Science from the other side of Climate Change

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I'll do my best to remember that.

holy Jesus on a cracker you just can't stop yourself, can you cornpop?

Ill see you in the back.

 

[Diogenes]

holy Jesus on a cracker you just can't stop yourself, can you cornpop?

Ill see you in the back.

Whatever do you mean?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Whatever do you mean?

wow.

just.


wow.

 

[Diogenes]

wow.

just.


wow.

Are you OK?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Are you OK?

You wish.

 

[Diogenes]

You wish.

I'd help you if I could.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I'd help you if I could.

that's it. dig it deeper.

 

[Diogenes]

that's it. dig it deeper.

What?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

What?

this little attitude problem hole you've dug down into needs the sides widened i guess, is that right cornpop?

 

[Diogenes]

this little attitude problem hole you've dug down into needs the sides widened i guess, is that right cornpop?

I'm sure I don't know what you mean.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I'm sure I don't know what you mean.

you're right.

my mistake.

I was thinking of something else.

carry on.

thanks for your compliance in this matter.

 

[ZenMode]

Well, that's certainly one aspect of your Climate Doom religion.

What are some examples of my eco-fascist doom views?

No, you simply insist that others believe as you have been ordered to believe,

Same as you. Got it.

so that more people will become easily maleable, like you have become, to your thought-masters.

So that more people will become scientifically literate and see both sides.

I have great news! Your religious worship remains unaffected by any other countries being "on board."

I would point out that you've been using religion wrong, but you just make up your own definitions of words, anyway.

 

[ZenMode]

Blatant lie.

Obvious truth

 

[ZenMode]

Yes you do.

no I don't.

No, you are pushing your religion as 'science'. It isn't.

correct. Science isn't religion. Nice work![/QUOTE]
Science isn't scientists. You deny theories of science.[/QUOTE] science isn't theories. Science is science.

Science isn't scientists. You deny theories of science.

science isn't theories. Science is science.

The theories of science are clear. You just want to ignore them.

science has no level of transparency.

You cannot just discard any theory of science.

you can't misuse any theory of science.

Theories of science apply all the time...everywhere. You cannot set them aside for even a moment.

correct

Theories of science are 'used'. They are equations. You just want to ignore them.

science can't be ignored. It exists everywhere, at all times.

 

[ZenMode]

So you think the 1st law of thermodynamics isn't true. I already knew that.
So you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't true. I already knew that.
So you think the Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't true. I already knew that.
So you think statistical mathematics isn't true. I already knew that.

those are all true, even if you continue to misuse them.

Only you fucking religion is 'true', eh?

science isn't religion. I say that knowing that you make up definitions of words

It is a real religion.

define religion.

You mean like the solar power and wind power idiots?

there are several of them.

You mean like the government charging 'carbon taxes'?

that's a better one. Again, grifting doesn't change science.

The Church of Global Warming is a real religion.

define religion so I know what were talking about, since you don't recognize any source for definitions except those you make up in your mind.

Trump has been elected and has already served as President. You can't change that. He has been elected again and will again serve as President. You cannot change that.

When did I say I wanted to? Nice straw man.

 

[ZenMode]

Climate cannot change. Go learn Climate can change. Go learn German.

The Church of Global Warming is a real religion.

Define religion, since you don't recognize any source for definitions except those that you manufacture in your head.

 

[ZenMode]

I fully understand your religion.

Define religion since you only acknowledge definitions you make up in your head.

I fully understand the theories of science you discard.

if you fully understood them, you wouldn't be misusing them.[/QUOTE]

I fully understand the mathematics you discard.[/QUOTE] mathematics isn't understanding.[/QUOTE]
ALL religions are accepted on faith, and faith alone. This includes the Church of Global Warming.
[/QUOTE]define religion since you only acknowledge the definitions you make up in your head.

 

[ZenMode]

That's what he calls it. It's accurate.
The Church of Global Warming

define church ...

always pushes fascism and communism as the 'solution' to a problem

which is irrelevant in a discussion about climate change

you can't even state without violating several theories of science and several branches mathematics.

you continue to misuse theories of science. Educate yourself on how climate change is believed to work so you stop doing that.

DON'T TRY TO DENY THE GOALS OF THE CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING! DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

global warming isn't goals.

Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

actually it does. That's why our lows on Earth aren't -200. You should really educate yourself on science.

 

[ZenMode]

Why would random numbers be meaningful?

They wouldn't be.

 

[Daylight63]

I was not describing the greenhouse effect. I was describing the insulation that atmosphere provides even if there was no greenhouse effect (no IR absorbing gasses).

I would be curious to see your references on this.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide are from buried carbon, carbon we 'dug up'. That is the carbon you would compare the atmospheric carbon to.

Yes and it's depleted in C13 and C14. Both of which have been found to be changing with human emissions. In the last 150 years or so we've seen a steady increase in the C12/C13 ratio and until we started atmospheric testing of atomic weapons we noted that C14 was decreasing in the CO2 as well. This is how we know the majority of the excess CO2 is human-origin.

Bicarbonate is not very fixed. A perturbation in pH or temperature and it would dissolve carbon dioxide into the ocean, changing potentially changing isotope ratios with ancient sources of carbon.

Now you're just grabbing words at random. Perhaps you can find the articles that explain this. You can point to whatever fractionation process in the bicarb-->carbonate reactions.

I'm saying it's a mess can't be simplified away.

It only appears to be a mess if you don't know the science.

There is not enough data to say where the recently added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere came from.

Yes there is. Plenty.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

I believe I provided you with an explainer from a couple different sources explaining this to you. Clearly you have a major disagreement with the experts on the subject.

That is irrelevant. The behavior of water in the atmosphere is chaotic due to chaotic winds and water phase changes. When you refer to "excess" it's pretty much a meaningless concept.

Nope. Again, your primary fight is with physics and the experts.

It's a differential equation, a big complicated one, even more complicated than carbon dioxide. What we can say for sure is the smallest perturbations of the water cycle are orders of magnitude larger than the largest perturbations in the carbon dioxide concentration.

The impression I'm getting is you want to just say "It's all so complicated NO ONE can understand it! SO it must not be true!" However, the real problem is, yes it is complex and there are things they don't understand, but they are NOT as uninformed and uneducated as you are.

I've spent about 40 years working in the sciences. There are things which I run up against which are crazy complex that I don't undertand. My first thought is not "Ah, then NO ONE can understand it!"

I doubt it.

I'm sorry but climate sensitivity of the various greenhouse gases is of CRITICAL importance to the discussion. If you don't even really know anything about it how do you have any opinion on it? This seems to be your general approach to the topic.

For example I was able to debunk your conclusion about the scale of the greenhouse effect (+30C) without knowing how climate sensitivity is defined.

But you didn't. You only claimed you did. You still don't have any actual science to back your claim up. If you provide it I will look at it.

Therefore if one cannot talk about climate without using climate sensitivity then I have used climate sensitivity without knowing the label for the concept.

Again, you are so uneducated in the topic that you only THINK you have. You have not yet done so. Find supporting references then we can talk.

I don't know that it has a measurable impact. There are many layers of scale insignificance which would make it plausible that the warming effect is insignificant or perhaps even eclipsed by the cooling effect.

Well, we know you lack any real training in any of these topics. You have a few words to throw around (bicarbonate, differential equation) but that doesn't belie any real science training.

Perhaps you should spend a bit of time finding actual SCIENCE (not you tubes, not newspaper articles, not magazine articles) that supports your views and then come back and supply those