Debateable
Member
There is VAST amounts of proof that Capitalism at it's purest form is much more proven to work than C02 being a driver of climate.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.
- Thread starter ThePainefulTruth
- Start date
Sources, please. I mean, since you cite "proof" for it. I would love some evidence to back up your claim.
I think it's also debatable whether people still using the term "global warming" are idiots or not.
/E: A greenhouse would prove your comment slightly wrong btw. The planet Venus as well.
/E2: Capitalism as it stands, has only been around for a bit over a hundred years, really, at least in its modern form. It's way too early to make ANY claims about it actually working. Most government types that FAILED were around for a longer time.
Last edited:
Debateable
Member
I think it's debatable whether people have brains in their head that believe in Climate Change (AGW) since they change it from Global Warming after the temps stopped rising and haven't markedly done so for the past 20 years.
Funny how people started improving their standard of living and income right about the time fundamentals of Capitalism appeared.
Rhetoric. 2016 was the hottest year on record. And current estimates are expecting 2017 to be even more so.
But i'm glad you already shed your other points so easily, with me just using "greenhouse" and "venus". CO2 IS a driver of climate. That has NEVER been part of the problem. The problem is: Is there enough CO2 in Earth's atmosphere to account for human interference? The scientific consensus seems to be thus: Yes, there is.
Still looking for those sources.
Debatable. Before the use of money "income" was meaningless. You have another variable in the mix.
Debateable
Member
2016 was a massive El Nino. Of course it's going to be warmer than other years. 1998 was the hottest year prior to that, again due to a massive El Nino. Learn some facts.Rhetoric. 2016 was the hottest year on record.
But i'm glad you already shed your other points so easily, with me just using "greenhouse" and "venus". CO2 IS a driver of climate. That has NEVER been part of the problem. The problem is: Is there enough CO2 in Earth's atmosphere to account for human interference? The scientific consensus seems to be thus: Yes, there is.
Still looking for those sources.
Venus #1 is a lot closer to the Sun and #2 has a completely different atmospheric makeup. Apples and Oranges.
That's not a fact. That's at best a guess. Also:
" Peter Stott, acting director of the Met Office, noted the influence of the El Niño event on 2016 temperatures but also stated that "the main contributor to warming over the last 150 years is human influence on climate from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.""
That might not be enough to convince you that it's a fact. But it's still better than your guess.
You're missing the point, i wasn't comparing Venus to Earth. I was refuting your point about CO2 not being a driver of climate. The atmosphere of Venus is composed of " 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases, most notably sulfur dioxide" (from Wikipedia). Carbon dioxide being CO2.
And Venus is closer to the sun. But its surface temperature is MUCH higher than its distance from the Sun would account for. The mean temperature of Venus is higher than that of the _absolute_ maximum temperature of Mercury; Which is even closer to the sun. In English: You are wrong.
Learn some... I suppose, something?
/E: 1998 was only the 8th warmest year. So you are now lying.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't know anything about this Economic Freedom index.
(A) I am neither been a political nor economic student.
(B) I don't live in EU countries, so I am not certain of politics and policies of each country, of past and present EU members.
(C) The indexing of yours, would seem to be very subjective.
As far as I know, Greece is still a country with democracy, that their framework works similarly to the Australian system, although there are of course some differences.
Even in Australia, the capitalist system is not anywhere near perfect.
Debateable
Member
A guess? LOL, how about data backed.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2017_v6.jpg
You need to learn something about Venus to understand why it's not a good comparison at all. Water vapor is our primary greenhouse gas and it also is what keeps our climate somewhat stable. Venus is almost devoid of water because it doesn't have a magnetic field. That lack of magnetic field allows solar rays to blast away water vapor leaving Venus almost completely C02. Earth's magnetic field shields us from most solar rays, which is why our system is completely different from that of Venus. Here our atmosphere is 40% water vapor and Venus is .2%. HUGE difference.You're missing the point, i wasn't comparing Venus to Earth. I was refuting your point about CO2 not being a driver of climate. The atmosphere of Venus is composed of " 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases, most notably sulfur dioxide" (from Wikipedia). Carbon dioxide being CO2.
And Venus is closer to the sun. But its surface temperature is MUCH higher than its distance from the Sun would account for. The mean temperature of Venus is higher than that of the _absolute_ maximum temperature of Mercury; Which is even closer to the sun. In English: You are wrong.
Learn some... I suppose, something?
/E: 1998 was only the 8th warmest year. So you are now lying.
Debateable
Member
Do a google search...
"LOL" shows how ready you are for this. I don't think that graph shows what you think it does.
Hint: "T-departure from '81-'10´avg" and "lower atmosphere"
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png
And:
Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia - Notice how El Nino has an effect. Notice all the other unexplained anomalies.
THIS one is particularly illuminating:
Global Analysis - January 2017 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
And here's the actual "top 10" list:
Global Analysis - Annual 2016 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
You're missing the point. Venus has a higher surface temperature than mercury. And it is explained _entirely_ by its atmosphere of mostly greenhouse gases. It was NEVER a comparison with Earth. I was ONLY refuting your point. Successfully. THIS isn't what you were arguing before.
You are backpedaling now.
/E: Here's the same thing for dummies: Venus is mostly greenhouse gases. And it's the hottest planet. You DID make a claim that CO2 has no effect on the climate. That's obviously wrong so if you want to retract that statement, i'm not surprised. I wasn't arguing as much from the side of climate change, but i WAS fixing a FACTUAL mistake in your post.
/E: I'll add: If we WERE to compare Earth and Venus, it would be a rather extreme example. I wasn't doing that. But: Venus IS proof of the following: CO2 has a larger effect on the climate than for example, oxygen. IF humans were to dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere, it WOULD affect us adversely. And by the looks of things, by scientific consensus, that is happening.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
@Debateable - first you post a complaint about 'warmists' not taking proper account of solar activity - then you post what you claim to be 'real science' that completely eliminates the sun's input altogether. The fact remains, unfortunately, that the only way to refute global warming is to spout utter nonsense. I have posted quite enough science and real data already - and you have continually reduced the debate to the level of pseudo-scientific silliness. I give up trying to talk sense to you.
Debateable
Member
That graph shows exactly what I think it does. What your graph shows are the inferior thermometers. What reason would there be for them to use thermometers? The satellites are much more efficient in covering the entire globe. Thermometers can only hope to cover maybe 1% of the surface (that's being generous) where as satellites can measure much more vast area's. Also, measuring the surface has problems in itself, which is why measuring the lower atmosphere is necessary. You cannot have global warming if only the surface is getting warmer. That's only proof that urban areas are warming their surrounding area. This is how they create confusion among those that don't know any better.
The other funny part of the graph you displayed, is that it too has shown a pause in warming.
First, I don't recall saying C02 had NO effect. If I did it wasn't intentional. I NEVER claimed it isn't a greenhouse gas. What I have been trying to say is that it has a minuscule effect in our particular atmospheric makeup and most of the potential warming has already been done. We'd have to double C02 to see any kind of significant change because of the logarithmic function of C02 (significant being 1/2 to 1 degree roughly).
How am I backpedaling? I fail to see that anywhere.
Last edited:
Debateable
Member
Umm... did you bother to read it? Here's a snapshot for you.
1) 100% mentioned that the ground is warmed by sunlight. - did you miss this somehow?
2) 100% mentioned that the ground emits IR radiation.- where do you think this comes from?
3) Only 12% mentioned that the emission of IR radiation by the ground causes cooling of the ground.
4) 100% mentioned that the absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric warming.
5) 100% mentioned that warmed “greenhouse gases” emit infrared radiation.
6) 0% mentioned that the emission of IR radiation by “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric cooling.
7) 100% mentioned that the absorption of IR radiation emitted by “greenhouse gases” warms the earth.
8) Only 8% mentioned that the atmosphere is also warmed by conduction, convection and latent heat (evaporation/condensation of water vapor.)
Literally every step but one mentions directly sunlight or the IR radiation that comes from it. But yeah, I left out the sun's input
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Amazing! one person expresses a personal opinion and it's reported as "the real reason" millions of people actually care about. Trash! Incompetence! Irresponsible!
siti
Well-Known Member
WTF Debateable
I was talking about your silly quote of some idiot PhD who said
I was talking about your silly quote of some idiot PhD who said
It completely eliminates the continual flow of infra red radiation from the sun into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is not controversial or even difficult to understand but this simplistic equation is complete nonsense and completely misunderstands the dynamic equilibrium that describes the surface/troposphere relationship. Its just silly.
Debateable
Member
First of all, the part I quoted above was IN that quote from the PhD.
Please, by all means, tell me how the relationship works if this equation has it so wrong. Also, I fail to see how this eliminated the sun's input altogether... Note it mentiones absorption and emission of IR. Which you and I both know, comes from... wait for it... the SUN!!!
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
This is essential reading for non climate scientists who would like to understand the debate going on between agw activists and skeptical climate scientists.
CLIMATE MODELS for the layman - Judith Curry* http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf
* About the author - Professor Judith A. Curry is the author of over 180 scientific papers on weather and
climate and is a recipient of the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the Amer-
ican Meteorological Society in 1992. She recently retired from the Georgia Institute
of Technology, where she held the positions of Professor and Chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. She is currently President of Climate Forecast Appli-
cations Network.
CLIMATE MODELS for the layman - Judith Curry* http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf
* About the author - Professor Judith A. Curry is the author of over 180 scientific papers on weather and
climate and is a recipient of the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the Amer-
ican Meteorological Society in 1992. She recently retired from the Georgia Institute
of Technology, where she held the positions of Professor and Chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. She is currently President of Climate Forecast Appli-
cations Network.
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes but not in his equation - in his equation solar radiation is absorbed only once and then emitted and re-absorbed successively between the surface and the atmospheric gh gases. Obviously it doesn't really work like that because as fast as the gh gases release the heat energy to the surface they (and the surface) are warmed by more solar radiation directly and reflected or re-emitted from the surface (and vice versa) and the more greenhouse gases there are the more solar radiation gets trapped between surface and atmosphere and does not escape back into space. If his interpretation were correct, then the more 'greenhouse gases' there were in the atmosphere the colder the planet would become. Obviously this is not what really happens. Ask the Venusians.
siti
Well-Known Member
As long as you remember that it is one-sided climate 'skeptic' report commissioned by a climate change denial 'think tank' headed by former Tory Chancellor and Energy Minister (now Lord) Nigel Lawson that follows Curry's usual line "we can't say for sure what caused the undeniable warming of the period up to 1950 so we can't have any confidence in the scientific discoveries about climate change in the last 70 years either". If you can't see the flaw in that reasoning, then you have no reason to trust science at all on anything.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
That's a no brainer, of course it will be a skeptic who delivers the science that debunks agw, you are attacking the messenger and ignoring the science of the message, that's a cop out. You miss the point if you do not understand that human CO2 emissions for the period of the "undeniable warming" were not excessive, and the warming trend now is about the same as during that period when human CO2 emissions are considerable. Get it? If you disagree with the science in that article, please quote the exact part that you disagree with and explain what you think is wrong.
And before you use terms like deniers, etc., for skeptics, have a look at this video and reflect on the way the agw activists behave towards real scientists challenging the IPCC agw position, substitute IPCC agw position for 'big pharma' and there is little difference.