Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Cooling

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Fusion View Post
    And you haven't been able to prove otherwise, because the models failed. All you can do is keep repeating your meaningless phrases about ignorance.

    But hey, if all else fails, just call me a racist bigot.
    I guess you and George can't possibly understand how foolish you two look attacking science although you do not comprehend the most basic elements of it. All you do is avoid talking about the science itself while focusing on the politics. Even though the science has been talking about greenhouse effect and global warming long before Al Gore was born or IPCC was formed. That doesn't matter to you guys as neither of you have any foundation to base an opinion on besides repeating what biased sources tell you to think. [You two are devoid of any knowledge of the facts so don't let them get in your way at all] And you two don't seem to think it is important to understand facts or science before demanding an equal voice on a subject. Just like how you didn't have a clue about Carnot cycle or other theoretical limitations of engine efficiency before making claims about how hybrids were stupid and pointless since you assumed engines as they are could simply become more efficient because you ignored the science of them.

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4566...-united-states
    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”


    ― Isaac Asimov
    What is there to prove about the scientific foundations of climate change / global warming? Do not understand the conservation of energy? Do you need to remake Joule's Heat Apparatus from 1845 just to "get" it? Do you not understand the science of GHGs? Do you need to recreate Tyndall's study of infrared radiation of air from the 1850s? The physics at hand are well documented and tested over the centuries, only recently under attack by RWNJs who don't like the implications.

    No, your statement about science is bunk because of the actions of IPCC is not valid, not is your assumption that models which do not perfectly predict future temperatures because of a declining, uncontrolled input mean that the science is flawed. Nor is your statement that because reduced solar input reduces the greenhouse effect therefore the science is bunk. It is an obvious and inherent property of energy conservation! This highlights a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject matter and how unable you are to grasp the topics at hand. All you have is a poor education of science and a hatred of the politics and pundits, while taking out your anger on the science which you are ignorant of.

    Attacking models does not invalidate the science in which they are based upon but simply demands better coefficients. These coefficients can be altered down based upon variable plankton absorption of CO2 or heat found below 700 meters that was ignored previously. But the direction and foundation is on the ball, especially considering the complexity of the heatsink that is Earth.

    To underline the significance of the deep ocean heat found, as well as George's ignorance of laughing it off, let's talk about a basic concept called specific heat. Now this is a subject that anyone who has walked barefoot on a beach during the day and night, or be in/out of a pool during the day and night, should be able to understand rather quickly. It is also a lesson intended for ELEMENTARY school children: http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/heat/ Because the sand has a much lower specific heat than water (and different radiation absorption / reflective properties...), it gets hotter much quicker than water during the day. The same with concrete. Walking barefoot on sand/concrete during the day can be uncomfortably hot while the water is still cool. When the sun sets and the radiation goes away, the sand turns cold rather quickly while the water in the ocean or pool remains warmer and for much longer. This is because the heat capacity of water is 5x that of sand/soil/concrete and many other materials. It takes much more energy per unit mass for water to increase a degree of temperature than the sand/soil/concrete, as does it take a lot more loss of energy to decrease in temperature. If you are able, leverage this basic understanding of science to that deep ocean heat that was not accounted for previously and see that it would equate to 5x the temperature difference on soil than water for a given energy amount. Now whether or not George has ever walked on a beach during the day and night, or if he just didn't put this concept into thought before laughing off the heat found in deep water is unclear. But, it is important to understand the fundamentals of science before going out and making attacks of it based on nothing more than the conclusions of the people who said second hand smoke wasn't dangerous.

    Anyone who understands the foundations of the science at hand should be able to comprehend their application to the Earth as a heatsink, or at least they should attempt to evaluate the subject of global warming / climate change based on those before denying it. Regardless of my political leaning to the right and past voting for Republicans, I cannot cast off science in order to adopt an ignorant stance to fit in with the people who care little about facts to make their claims. I put facts in front of conclusions and not the other way around, which is something RWNJ do not do. Actually, they attack anyone who focus on the facts / science at hand as the enemy, a progressive, a liberal, or an extremist for simply not joining in and abandoning all logic and reason to accept an ignorant belief repeated by well-funded think tanks or lobbied politicians. I would say such behavior of basing reality or facts on contributions is the utmost lack of integrity and corruption of truth. George and your attempts at claiming that modern science is assuming global warming is for the money lacks the historical factual basis that it originates long before the money for its research did and based on science provided by the same guys who have enabled innovation which largely made fossil fuels useful in engines. But even these guys considered the impact of their actions before it was sinful to do so in the eyes of those that care little for facts.

    As research continues and science locks down the coefficients and factors in the models more precisely, the quantitative will continue to support the qualitative truth of the scientific fundamentals that the science is based upon - and then you will have little to complain about, except that the physics that was well understood and known by those who were the least bit interested in it remain valid. But even until the models reach perfection, it is clear that even with reduced solar activity, the temperatures experienced are elevated compared to the long-run recorded history of the planet and that the blanket of the atmosphere is retaining more heat than it otherwise would have because of GHGs. And this is based upon well proven science, even if the models are not as precise as you desire yet.

    Until you two or someone else is capable of explaining how energy can be conserved and greenhouse gases operate as they do, while the Earth does not experience an increase in energy given a fixed solar input, then denying AGW is simply denying science. Attacking politics which advocate for the consideration of this science and impact on society or the precision of models does nothing to fight physics and long-understood fundamentals. But we are all well aware that you two don't care about reality, facts, science, or truth... all you want to do is arrive at the conclusion that it's all bull instead of understanding what you are actually attacking.

    Whether or not people believe in physics, it still affects them. It's like not believing in gravity and jumping off a tall building... like it or not, physics with slap you in the face with concrete. Now, one might think it would be wiser to objectively learn about the world based on facts instead of motivated reasoning... but that's just the people who care about truth. Our society seems to care more about what they want to believe or hear rather than what is really reality. Fortunately, science is true regardless of if you believe in it.



    Regardless of how hard RWNJs attack science, physics will remain true to itself. Al Gore or IPCC cannot negate scientific fundamentals, nor can the Heartland Institute or Anthony Watts. Eventually, more humans may come into understanding of the science and some may put aside their ignorant beliefs to recognize reality.

    No matter how hard the church fought against the concept that the Earth orbited the Sun, it still was true.

    Comment


      Comment


        what a nozzle
        demean, demean, demean

        show me where i've denied science roberto, yours, quint's and every other AGW extremist here always fall back to the tired old argument that "deniers" just don't get it, refute science, are ignorant etc.

        what a nozzle

        so far your sides science fails, big time

        your theories are not validated by observation

        every time your theories fail there is a new explanation, like the heat is hiding in the oceans, although there is no data to support this, it's just another theory
        edit; BTW the oceans are cooling since the ARGO data has become available
        http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the...r-outer-space/


        how many times does one have to call "wolf" before people stop listening?

        but hey, keep the faith, because as time marches forward faith is all you have, not science

        and what is becominf inceasingly obvious is that your side doesn't understand atmospheric/climate science, cannot predict anything with accuracy, and are the one's enriching themselves at the teat of where the big bucks really are, public (tax dollar) funding.
        its frankly no surprise that when confronted with unvalidated theories, the AGW camp thinks of something else to keep the tax dollar gravy train rolling.

        edit to include estimates on taxes used to support the AGW industry;
        http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/nea...t-in-the-room/
        Last edited by gwb72tii; 11-04-2013, 03:04 PM. Reason: to include web links
        “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
        Sir Winston Churchill

        Comment


          Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post
          how many times does one have to call "wolf" before people stop listening?
          Dat irony

          Comment


            Originally posted by BraveUlysses View Post
            Dat irony
            dat intellect
            “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
            Sir Winston Churchill

            Comment


              such claims coming from you...more irony

              Comment


                Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post
                what a nozzle
                demean, demean, demean

                show me where i've denied science roberto, yours, quint's and every other AGW extremist here always fall back to the tired old argument that "deniers" just don't get it, refute science, are ignorant etc.

                what a nozzle

                so far your sides science fails, big time

                your theories are not validated by observation

                every time your theories fail there is a new explanation, like the heat is hiding in the oceans, although there is no data to support this, it's just another theory
                edit; BTW the oceans are cooling since the ARGO data has become available
                http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the...r-outer-space/


                how many times does one have to call "wolf" before people stop listening?

                but hey, keep the faith, because as time marches forward faith is all you have, not science

                and what is becominf inceasingly obvious is that your side doesn't understand atmospheric/climate science, cannot predict anything with accuracy, and are the one's enriching themselves at the teat of where the big bucks really are, public (tax dollar) funding.
                its frankly no surprise that when confronted with unvalidated theories, the AGW camp thinks of something else to keep the tax dollar gravy train rolling.

                edit to include estimates on taxes used to support the AGW industry;
                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/nea...t-in-the-room/
                The irony of gwb iii, complains about demeaning then calls the other person a nozzle.

                The science I have mentioned has been validated with empirical evidence - the conservation of energy and the infrared radiation of air and other gases have been tested for a over century and a half. You seem to want to ignore these fundamentals that are a basis of global warming / climate change, or just don't have the guts to comment on them. Instead you attack Gore, IPCC, or me. That doesn't overrun the laws of physics George.

                I'll give you yet another opportunity to explain how you can have both energy conserved and GHGs increase energy capture due to radiation, BUT not have an increase in global heat contained for a given solar activity level. If you can't explain the rationale there, as I mentioned above, you are simply ignoring physics while focusing on politics and taxes. Thus, you are quite ignorant of the fundamentals of science and would prefer to deny these items and base your opinion of science on the conclusions of the Heartland Institute.

                Prove to us that I am wrong and you understand those items, conservation of energy and the infrared radiation of GHGs, and have a logical alternative theory to why the Earth isn't warming and I'll respond with a sincere apology and be impressed that you can actually be intellectual for once. If you can't, then you are simply refuting science and replacing it instead with what you want to hear and choosing to deny it and remain ignorant.

                Why do you attempt to claim that understanding science is faith while denying science isn't? What you are doing now is no more wrong than denying the Earth orbits the Sun because of faith. Maybe give us a well-reasoned, science-based explanation of how the heat content of the planet isn't increasing with more GHGs and the conservation of energy. This would be quite enlightening for everyone and show you just aren't arguing based on ignoring science and using fallacies such as appeal to consequences. If we spent a lot of money on preparing to battle an asteroid headed towards Earth, then that amount wouldn't disprove that there's an asteroid heading our way, correct? Then why try to argue that money being spent somehow negates science? This is yet another example of you refusing to provide a valid and logical explanation for why you don't believe GHGs contribute to warming of the Earth and simply are repeating conclusions that are rooted in confirmation bias.

                edit: Here's me asking the same question in April - http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...postcount=1805
                Last edited by rwh11385; 11-04-2013, 04:12 PM.

                Comment


                  btw,

                  Nuccitelli et al. (2012).


                  http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/


                  Levitus et al. 2012

                  edit: Here's a post explaining why the "flat 0-700m" claim by Watts was just him dumbly drawing a flat line while ignoring how scientists actually draw a best fit line - http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...postcount=1818
                  Last edited by rwh11385; 11-04-2013, 04:15 PM.

                  Comment


                    Heeter, why do you continue the pointless endeavor?
                    Need parts now? Need them cheap? steve@blunttech.com
                    Chief Sales Officer, Midwest Division—Blunt Tech Industries

                    www.gutenparts.com
                    One stop shopping for NEW, USED and EURO PARTS!

                    Comment


                      show me where i've denied science roberto, yours, quint's and every other AGW extremist here always fall back to the tired old argument that "deniers" just don't get it, refute science, are ignorant etc.

                      what a nozzle

                      so far your sides science fails, big time

                      your theories are not validated by observation

                      I am a little confused~ so I am a 'AGW extremist' because I can look at a data set and draw an obvious conclusion? Where, exactly, has the 'science failed' again? On a cherry picked 10 year data set where you ignore the last 50, 100, and 400k years?

                      GWB- You blatently ignore data in order to reach a false conclusion, so that you can then validate preaching a lie to the people in hopes that they are swayed to your side of 'denial', a side that is conveniently backed by billions and trillions of fossil fuel dollars. What you are doing borders on corporate-sponsored terrorism, and time and time again we see the people coming second to that corporate greed. And yet you cant see it.



                      Fact: The earth has been warming for 40k years, since the last ice age.

                      Fact: Historic global temperature seem to follow co2 cycles and other forcing effects.

                      Fact: the earths temperature and co2 cycles have gone up and down 3-4 times in the last 500k years, and we are currently at the top of a 'hot spot' on the graph. In a natural cycle it seems like co2 levels and temperatures should start to drop.

                      Fact: Humans have changed up this natural cycle by adding an extra 100ppm of co2, up now to almost 400ppm, which is way over the max 290ppm we have seen in the last 400k years.

                      Science: Will the extra 100ppm+ of co2 added to the atmosphere by humans prevent the world from achieving its natural cooling cycle observed several times in the last 400k years?

                      Science: Will the extra 100ppm+ of human-caused co2 allow the earth to continue and warm past its 'natural' levels of the last 400k years?

                      Science: It looks like humans have DOUBLED the natural co2 in the atmosphere! Will that make the earth warmer, or cooler?

                      You keep refer to me as an 'AGW extremist' whose 'science fails, big time' and that '*my theories are not validated by observation' when I am using science data and nationally acclaimed information to base my conclusions off of. A multi-national group of scientist at 97%+ consensus believes this stuff, and yet you call me an 'extremist' when I actually believe what MOST people believe.

                      I expect you to admit that a 'reasonable' person would likely follow the advice of educated professionals and 'scientists in the field' over blog posts and tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories of multi-national government/scientist collusion, correct?

                      I would hope a 'reasonable' person who posts links to a scientific paper that explains why there is a pause in global warming, as evidence that global warming has stopped, would take a minute and think about ridiculousness of his claims when he continually proves himself wrong with his own evidence.

                      I will again point out the fact that there is absolutely no evidence, observation, models, trend lines, or facts that point to global cooling. They are all warming, depending on emissions or the reduction of emissions, 2 degrees C to 5 degrees C. There is no 0 degrees C prediction. There is no cooling prediction.



                      I could see you trying to call us a 'sheep' for believing what most people believe, and what all the data points to, but an 'extremest'? Wouldn't we have to believe something extreme for that to be true? All this global warming stuff seems reasonable, and the multi-national government/scientist conspiracy bent on destroying the oil and gas industry seems way more extreme to me. The extreme denial of facts makes you look like an idiot, not a reasonable person.

                      Comment


                        Nothing to see here. Just the most powerful typhoon ever observed, hitting the Philippines today. Move along. Global warming isn't responsible.
                        sigpic

                        Comment




                          This chart describes it best. You see, our temperatures are warming not as fast, but rather 4x as fast as they were AFTER A FREAKING ASTEROID HIT THE EARTH 55 MILLION YEARS AGO. DOES THAT NOT ALARM YOU SLIGHTLY?!?

                          I dont think it would be so far-out to say that humans 'impact' is 4x higher than the post-asteroid warming (not the insantaneous 7.5 deg C, but the following 10 million years of warming at .0005 C per year, where our current warming seems to be between .002 C and .003 C per year). Also important to point out that we have warmed faster in the last 260 years than we have in the last 65 million years, it is almost like humans have something to do with it!





                          "As shown in Figure 6, if we compare the current rise of more than 2ppm/year to the mean rise in atmospheric CO₂ of +0.43 ppm/year since 1750, the only recorded rise of similar magnitude occurred 55 million years ago. At this time, the release of some ~2000 GtC carbon as methane took place at a rate of ~0.1 ppm/year.

                          In terms of temperatures, the current rise rate of ~0.02 to 0.03 degrees Celsius/year is consistent with the fastest rates recorded in Cainozoic history (see Figure 6).

                          Throughout geological history many species succeeded in adapting to slow to moderate environmental changes. Some survived the most extreme environmental events. Burning the world’s fossil fuel reserves of more than 2000 GtC, analogous to the magnitude estimated for the 55 Ma-old Paleocene-Eocene Thermal event, is leading Earth’s climate and habitats into uncharted territory."

                          https://theconversation.com/is-anoth...n-the-way-5397

                          The earth isnt warming? I heard 2012 was the hottest year on record.

                          http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...-thomas-r-karl

                          http://www.climatecentral.org/news/n...n-record-15436



                          Just keep zooming in on the last 10 years and pretend that we are not warming 4x faster than we did after an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, or do you not believe in dinosaurs either?

                          Comment


                            odd how this graph is so similar to co2 levels graph-



                            a conundrum, eh?

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by 2761377 View Post
                              odd how this graph is so similar to co2 levels graph-



                              a conundrum, eh?
                              I dont think you can tie co2 levels to population, as the whole asteroid thing had us at over 2000 ppm and there were quite a few less people around.

                              You CAN tie 'co2 emissions' to population, as we are emitting something like 10x as much co2 as all the volcanoes in the world (i figured that out in a post 100 months ago or something).



                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X