Remember me
▼ Content

Strange Revelation


Strange Revelation02-12-2018 08:16
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I was skimming through the assessment report again. Can't really get into dedicating the time to read it, from the beginning to end. And notice that there are contributions from experts in many fields, not just science. It me to thinking about all these smart, well educated people, not considering that such a faith-based, circumstantial case wouldn't sell well to anyone without an advanced degree in Climatology. They could count on recruiting quite a few environmentalist, ecologists, politicians (or anyone looking to turn a quick buck), but the people who would have to pay the price, or lose the profits they have been enjoying, were going to resist strongly.

The short version is just to simplistic, man-made CO2 = Global Warming (at an alarming rate). Pretty much anyone, not self-medicating, will want to understand where they got such nonsense. Unfortunately, it's a very involved, complicated, circumstantial line of crap. Some surender, and just agree, to avoid admitting it's beyond comprehension. Others might get sucked into the endless pile of research papers, totally consumed in the struggle to understand, can't think of anything else.

I'm sure there are dozens of no-related statistics, that fit the same trend and timeline, as CO2 and Global Warming. Just a coincidence of course, since they shouldn't have anything to do with the atmosphere or climate.

It really seems too obvious, that man-made CO2 was selected, simply because it's huge impact on all of us. Petroleum fuels are the center of our energy use, and there really isn't a better alternative, not even a close second choice. Any major change, would cause a great deal of economic chaos. These smart, educated, Climatologist must be aware, that their proposed cure, would be much worse than the few degrees increase the threaten us with. I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.
02-12-2018 13:21
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was skimming through the assessment report again.......
.....I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.



Just can't imagine that 0.04% would have much effect?

The 2018 NCA report, the volume 2 of the most recent assessment says at the top of the title page it is about "impacts, risks and assessments. Just below it says that the physical science underlying volume 2 is in volume 1 released in 2017 and shows a url.

Maybe try skimming chapter 2 of the 2017 report for an explanation of how that 0.04% has much effect. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

If you want some more detailed explanations of the physical science side, there is a textbook: Principles of Planetary Climate, by R Pierrehumbert. Amazon has it.

Of possible interest: https://skepticalscience.com/
02-12-2018 15:57
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was skimming through the assessment report again. Can't really get into dedicating the time to read it, from the beginning to end. And notice that there are contributions from experts in many fields, not just science. It me to thinking about all these smart, well educated people, not considering that such a faith-based, circumstantial case wouldn't sell well to anyone without an advanced degree in Climatology. They could count on recruiting quite a few environmentalist, ecologists, politicians (or anyone looking to turn a quick buck), but the people who would have to pay the price, or lose the profits they have been enjoying, were going to resist strongly.

The short version is just to simplistic, man-made CO2 = Global Warming (at an alarming rate). Pretty much anyone, not self-medicating, will want to understand where they got such nonsense. Unfortunately, it's a very involved, complicated, circumstantial line of crap. Some surender, and just agree, to avoid admitting it's beyond comprehension. Others might get sucked into the endless pile of research papers, totally consumed in the struggle to understand, can't think of anything else.

I'm sure there are dozens of no-related statistics, that fit the same trend and timeline, as CO2 and Global Warming. Just a coincidence of course, since they shouldn't have anything to do with the atmosphere or climate.

It really seems too obvious, that man-made CO2 was selected, simply because it's huge impact on all of us. Petroleum fuels are the center of our energy use, and there really isn't a better alternative, not even a close second choice. Any major change, would cause a great deal of economic chaos. These smart, educated, Climatologist must be aware, that their proposed cure, would be much worse than the few degrees increase the threaten us with. I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.



The link is to an IPCC pdf that will need to be downloaded. On page 12, it says B2 with the header Oceans. The IPCC states that 90% of the heat content of global warming is in the top 2000 meters of our oceans. They don't explain how the ocean can be so effecient at absorbing such a high percentage of heat content.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

There are scientists who say https://climatechangedispatch.com/flawed-nasa-study-pacific-ocean-warming-related-to-volcanic-heat-flow/amp/

In 2013 the IPCC had said there was no global warming pause because of the missing heat mentioned in this article.
You also sound like a moron trying to act like your so stupid you can't take the time to do a search and think for yourself. What's it like to be that lazy? I bet you're an American, right?
Used to be a time when Americans were motivated to be literate but as I said, there was a time.
And Harvey, I can't believe that you came from a single cell. How is that even possible? Maybe you can explain it if you think it happened.

@still learning, think it's possible that the heat we're dumping into the Arctic from north of the 45th parallel is enough to melt glaciers, have a feedback mechanism which is the Greenland Sea abyss which allows for tectonic plate rebound which influences deep faults that can warm the Pacific? That would still be AGW if demonstrated.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

@Harvey, I know some Russians who'll tell you who to vote for during the next presidential election. And if you don't like who wins then you can blame it on Russian meddling. It's funny but that is the claim made about the last election, Russians convinced Americans who to vote for. It's a sad day when people can't make up their own mind about who they want to be POTUS.
Edited on 02-12-2018 16:56
02-12-2018 16:55
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
still learning wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was skimming through the assessment report again.......
.....I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.



Just can't imagine that 0.04% would have much effect?

The 2018 NCA report, the volume 2 of the most recent assessment says at the top of the title page it is about "impacts, risks and assessments. Just below it says that the physical science underlying volume 2 is in volume 1 released in 2017 and shows a url.

Maybe try skimming chapter 2 of the 2017 report for an explanation of how that 0.04% has much effect. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

If you want some more detailed explanations of the physical science side, there is a textbook: Principles of Planetary Climate, by R Pierrehumbert. Amazon has it.

Of possible interest: https://skepticalscience.com/


Exactly my point, there isn't a straight forward, simple answer, you have to keep digging through the paper-pile, pretty much endlessly, or take it on faith. I'm not interested in joining a cult of faithful believers. I plan to read through the assessment reports, cover-to-cover, eventually, but just don't have the free time to do it all at once. Not sure if I'll go through many of the linked papers, that try to explain the how's and why's, since I've seen more than enough, to know that it only leads to more papers. I already know it's a belief, of how things work, not actual proof, since there are no physical experiments. The bulk of it, is based on virtual data, and computer models (simulations), based on what they believe. Even the raw data collected and use, isn't precise enough, to make the accurate forecasts (few degrees change over decades, or even CO2 levels). These change constantly, vary a great deal by location. Satellite imagery, and analysis of reflected wavelengths, can't give an accurate, precise number either, for surface conditions, atmospheric interference, which isn't a consonant or consistent across the entire globe, always moving. The variance is greater than the 'historic change' being argued. A lot of factors are either ignored, manipulated, overstated, understated, discounted as useless. It's a mess, you have to accept a lot of this 'reasoning', or read a lot of papers, which supposedly justify the methods used.

Plant life does very well in a greenhouse, with CO2 levels 3-4 times higher, than our current outside 400 ppm. The more they grow, the more CO2 they use. We are a long way from giving the planet's vegetation an ideal level of CO2, which is a huge indicator, that there is something wrong in this study. Plants are the most basic food source for all life on this planet. Not many things live of eating dirt, and it's not the soil, but the organic matter mixed in.

Historically, they want to track this trend over the past couple hundred years, but there is no actual way to make accurate measurements today, what can really base it on from hundreds of years ago? Just more beliefs and guessing, more faith, and another huge stacks of papers, if you want to try to understand why they expect us to believe it's all true. It's all fun discussions, for those who get paid well, to do nothing else, and that is what the bulk of it really is, discussion. They use the computer models, and virtual data (loosely based on physical date they can scrounge up) to test the points they either agree on, or question. The people writing the simulation models have a bias, and it will always show in their work, and the results. It's not science, if the experiment can't be repeated, independently. The source code of the models, and data fed to them, are not available to the public, not even sure they are available on request.

I don't intend to go to Climatology school, just to make sense of these reports, or dedicate most of my free time, digging for answers, as I'm pretty certain that we aren't in any crisis, and the planet will handle our CO2 just fine. People can adjust to a warmer climate, adapt, just fine, been doing it for thousands of years. It's a lot warmer now, than during the ice age, and we seem to do just fine, and far from our physical limitations.
02-12-2018 19:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was skimming through the assessment report again. Can't really get into dedicating the time to read it, from the beginning to end. And notice that there are contributions from experts in many fields, not just science. It me to thinking about all these smart, well educated people, not considering that such a faith-based, circumstantial case wouldn't sell well to anyone without an advanced degree in Climatology. They could count on recruiting quite a few environmentalist, ecologists, politicians (or anyone looking to turn a quick buck), but the people who would have to pay the price, or lose the profits they have been enjoying, were going to resist strongly.

The short version is just to simplistic, man-made CO2 = Global Warming (at an alarming rate). Pretty much anyone, not self-medicating, will want to understand where they got such nonsense. Unfortunately, it's a very involved, complicated, circumstantial line of crap. Some surender, and just agree, to avoid admitting it's beyond comprehension. Others might get sucked into the endless pile of research papers, totally consumed in the struggle to understand, can't think of anything else.

I'm sure there are dozens of no-related statistics, that fit the same trend and timeline, as CO2 and Global Warming. Just a coincidence of course, since they shouldn't have anything to do with the atmosphere or climate.

It really seems too obvious, that man-made CO2 was selected, simply because it's huge impact on all of us. Petroleum fuels are the center of our energy use, and there really isn't a better alternative, not even a close second choice. Any major change, would cause a great deal of economic chaos. These smart, educated, Climatologist must be aware, that their proposed cure, would be much worse than the few degrees increase the threaten us with. I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.


It is not relevant. The laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law show why.

It takes work for warmists to explain because they have to deny theories of science and mathematics to do so.

The smart, educated, 'climate' scientist might be aware (most aren't). They do what they do because they want to implement Marxism. Marxism is heavily taught in schools as a desirable Utopia these days. It's the same old lie.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-12-2018 19:09
02-12-2018 19:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
still learning wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was skimming through the assessment report again.......
.....I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.



Just can't imagine that 0.04% would have much effect?

The 2018 NCA report, the volume 2 of the most recent assessment says at the top of the title page it is about "impacts, risks and assessments. Just below it says that the physical science underlying volume 2 is in volume 1 released in 2017 and shows a url.

Maybe try skimming chapter 2 of the 2017 report for an explanation of how that 0.04% has much effect. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

If you want some more detailed explanations of the physical science side, there is a textbook: Principles of Planetary Climate, by R Pierrehumbert. Amazon has it.

Of possible interest: https://skepticalscience.com/


None of this is science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science.

CO2 cannot warm the surface. You cannot warm the warmer surface using a colder gas.

Absorption does not warm the Earth.

CO2 radiates according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, just like every other gas in the atmosphere. It is part of the radiance of Earth. It does not prevent the Earth from radiating energy.

You can't create energy out of nothing.

These books are not discussing theories of science.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2018 19:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was skimming through the assessment report again. Can't really get into dedicating the time to read it, from the beginning to end. And notice that there are contributions from experts in many fields, not just science. It me to thinking about all these smart, well educated people, not considering that such a faith-based, circumstantial case wouldn't sell well to anyone without an advanced degree in Climatology. They could count on recruiting quite a few environmentalist, ecologists, politicians (or anyone looking to turn a quick buck), but the people who would have to pay the price, or lose the profits they have been enjoying, were going to resist strongly.

The short version is just to simplistic, man-made CO2 = Global Warming (at an alarming rate). Pretty much anyone, not self-medicating, will want to understand where they got such nonsense. Unfortunately, it's a very involved, complicated, circumstantial line of crap. Some surender, and just agree, to avoid admitting it's beyond comprehension. Others might get sucked into the endless pile of research papers, totally consumed in the struggle to understand, can't think of anything else.

I'm sure there are dozens of no-related statistics, that fit the same trend and timeline, as CO2 and Global Warming. Just a coincidence of course, since they shouldn't have anything to do with the atmosphere or climate.

It really seems too obvious, that man-made CO2 was selected, simply because it's huge impact on all of us. Petroleum fuels are the center of our energy use, and there really isn't a better alternative, not even a close second choice. Any major change, would cause a great deal of economic chaos. These smart, educated, Climatologist must be aware, that their proposed cure, would be much worse than the few degrees increase the threaten us with. I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.



The link is to an IPCC pdf that will need to be downloaded. On page 12, it says B2 with the header Oceans. The IPCC states that 90% of the heat content of global warming is in the top 2000 meters of our oceans. They don't explain how the ocean can be so effecient at absorbing such a high percentage of heat content.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

There are scientists who say https://climatechangedispatch.com/flawed-nasa-study-pacific-ocean-warming-related-to-volcanic-heat-flow/amp/

In 2013 the IPCC had said there was no global warming pause because of the missing heat mentioned in this article.
You also sound like a moron trying to act like your so stupid you can't take the time to do a search and think for yourself. What's it like to be that lazy? I bet you're an American, right?
Used to be a time when Americans were motivated to be literate but as I said, there was a time.
And Harvey, I can't believe that you came from a single cell. How is that even possible? Maybe you can explain it if you think it happened.

@still learning, think it's possible that the heat we're dumping into the Arctic from north of the 45th parallel is enough to melt glaciers, have a feedback mechanism which is the Greenland Sea abyss which allows for tectonic plate rebound which influences deep faults that can warm the Pacific? That would still be AGW if demonstrated.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

@Harvey, I know some Russians who'll tell you who to vote for during the next presidential election. And if you don't like who wins then you can blame it on Russian meddling. It's funny but that is the claim made about the last election, Russians convinced Americans who to vote for. It's a sad day when people can't make up their own mind about who they want to be POTUS.


More random, off topic crap.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2018 19:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
still learning wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was skimming through the assessment report again.......
.....I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.



Just can't imagine that 0.04% would have much effect?

The 2018 NCA report, the volume 2 of the most recent assessment says at the top of the title page it is about "impacts, risks and assessments. Just below it says that the physical science underlying volume 2 is in volume 1 released in 2017 and shows a url.

Maybe try skimming chapter 2 of the 2017 report for an explanation of how that 0.04% has much effect. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

If you want some more detailed explanations of the physical science side, there is a textbook: Principles of Planetary Climate, by R Pierrehumbert. Amazon has it.

Of possible interest: https://skepticalscience.com/


Exactly my point, there isn't a straight forward, simple answer, you have to keep digging through the paper-pile, pretty much endlessly, or take it on faith. I'm not interested in joining a cult of faithful believers. I plan to read through the assessment reports, cover-to-cover, eventually, but just don't have the free time to do it all at once. Not sure if I'll go through many of the linked papers, that try to explain the how's and why's, since I've seen more than enough, to know that it only leads to more papers. I already know it's a belief, of how things work, not actual proof, since there are no physical experiments. The bulk of it, is based on virtual data, and computer models (simulations), based on what they believe. Even the raw data collected and use, isn't precise enough, to make the accurate forecasts (few degrees change over decades, or even CO2 levels). These change constantly, vary a great deal by location. Satellite imagery, and analysis of reflected wavelengths, can't give an accurate, precise number either, for surface conditions, atmospheric interference, which isn't a consonant or consistent across the entire globe, always moving. The variance is greater than the 'historic change' being argued. A lot of factors are either ignored, manipulated, overstated, understated, discounted as useless. It's a mess, you have to accept a lot of this 'reasoning', or read a lot of papers, which supposedly justify the methods used.

Plant life does very well in a greenhouse, with CO2 levels 3-4 times higher, than our current outside 400 ppm. The more they grow, the more CO2 they use. We are a long way from giving the planet's vegetation an ideal level of CO2, which is a huge indicator, that there is something wrong in this study. Plants are the most basic food source for all life on this planet. Not many things live of eating dirt, and it's not the soil, but the organic matter mixed in.

Historically, they want to track this trend over the past couple hundred years, but there is no actual way to make accurate measurements today, what can really base it on from hundreds of years ago? Just more beliefs and guessing, more faith, and another huge stacks of papers, if you want to try to understand why they expect us to believe it's all true. It's all fun discussions, for those who get paid well, to do nothing else, and that is what the bulk of it really is, discussion. They use the computer models, and virtual data (loosely based on physical date they can scrounge up) to test the points they either agree on, or question. The people writing the simulation models have a bias, and it will always show in their work, and the results. It's not science, if the experiment can't be repeated, independently. The source code of the models, and data fed to them, are not available to the public, not even sure they are available on request.

I don't intend to go to Climatology school, just to make sense of these reports, or dedicate most of my free time, digging for answers, as I'm pretty certain that we aren't in any crisis, and the planet will handle our CO2 just fine. People can adjust to a warmer climate, adapt, just fine, been doing it for thousands of years. It's a lot warmer now, than during the ice age, and we seem to do just fine, and far from our physical limitations.


There actually is a straight-forward answer. CO2 is simply not capable of warming the Earth. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law show why. These are simple theories and simple laws.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2018 19:35
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:


There actually is a straight-forward answer. CO2 is simply not capable of warming the Earth. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law show why. These are simple theories and simple laws.



And yet you won't explain it to us.
02-12-2018 19:40
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Yeah, free stuff, is always so much more appealing, than punching a clock every morning, and saving some of that pitiful paycheck, to actually buy things yourself...

France, the trend setters, who were some of the first, to convert to Climatology, are starting to see the impact, and not liking it much. Government raised the carbon tax (fuel), considerably, now they have riots and protesters. Will be interesting to see if the french government caves, and drops the new carbon tax, or if it results in violence, and revolution. I'm sure it's been a fun, and trendy topic to discuss over a beer, well guess wine in France, but when the government starts grabbing at your wallet, it becomes serious and personal, not so appealing.

I've got a strong feeling most of the population will respond about the same, as the governments try to implement the 'cure', since there is sort of a narrow timeline to disaster. They don't make some major, costly changes, all at once, they'll miss the 'deadline', and be past the point of no return. You can only squeeze people so hard, all at one time, before they get agitated enough to take a stand.

It's too late to turn the public schools into Climatology conversion farms, it would take at least one generation, to get it started proper. But, in reality, they would need those kids to grow up, to teach their children the strong need to believe in Climatology. They have been teaching the benefit of socialism for a few decades, fortunately, it has stuck to well, but free stuff, compared to parents always working, will turn many. Think most people like independence, and choices, over government dependency, so there will always be a battle. Eventually though, the freebies will run out, some people will still need to do the work, so others don't have to, and working people don't like freeloaders.
02-12-2018 20:15
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was skimming through the assessment report again. Can't really get into dedicating the time to read it, from the beginning to end. And notice that there are contributions from experts in many fields, not just science. It me to thinking about all these smart, well educated people, not considering that such a faith-based, circumstantial case wouldn't sell well to anyone without an advanced degree in Climatology. They could count on recruiting quite a few environmentalist, ecologists, politicians (or anyone looking to turn a quick buck), but the people who would have to pay the price, or lose the profits they have been enjoying, were going to resist strongly.

The short version is just to simplistic, man-made CO2 = Global Warming (at an alarming rate). Pretty much anyone, not self-medicating, will want to understand where they got such nonsense. Unfortunately, it's a very involved, complicated, circumstantial line of crap. Some surender, and just agree, to avoid admitting it's beyond comprehension. Others might get sucked into the endless pile of research papers, totally consumed in the struggle to understand, can't think of anything else.

I'm sure there are dozens of no-related statistics, that fit the same trend and timeline, as CO2 and Global Warming. Just a coincidence of course, since they shouldn't have anything to do with the atmosphere or climate.

It really seems too obvious, that man-made CO2 was selected, simply because it's huge impact on all of us. Petroleum fuels are the center of our energy use, and there really isn't a better alternative, not even a close second choice. Any major change, would cause a great deal of economic chaos. These smart, educated, Climatologist must be aware, that their proposed cure, would be much worse than the few degrees increase the threaten us with. I just can't imagine .04% of the atmosphere could have much effect on anything, just spread too thin, huge planet. If it was actually relevant, it wouldn't take so much work to explain.


There is no such thing as an "advanced degree in climatology" Here or there a class is offered on that subject. But the entire range of science is necessary and no one can do that so all they can do is try to put as many papers together and then claim that they all show the proper thing.

To be perfectly honest CO2 was chosen not because there is any factual evidence that it can do anything. It was chosen because the growth curve of CO2 was claimed by Dr. Michael Mann to match the growth curve of the mean global temperature.

Now Dr. Mann has been shown to be a complete fraud and in fact within a year or so of his original paper all of those atmospheric scientists had time to study that actual NASA GISS temperatures BEFORE NASA changed them to match Dr. Mann's "predictions". The people that were working with Dr. Mann were exchanging emails on how to change the temperature data so that they could make it seem that the predictions were correct and they could retain their research grants. This destroyed them but for some reason the University that Mann was working at retained him on their staff.

But he made the huge mistake of suing two others who said he was a fraud. As part of the agreement to allow Mann time to develop his court case he was supposed to turn over the actual temperature data that he used. Well, he didn't HAVE any temperature data to turn over and lost his case and is presently $10 million in debt to pay legal bills.
02-12-2018 21:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


There actually is a straight-forward answer. CO2 is simply not capable of warming the Earth. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law show why. These are simple theories and simple laws.



And yet you won't explain it to us.


Already did. Many times.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Strange Revelation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Strange Case of the Wandering Data312-06-2017 21:41
▲ 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