Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change Science 101


Climate Change Science 10113-04-2015 22:05
Texas Conservative for Solar
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
The US obviously has some poorly educated people that are easily confused and turned off by all the yelling from political interests so I created this easy to follow explanation for non-science people based on the NASA climate website info.

Please help this to go viral by copying it and pasting to your social networks and forums and in many languages. It is in public domain and may be used for non-commercial use as long as it is kept as is in it's entirety.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate Change Science Basics

1) Carbon dioxide (chemical name CO2) is a clear gas composed of one atom of carbon (C) and two atoms of oxygen (O2). It is the gas humans and animals breathe out when you exhale and what plants absorb for energy production. Plants use CO2 and transpire Oxygen that humans and animals need to survive. In the right concentrations CO2 is beneficial to the planet and living things.

2) The earth is surround by a gaseous layer called the atmosphere that holds in the air we breathe and allows sunlight to penetrate and heat to escape.

3) when CO2 builds up in the environment beyond levels of 400 ppm it becomes a greenhouse gas that rises into the atmosphere and creates a layer of gas that holds heat inside the atmosphere just like a sheet of glass holds heat inside a greenhouse.

4) Under conditions suitable for mankind the CO2 released is balanced by the CO2 absorbed by plants and the oceans and that creates a healthy living environment for mankind.

5) since the industrial revolution (invention of industries 1820-1840) the amount of CO2 in the environment has increased from the release of CO2 in the burning of fossil fuels. Anything that burns carbon or fossil fuel creates CO2 and other gases as a bi-product and coal and oil burning releases lots of CO2.

6) As mankind has continued to increase industries with more cars, coal power plants and other burning of fossil fuels the CO2 has continued to build up in the atmosphere and has now reached the critical point of almost 400 ppm and that additional CO2 is no longer beneficial and is acting like a greenhouse gas raising the temperature of the planets climate. That is measured by scientists by measuring air, ocean and earth temperatures. At present the majority of heat and a lot of CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans. When oceans absorb lots of CO2 they become acidic which harms a lot of marine life that humans rely on. When oceans become warmer marine life that needs cooler temperatures to survive will die or migrate affecting humans survival.

Rising air temperatures and the droughts that can result will cause animals and insects that rely on cooler temperatures to survive to die or migrate. Migrating insects that carry diseases like mosquitoes will cause harm to humans. Rising air temperatures also increases the spread of diseases and increases the outbreaks of known health conditions like asthma and other respiratory diseases.

7) The rising air and ground temperature is most evident at the poles where glacier ice and permafrost that has been present for thousands of years is now melting at an extreme rate and that melting water is entering the oceans causing the ocean levels to rise. As oceans rise the land masses next to them are flooded and there are many millions of people that live near the ocean that will be affected by the flooding and tidal waves from rising oceans.

The melting permafrost also releases lots of Methane which is also a greenhouse gas that rises into the atmosphere increasing the greenhouse effect holding in more heat.

8) When oceans get warmer they release more water into the atmosphere through evaporation and more water in the atmosphere can cause severe storms and freak weather like extreme snow in some areas. Warmer air temperature also causes droughts in other areas. These extreme weather changes will affect mans ability to produce food and have water for crops and severe storms can cause harm to humans.

9) The top world climate scientists agree that climate change is real and is a result of the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that have increased as a result of manmade industries and pollution. They have said we must reduce that CO2 and we need to do it now not later or the effects will be severe harm to humans and our way of life and food, water and shelter that humans need for survival will be severely impacted.

10) We are running out of time and we need to act now to reduce the CO2 produced by industries like coal fired power plants and gas burning cars which are the major CO2 producers. Alternative renewable and clean energy like solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and other new technologies can reduce and replace the need for fossil fuels as an energy source and make existing energy sources cleaner and those technologies are increasing tremendously but we must also change our attitudes and accept that the old ways of burning fossil fuels is no longer healthy for us, our families, future generations and our planet.

*This is a public domain document and feel free to copy and share this with anyone that needs help understanding the science of climate change.
14-04-2015 01:40
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Thank you.
16-04-2015 01:48
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Since 1900 the long term average of solar irradiance (watts/m2) on the Earth has been steadily increasing to levels not seen on Earth for over 9000 years. This makes it quite a problem sorting which factor is controlling the temperature rise. There is no scientific data from the last event of this magnitude to be compared with today's climate. Mostly what we have is a C14 record which directly correlates with solar irradiance levels. Nobody can say with any certainty what the climate did during those events.

CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Yes it has been rising (currently at about 400ppm) but it cannot account for temperature increases without invoking other secondary effects to account for the temperature rise. Historically CO2 levels have been much higher during warm and cold periods.

I've done very simple heat calculations just to see if I can duplicate the temperature record for the last 300+ years using strictly solar irradiance variations and a forcing factor. That forcing factor would be the same one used by those arguing CO2 is causing it all. Both are arguing a 1.5 watt/m2 increase has caused the current global temperature rise. I'm arguing the sun is the primary source of that 1.5 watts/m2 increase and they argue it's CO2. The correlation is quite good on my version. If you like numbers have a look at the attached spreadsheet.

CO2 has risen to approximately 400 ppm and continued to rise for the last 10 years, yet there has been no increase in temperature during that timeframe. The solar irradiance based model explains that quite well. We've just past the peak of a very long cycle.

I've also done an independent calculation just using solar heating and water vapor heat effects with results that are consistent with current temperature rises.

There's money in saying its manmade and we need to change everything and upend civilization. There's no money in saying the obvious...it's the sun.

I'd be curious to see if you can find any literature that refutes the correlation between long term (100 year average or so) solar activity and global temperature.
Attached file:
svt-2_1.xlsx
Edited on 16-04-2015 01:49
16-04-2015 01:50
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Simple heat calculation with only solar increase and water vapor considered.
Attached file:
heatingcalc.xlsx
16-04-2015 02:34
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

Similar, more detailed argument than mine. Cites a factor of 6 relative to solar input due to reduction in cloud cover. Couple this with increase water vapor due to temperature increase and its pretty close to factor of 7 I use to essentially duplicate the long term temperature record.
16-04-2015 11:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Since 1900 the long term average of solar irradiance (watts/m2) on the Earth has been steadily increasing to levels not seen on Earth for over 9000 years.


Says who?
16-04-2015 18:57
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Wikipedia for one:

"Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using carbon-14-based dendrochronology (tree ring dating). The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional – the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period).[27][28] The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[28]"
Attached image:

16-04-2015 19:12
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Interesting correlation between solar activity and temperature rise...7C!

"The generally accepted date for the end of the Younger Dryas and the start of the Pre-Boreal is 11,500 Before Present calibrated. The start of the period is relatively sharply defined by a rise of 7 °C in 50 years. The date is based fairly solidly on Greenland ice cores, which give 11,640 BP for the late Younger Dryas and 11,400 BP for the early Pre-Boreal."

Interestingly, if you look at the above chart, you can see a wave pattern approximately 4000 years from max to min. We could be headed into a very long term rise overall. In the immediate future (next 100 years) we should see a decline in temperature based on solar activity but over the next 4000 years a steady climb to a peak roughly 4000 years from now.
25-04-2015 22:57
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
This Wikipedia graphic:



Shows that the sun exhibited similar sunspot numbers 2,500, 4,000, 4,600 and 5,200 years ago. Contemporary sunspot activity is significantly short of the numbers attained 9,000 years past.

The best temperature reconstructions for the Holocene do not show temperature spikes corresponding to these spikes in sun spots.
Edited on 25-04-2015 22:59
26-09-2015 03:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Texas Conservative for Solar wrote:
3) when CO2 builds up in the environment beyond levels of 400 ppm it becomes a greenhouse gas that rises into the atmosphere and creates a layer of gas that holds heat inside the atmosphere just like a sheet of glass holds heat inside a greenhouse.

Umm, no it doesn't. This isn't science. This is WACKY religious dogma.

I'll tell you the basics you need to research if you want to kick your religion to the curb and start addressing science:

1: Learn the difference between convection/conduction and thermal radiation. Your takeaway is that only thermal radiation is at play when discussing heat escaping the earth. The particular composition of the atmosphere is of no consequence to planetary heat loss via thermal radiation. No substance acts like insulation for thermal radiation. For convection/conduction, yes, but for Thermal Radiation, no.

2: The fundamentals of thermal radiation. Your takeaway is that thermal radiation is a function of only temperature, and of temperature alone. The thermal radiation is the dependent variable. The only way for earth to have less thermal radiation is for the planet to have COOLED.

Texas Conservative for Solar wrote:
9) The top world climate scientists agree that climate change is real and is a result of the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that have increased as a result of manmade industries and pollution.

No, bozo, there aren't ANY scientists who believe in violations of the laws of physics. Also, there is no role for consensus in science. Consensus is the stuff of religion and politics.

Do you really think science is determined by popular vote?


Texas Conservative for Solar wrote:
10) We are running out of time and we need to act now to reduce the CO2 produced by industries like coal fired power plants and gas burning cars which are the major CO2 producers. Alternative renewable and clean energy like solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and other new technologies can reduce and replace the need for fossil fuels as an energy source and make existing energy sources cleaner and those technologies are increasing tremendously but we must also change our attitudes and accept that the old ways of burning fossil fuels is no longer healthy for us, our families, future generations and our planet.

Why didn't you just say up front that you are a zany Marxist who can't even remember having gone to school?

Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
05-10-2015 10:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Texas Conservative for Solar wrote:
3) when CO2 builds up in the environment beyond levels of 400 ppm it becomes a greenhouse gas that rises into the atmosphere and creates a layer of gas that holds heat inside the atmosphere just like a sheet of glass holds heat inside a greenhouse.

Umm, no it doesn't. This isn't science. This is WACKY religious dogma.

I'll tell you the basics you need to research if you want to kick your religion to the curb and start addressing science:

1: Learn the difference between convection/conduction and thermal radiation. Your takeaway is that only thermal radiation is at play when discussing heat escaping the earth. The particular composition of the atmosphere is of no consequence to planetary heat loss via thermal radiation. No substance acts like insulation for thermal radiation. For convection/conduction, yes, but for Thermal Radiation, no.

2: The fundamentals of thermal radiation. Your takeaway is that thermal radiation is a function of only temperature, and of temperature alone. The thermal radiation is the dependent variable. The only way for earth to have less thermal radiation is for the planet to have COOLED.

Texas Conservative for Solar wrote:
9) The top world climate scientists agree that climate change is real and is a result of the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that have increased as a result of manmade industries and pollution.

No, bozo, there aren't ANY scientists who believe in violations of the laws of physics. Also, there is no role for consensus in science. Consensus is the stuff of religion and politics.

Do you really think science is determined by popular vote?


Texas Conservative for Solar wrote:
10) We are running out of time and we need to act now to reduce the CO2 produced by industries like coal fired power plants and gas burning cars which are the major CO2 producers. Alternative renewable and clean energy like solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and other new technologies can reduce and replace the need for fossil fuels as an energy source and make existing energy sources cleaner and those technologies are increasing tremendously but we must also change our attitudes and accept that the old ways of burning fossil fuels is no longer healthy for us, our families, future generations and our planet.

Why didn't you just say up front that you are a zany Marxist who can't even remember having gone to school?

Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

You're wrong.

This is mainstream science re atmospheric physics:

Infrared radiation and planetary temperature.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

What you are posting on this forum is 20% whacky pseudoscience and 80% childish insults.



Edited on 05-10-2015 10:39
05-10-2015 15:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Ceist wrote: You're wrong. This is mainstream science re atmospheric physics:

You don't know anything about science. You cannot discern your "mainstream" religion from science, believing they are one in the same.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2015 16:21
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: You're wrong. This is mainstream science re atmospheric physics:

You don't know anything about science. You cannot discern your "mainstream" religion from science, believing they are one in the same.


It's atmospheric physics found in any first year textbook. If you truly believe that your fundamentally flawed understanding of the physics involved and your basic blunders in misapplying the laws of thermodynamics to the earth's atmosphere were 'science', you'd be able to back up your views with a few quotes and citations from science text-books.

But you can't. So do you claim that all the atmospheric physics textbooks are 'wrong' too?

Your views are not only fundamentally flawed, they are delusional. They certainly aren't science based.

Your childishly obnoxious insults and personal attacks are not science either, although they take up most of the 'content' of your posts. However, they are rather entertaining.




Edited on 05-10-2015 16:36
05-10-2015 16:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Ceist wrote: Your views are not only fundamentally flawed

How, specifically, are they flawed? Specifically.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2015 17:02
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hmm... taking a leaf out of my book I see
. Unfortunately for you, I am currently debunking your flawed physics on the other thread..... specifically!
05-10-2015 17:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: Your views are not only fundamentally flawed

How, specifically, are they flawed? Specifically.


All you've done is rant that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, but you haven't explained how you think it does, or provided any heat transfer or entropy equations. You haven't given any 'specifics'.


05-10-2015 17:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Ceist wrote:All you've done is rant that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, but you haven't explained how you think it does, or provided any heat transfer or entropy equations. You haven't given any 'specifics'.

That's what I thought. When you wrote that my views are fundamentally flawed, you actually meant that you are aware of no specific flaws in my views. Typical warmazombiespeak.

Oh, yes I clearly explained the violation of the 1st LoT many times. You just don't understand science when it is explained to you so you think you're just hearing some unintelligible thing repeated.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2015 18:04
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:All you've done is rant that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, but you haven't explained how you think it does, or provided any heat transfer or entropy equations. You haven't given any 'specifics'.

That's what I thought. When you wrote that my views are fundamentally flawed, you actually meant that you are aware of no specific flaws in my views. Typical warmazombiespeak.

Oh, yes I clearly explained the violation of the 1st LoT many times. You just don't understand science when it is explained to you so you think you're just hearing some unintelligible thing repeated.


Where have you "clearly explained the violation of the 1st LoT many times"? Perhaps it got lost in all the childish insults which make up the bulk of your posts.

How about you post your 'clear explanation' without all the insults and rants.

And don't forget to post your equations.



Edited on 05-10-2015 18:08
06-10-2015 01:42
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
seaninak wrote:
Since 1900 the long term average of solar irradiance (watts/m2) on the Earth has been steadily increasing to levels not seen on Earth for over 9000 years.


This is simply not true. When challenged you post sunspot activity, which is not the same. Solar irradience has been declining in recent decades as the temperature has been increasing.


Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).
06-10-2015 09:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Ceist wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:All you've done is rant that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, but you haven't explained how you think it does, or provided any heat transfer or entropy equations. You haven't given any 'specifics'.

That's what I thought. When you wrote that my views are fundamentally flawed, you actually meant that you are aware of no specific flaws in my views. Typical warmazombiespeak.

Oh, yes I clearly explained the violation of the 1st LoT many times. You just don't understand science when it is explained to you so you think you're just hearing some unintelligible thing repeated.


Where have you "clearly explained the violation of the 1st LoT many times"? Perhaps it got lost in all the childish insults which make up the bulk of your posts.

How about you post your 'clear explanation' without all the insults and rants.

And don't forget to post your equations.

So IBdaMann, I take it you cannot post a 'clear explanation', or write a post without insults and rants? I also take it that you don't have the first clue how to formulate heat transfer or entropy equations? Yet you seriously believe you are an 'expert' and claim that all the physicists are wrong. No doubt you believe the reason why no one takes your rants seriously is because they are 'morons'.




Edited on 06-10-2015 10:00
06-10-2015 15:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Ceist wrote: So IBdaMann, I take it you cannot post a 'clear explanation', or write a post without insults and rants?

So, Ceist, I take it you cannot formulate a clear, unambiguous question?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2015 18:13
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
IBdaMann wrote:
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.


And this from a guy who thinks peer reviewed papers are not science. You're free to have your opinions and definitions and post them but I fail to see why anybody bothers giving you the time of day. Maybe it makes up for missing SNL last week. You're so far out of the mainstream (def'n: the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.). And no, mainstream is not just applied to religion. Ever heard of the mainstream media? Greenhouse science in general goes back almost 200 years, so the term applies here.
Edited on 06-10-2015 18:56
06-10-2015 19:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
drm wrote:And this from a guy who thinks peer reviewed papers are not science.

So it really would burst your bubble to inform you that no papers whatsoever are science if no falsifiable model (that isn't false) is contained therin?

Science requires a falsifiable model. Science is the collection of falsifiable models that help us predict nature. "Papers" fall short of that mark, even those that are "Peer Reviewed." I realize that you were taught that the holy words "Peer Reviewed" are sacred and that anything graced with those words is "The Science" ...but don't get confused. That doesn't make anything real science (with a lower case "s").

drm wrote: You're free to have your opinions and definitions and post them but I fail to see why anybody bothers giving you the time of day.

Christians say the exact same thing about me. I fail to see any substantive difference between Global Warming and Christianity...except that Christians aren't confused by the name of their unfalsifiable dogma into believing that it is somehow science. Aside from that, the two religions are very difficult to tell apart.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2015 19:37
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Peer reviewed papers certainly are not sacred and I certainly am not Christian, but you can continue on here with whoever wants to waste the time. Presumably they get some entertainment value out of it.
06-10-2015 22:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
drm wrote: Peer reviewed papers certainly are not sacred

You think they're science! Where did you get that idea? Anyway, remember what I wrote about warmazombies' inability to to discern religion from science.

drm wrote: ... but you can continue on here with whoever wants to waste the time. .

So why did you waste the time?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2015 23:36
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
IBdaMann wrote:So why did you waste the time?


I guess work was slow this morning.
06-10-2015 23:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
drm wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:So why did you waste the time?


I guess work was slow this morning.

...and you chose to converse with me on this forum. How touching. Next time spend it with family and friends.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Climate Change Science 101:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science028-05-2019 15:12
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact