasing absorption of radiation from the Sun as you increase in altitude.

The energy density profile of Earth does NOT increase with altitude, even though the temperature does. This is because the atmosphere thins with altitude.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate How do you argue with someone who believes all the evidence for climate change is fabricated?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Evidence of Sinclair Syndicate's Purchase of ABC2012-02-2018 17:17
Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about i5906-11-2017 19:51
there is no evidence more CO2 traps more heat and heats the Earth1909-02-2016 07:14
There is no mathematical and scientific foundation nor any experimental evidence of the greenhouse effect516-01-2016 17:59
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact