Is this how you think a mature, serious debate should be held? With pathetic outbursts worthy of a spoiled 8 year old child? Regardless of which side of the argument is correct, this is a very serious question facing the entire planet, and you need to grow up and start discussing this matter seriously, or just step aside and let people who are able to focus on factual informed debate figure out what is the wisest course of action.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change Denial
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
Obama's actions are utterly irrelevant to the discussion of the truth or falsehood of mad-made climate change.
Oh my goodness, the high and mighty sanctimonious one looks down his snooty nose from his moral high horse upon me. I feel so ashamed! If you are going to slander Dr. Spencer, why do you and your allies hide in this comfy TMC Forum to do it? I showed you his blog site. If you think he is a physics denier, confront him on his site. Let's see how much scientific fortitude you all have to tangle with the atmospheric physicists on his site. I know you won't do that because none of you have the scientific capability to do so.
The energy comes from the sun. The lack of mixing allows for the sun's heat to build in the top 200 meters of the oceans.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yep... but we're not getting more energy from the sun... so why is more sticking around? The 'lack of mixing' isn't trapping more energy... certainly not 2.4E22J/yr... there's about ~120 years worth of research pointing to another culprit. Can you cite a single paper explaining how 'lack of mixing' it trapping ~2.4E22J/yr of thermal energy? Preferably one without ovvious misspellings
And to be clear.... in 1896 a physicist took measurements of CO2 and predicted that if CO2 levels increased to what we have now we'd see ~2E22J/yr of additional thermal energy. ~100 years of peer review found that to be roughly correct. THEN.... we actually took a measurement where most of that energy goes (the oceans) and found an increase of ~2E22J/yr.... but the prediction can't be true even though it matches the observations AND thousands of people checked the numbers yet found no significant flaws.... why? So..... why? ..... why exactly is CO2 not the cause of the ~2E22J/yr increase in thermal energy?
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I explained it clearly so even a simpleton could understand. Obama's real estate choices are irrelevant but some dummies think they somehow prove something.
Solar + storage projects to drive utility-scale deployment of batteries: Navigant
As storage-plus-renewable-energy project prices drop and adoption expands, a report finds storage-plus PPA prices are already able to compete with combined cycle gas plants.
... so when renewables cost less than fossil fuel plants and energy producers switch to renewables, who would fund climate denial 'science' based on cherry picked and falsified data?
Last edited:
Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you could step up and act like an adult. You didn't. So I think at this point its clear that you are incapable of any serious discussion. You apparently think a serious scientific debate is to be won by shouting personal (and rather feeble) insults at anyone you disagree with .. I shudder to think how you conduct yourself in public.
Fortunately, the world is (generally speaking) in the hands of actual adults who can soberly research and discuss issues, and do not bend and/or suppress scientific research to fit their own distorted ideology. There has been far too much of that recently, but the hysteria is over, and shouting, bullying and lying have not won the day (nor, ultimately, will ever do so).
As for why we "hide" in this forum (another childish pejorative), I can't speak for others here but I post so that the other members reading this and other threads can get a balanced view, and see how actual serious debates should be conducted.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... yeah... reality is reality. There's 1 proton in a Hydrogen nucleus, 1+1 = 2, the increased radiative forcing of CO2 at 400ppm vs 280ppm is ~1.5w/m^2. Facts.
There is an abundance of research regarding ocean cycles and the sun being the main drivers of climate.Yep... but we're not getting more energy from the sun... so why is more sticking around? The 'lack of mixing' isn't trapping more energy... certainly not 2.4E22J/yr... there's about ~120 years worth of research pointing to another culprit. Can you cite a single paper explaining how 'lack of mixing' it trapping ~2.4E22J/yr of thermal energy? Preferably one without ovvious misspellings
And to be clear.... in 1896 a physicist took measurements of CO2 and predicted that if CO2 levels increased to what we have now we'd see ~2E22J/yr of additional thermal energy. ~100 years of peer review found that to be roughly correct. THEN.... we actually took a measurement where most of that energy goes (the oceans) and found an increase of ~2E22J/yr.... but the prediction can't be true even though it matches the observations AND thousands of people checked the numbers yet found no significant flaws.... why? So..... why? ..... why exactly is CO2 not the cause of the ~2E22J/yr increase in thermal energy?
And of course you will deny the research that doesn't fit your narrative.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
So what's the increase in radiative forcing due to the increase in CO2? Physics says ~1.5w/m^2. That's more than enough to be 100% responsible for the observed warming. Why is it so hard to accept reality?
None of those other studies come even close to explaining the observed increase in warming. We're actually getting LESS energy from the sun. The only plausible explanation is CO2.
I reject research that makes no sense. Less energy from the sun can't increase warming. Moving energy around can't increase overall warming. The fact that ~2E22J/yr of additional energy is due to the ~2E22EJ/yr increase in radiative forcing just makes sense.... because numbers. If I'm expecting to get a $3k paycheck on Monday and $3k shows up in my bank account on Monday I'm not like 'Whoa! What's this?! Where did this come from?!!'
Last edited:
Former NOAA climate scientist Dr. Rex Fleming says there is no net effect from CO2.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Former NOAA climate scientist Dr. Rex Fleming says there is no net effect from CO2.
.... do you understand the concept of 'consensus'
Saying that 99.99% of physicists would agree that CO2 causes radiative forcing would likely be an understatement.You realize this is measurable.... right? If some crackpot that happens to have a pHD says Hydrogen has no protons will you start to question the standard model too?
'no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed.' - Dr Rex Flemming (Some crackpot)
.... really? Tiny orbital wobbles cause a slight warming which is then amplified exponentially due to radiative forcing via CO2. Once again CO2 is the only plausible explanation for the Ice Ages...
Last edited:
CO2 is a reaction, not a cause of temperature change. That is where you global warming zealots get it wrong..... do you understand the concept of 'consensus'
You realize this is measurable.... right? If some crackpot that happens to have a pHD says Hydrogen has no protons will you start to question the standard model too?
View attachment 662906
'no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed.' - Dr Rex Flemming (Some crackpot)
.... really? Tiny orbital wobbles cause a slight warming which is then amplified exponentially due to radiative forcing via CO2. Once again CO2 is the only plausible explanation for the Ice Ages...
View attachment 662909
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
So what's the radiative forcing? The measured value is ~1.5w/m^2. Have dozens of researchers all arrived independently at the same wrong number?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Clouds also cause warming. Is there some unknown law of physics that they exactly balance the increase in radiative forcing during the day then magically vanish at night? AND humidity also doesn't exist? This is plausible to you????
Then there's still the fact that we're FINDING 2E22J/yr of increased thermal energy. So clouds are both stopping CO2 from adding ~2E22J/yr AND there's another source of ~2E22J/yr??? This is plausible to you?????
Do you understand why you have zero credibility? First it's there's no warming, then it's the sun, then its energy moving around the ocean. Then it's CO2 is a 'gnat' but clearly the radiative forcing is sufficient to explain >100% of the warming... so.... not a gnat... now it's clouds? Why does your narrative keep shifting? That's what I love about reality. It's easy to keep my story straight
And the fact that 1.5w/m^2 is ~2E22J/yr AND the fact the oceans are warming at ~2E22J/yr.... is..... some kind of weird coincidence???? This is plausible to you????? REALLY????
Last edited:
Moderator Note: We all know this thread is a dumpster fire. As a moderator I don't generally care to have to sift through it on a regular basis, so I see a number of things have slipped through the cracks - ad hominem attacks and injection of politics for starters. I'm not going to clean much up, but I'll throw this warning out. Future ad hominem attacks will result in account actions for the offenders, especially if they've got a history of doing so already.
Discuss the content, not the contributor, etc..
Thanks.
Discuss the content, not the contributor, etc..
Thanks.
Similar threads
- Article
