The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

@Red Many changing variables my friend we need to empty our minds and become formless and adapt as the planet has always done and will continue to do only philosophy will get us through not religion or science. 

https://youtu.be/cJMwBwFj5nQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James Regan said:

@Red Many changing variables my friend we need to empty our minds and become formless and adapt as the planet has always done and will continue to do only philosophy will get us through not religion or science. 

https://youtu.be/cJMwBwFj5nQ

Really?  The variables are the same as before but the quantities attached to them have changed.

The point you have missed is that what is now happening is not "natural", and carbon flux cannot neutralise increased human contributions.  It is an exercise in elementary logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red said:

Really?  The variables are the same as before but the quantities attached to them have changed.

The point you have missed is that what is now happening is not "natural", and carbon flux cannot neutralise increased human contributions.  It is an exercise in elementary logic.

Respectfully Red, I think if you were able to just take a step back and look at the bigger (much bigger the you or I and our opinions) You would see that there is not enough proof or science to back your argument, which puts your views on this forum on the back foot

 The scientific meaning of the expression "global warming" is based on geological records which show that global temperatures have been in constant change for hundreds of millions of years. (That’s been scientifically proven)

Also, Humans are not the only species to have caused global temperature change over geological history. 
However "global warming" these days in the popular domain refers to whatever contribution the burning of fossil fuels has made, What effects there will be and what (if anything) we can do about it. 
We first need to clarify whether we are talking about the scientific global warming, which is natural and has been happening episodically for millions of years before humans ever evolved, Your argument is a popularized “scientific”version which always ends up in poop slinging fight between various politically motivated groups on both sides and their representation.

This is the case here, most don’t believe the “science” in which the “ believers” are trying to persuade “ non believers” that the industrial revolution which is a nanospec in time is the cause of the current earths climate. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Red said:

That is not a valid argument Jan, because it ignores the physical properties of gases. 

Different atmospheric gases have different properties, and these are measurable wrt to incoming and outgoing radiation.  

 

Red, don't get me wrong, I am confident you are a fine fellow.  But this really does get exasperating.    Look, your gas is measured in parts per million.  By definition your gas is spread out evenly in a band.  At 100% concentration, the entire surface of the earth would be covered, a bit like concrete on a motorway.  At 20% concentration, it would be like blades of grass on a soccer field. At 0.04% concentration, it is now so low that you cannot find it.  A bit like wormholes for the worms living underneath that grass on that soccer field.  You know the worms are out there somewhere, but you cannot find them or measure them.  There is not enough wormholes to go find. 

And there is the hole in the global-warming idea.  If you accept that heat radiation attempting to escape the surface is blocked if it strikes a molecule of carbon dioxide, and then that heat radiation bounces back (or whatever it does), and then that heats up the planet, then it still remains that so very little of that radiant heat is being blocked, diverted, or whatever, to be measurable.  Overwhelmingly, that outward-bound radiation just continues merrily on its way, as that nasty CO2 stuff simply cannot be found.  It is just too scarce.

The odds of CO2 intercepting heat radiation are far less than the odds of Mr. Average Golfer hitting a hole-in-one.  But you are postulating that everyone out on the course links, every day, is shooting holes in one.  It just does not work that way.  There are not enough holes-in-one happening to make any difference, either to the course or to the atmosphere or to the planet. 

Now, all that said, if you are fervently convinced that those holes-in-one are critical to the planet's survival, then I encourage you to put all your efforts into reversing desertification, and bringing water to the deserts and planting trees and grasses - which will absorb huge amounts of that nasty CO2 stuff, plus lower ambient temperatures quite a bit, at least locally.  Plus that is good for the planet, as a desert vista is not going to sustain much of anything.  And here is the nice part: beating back the desert is a lot cheaper and easier to accomplish than any of the alternatives.  For sure both easier and cheaper than the ideas of that Paris Climate Accord.  I feel confident that, with your demonstrable energy levels and persuasive abilities, if you throw yourself in the fight against deserts you will have stupendous success.  Cheers. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Red, don't get me wrong, I am confident you are a fine fellow.  But this really does get exasperating.    Look, your gas is measured in parts per million.  By definition your gas is spread out evenly in a band.  At 100% concentration, the entire surface of the earth would be covered, a bit like concrete on a motorway.  At 20% concentration, it would be like blades of grass on a soccer field. At 0.04% concentration, it is now so low that you cannot find it.  A bit like wormholes for the worms living underneath that grass on that soccer field.  You know the worms are out there somewhere, but you cannot find them or measure them.  There is not enough wormholes to go find. 

And there is the hole in the global-warming idea.  If you accept that heat radiation attempting to escape the surface is blocked if it strikes a molecule of carbon dioxide, and then that heat radiation bounces back (or whatever it does), and then that heats up the planet, then it still remains that so very little of that radiant heat is being blocked, diverted, or whatever, to be measurable.  Overwhelmingly, that outward-bound radiation just continues merrily on its way, as that nasty CO2 stuff simply cannot be found.  It is just too scarce. 

 The odds of CO2 intercepting heat radiation are far less than the odds of Mr. Average Golfer hitting a hole-in-one.  But you are postulating that everyone out on the course links, every day, is shooting holes in one.  It just does not work that way.  There are not enough holes-in-one happening to make any difference, either to the course or to the atmosphere or to the planet.  

I disagree with Red on the importance of CO2, but I'm concerned about your explanation.  It may not be the right way to go:
1)  Some molecules punch above their weight, so to speak, when interacting with radiation.  CO2 may interact more strongly with infrared than other molecules, which is why relatively small quantities of it can make an impact.
2)  We're talking about temperature changes on the order of 1%.  That may-or-may-not be within CO2's capabilities; we can't write it off entirely. 
I don't think we can use qualitative reasoning to answer these questions; calculations would be better. 

Personally, I would abandon the CO2 line of reasoning.  Instead, I'd argue that the burden of proof lies on climate scientists to show that:
1)  Human intervention can change the climate in a way distinguishable from natural climate fluctuations. 
2)  Changing climate will, in fact, be harmful.  It's entirely possible humanity would benefit from these changes
3)  Their climate models both model past climate and accurately predict future changes. 
I.e. rather than quibbling over details, I would simply demand they meet the same standards as any industry engineer.  They're peddling a product, and we're the customer.  They should act like it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Red said:

Not really interested in what you raised because it's plain rubbish.  You appear to have no idea about what it is possible to measure, and to do so accurately.

 

You are just another person who believes in something they really know nothing about.  As to measurements, you can't tell me how to measure the energy required to spin the earth, in fact science has no idea how it is the earth spins nor how the moon spins, nor how it is parked in it's perfect orbit just by chance having the perfect rotation that keeps us from seeing the dark side.  Can you solve a three body problem?  How is the n body problem solved? Where does the energy come from, the field or the force?  These are all unanswered questions and they are more tractable than climate change. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2019 at 8:49 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Personally, I would abandon the CO2 line of reasoning.  Instead, I'd argue that the burden of proof lies on climate scientists to show that:
1)  Human intervention can change the climate in a way distinguishable from natural climate fluctuations. 
2)  Changing climate will, in fact, be harmful.  It's entirely possible humanity would benefit from these changes
3)  Their climate models both model past climate and accurately predict future changes. 
I.e. rather than quibbling over details, I would simply demand they meet the same standards as any industry engineer.  They're peddling a product, and we're the customer.  They should act like it. 

^ this

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Red, don't get me wrong, I am confident you are a fine fellow.  But this really does get exasperating.    Look, your gas is measured in parts per million.  By definition your gas is spread out evenly in a band.  At 100% concentration, the entire surface of the earth would be covered, a bit like concrete on a motorway.  At 20% concentration, it would be like blades of grass on a soccer field. At 0.04% concentration, it is now so low that you cannot find it.  A bit like wormholes for the worms living underneath that grass on that soccer field.  You know the worms are out there somewhere, but you cannot find them or measure them.  There is not enough wormholes to go find. 

And there is the hole in the global-warming idea.  If you accept that heat radiation attempting to escape the surface is blocked if it strikes a molecule of carbon dioxide, and then that heat radiation bounces back (or whatever it does), and then that heats up the planet, then it still remains that so very little of that radiant heat is being blocked, diverted, or whatever, to be measurable.  Overwhelmingly, that outward-bound radiation just continues merrily on its way, as that nasty CO2 stuff simply cannot be found.  It is just too scarce.

The odds of CO2 intercepting heat radiation are far less than the odds of Mr. Average Golfer hitting a hole-in-one.  But you are postulating that everyone out on the course links, every day, is shooting holes in one.  It just does not work that way.  There are not enough holes-in-one happening to make any difference, either to the course or to the atmosphere or to the planet. 

Now, all that said, if you are fervently convinced that those holes-in-one are critical to the planet's survival, then I encourage you to put all your efforts into reversing desertification, and bringing water to the deserts and planting trees and grasses - which will absorb huge amounts of that nasty CO2 stuff, plus lower ambient temperatures quite a bit, at least locally.  Plus that is good for the planet, as a desert vista is not going to sustain much of anything.  And here is the nice part: beating back the desert is a lot cheaper and easier to accomplish than any of the alternatives.  For sure both easier and cheaper than the ideas of that Paris Climate Accord.  I feel confident that, with your demonstrable energy levels and persuasive abilities, if you throw yourself in the fight against deserts you will have stupendous success.  Cheers. 

Jan, you are precisely correct in your assessment of CO2. In fact, the IPCC and climate science agree with you, but their agreement is deeply hidden in tens of thousands of pages of reports. In point of fact, and the reason I'm convinced "Red" is a bot, I've asked him/it multiple times to phrase the AWG hypothesis. It's clearly been stated, the IPCC reports contain it and the models are purposely programmed to support it. But what is "it"?

Red can't say, because it's not in Red's knowledge base. Bottom line, you're absolutely correct, CO2 is far too sparse to have any appreciable effect. Therefore the AGW argument Requires forcing, the idea being that slightly more CO2 will "force" considerably more water vapor into the atmosphere. And, as any scientist knows, water vapor is many times stronger as an absorber of infrared than CO2 can ever be. CO2 only "blocks" three infrared wavelengths, out of hundreds. Water vapor blocks them all. 

Red's programming can't grok this. Bad knowledge base schema, they should have used some normative relational calculus to rebalance the tree. But I digress. Its purpose isn't to learn but to do its own "forcing" in the public opinion arena. However, we can use it to exercise our own intellects and understanding while it will regularly be obtuse as we've all observed. Remember it's not intelligent, it just simulates intelligence. There are humans behind it of course, and we can flush them out by including something as simple as a "captcha" graphic in a post. It should then flag the human, probably working in India, to help it out. Or it will simply disappear for awhile. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put, continuing the Global Warming theory is DEAD WRONG!

One chart has it dying in 2012, another in 2016. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Long long term 8,000 years CO2 levels dropping had the planet heading towards an ELE (Extinction Level Event)

around 150 PPM, the minimum level needed for life support on spacecraft, planet earth, etc. So CO2 Taxes begone~~!!!

Now what do we have to concern ourselves with? All time high levels of cosmic rays causing massive flooding.

Low temps, such as Denver NOT reaching 90 degrees this June, possibly due to the planetary alignment.

What ? Yes, Jupiter and Saturn sucking the earth AWAY FROM the sun during the months of June & July 2019.

A minor disturbance, mark Dec 2024 on your calendar DURING WINTER Northern Hemisphere, for a MAJOR pull out,

due to Neptune & Uranus adding to the party.

How about the Grand Solar Minimum? Just search the news channels for Climate Change versus GSM to discover the

censorship on that one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2694&v=M_yqIj38UmY

"Professor Valentina Zharkova: The Solar Magnet Field and the Terrestrial Climate"

BUT WAIT....the REAL Elephant in the room, stomping through in Oct 2046 is the possibility of the Micro Nova!!!

Now the evidence on that should get one moving to prepare. In the meantime, 2032 plus/minus five years predicted by the best Army Research specialist alive on the EMP!!!

Seems the eclipse in 2024 crosses over the Madrid earthquake zone, which could sever major natgas pipelines to the NE. see attachment

So go long on crop futures, for the planet is having situations.

www.iceagefarmer.com/map/

Eclipse Crossover USA #MicroNova.jpg

Global Temps with Trend Lines #greennewdeal.png

Cold is the NEW HOT ORP #MiniIceAge.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tom Kirkman The bots are fighting back…

But I have another thought to run by a fellow Catholic education traveler. The current (of two extant) Pope is the first Jesuit.  I was taught by Jesuits and they're famous for lots of things, one being they don't get to Become a Jesuit until they complete 12 years of higher education. So lots of them have advanced degrees. But somewhere in all that edumacation, they lose track of the goal. After all, they're representatives on this planet of a Christian religion that worships a supreme God, who sits on His throne and has the earth as His footstool. 

So really, the right approach Mr Pope should be doing, is to ask his billion plus followers to pray to the God above to turn the heat down on His footstool. After all, it's His planet and He ought to know how to fix it if it's broken. Or maybe it Isn't broken and the big Guy has another plan in mind, since His ways are far beyond ours. We just need a little faith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, James Regan said:

Respectfully Red, I think if you were able to just take a step back and look at the bigger (much bigger the you or I and our opinions) You would see that there is not enough proof or science to back your argument, which puts your views on this forum on the back foot

I think you need to go and read a lot more.  I have yet to see a counter claim that stacks up.  Your ideas are not well founded.

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Look, your gas is measured in parts per million.  By definition your gas is spread out evenly in a band.  At 100% concentration, the entire surface of the earth would be covered, a bit like concrete on a motorway.  At 20% concentration, it would be like blades of grass on a soccer field. At 0.04% concentration, it is now so low that you cannot find it. 

Unfortunately your ideas have no relevance to the forcing effect of greenhouse gases.  The most abundant gases have zero impact relating to climate change, and I provided a link earlier which explained why.

9 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Personally, I would abandon the CO2 line of reasoning.  Instead, I'd argue that the burden of proof lies on climate scientists to show that: ...

 Then you clearly have never read any of the 5 IPCC Reports since the 1990s.

8 hours ago, wrs said:

You are just another person who believes in something they really know nothing about.

Yet you want to discuss why planets spin, which has no relevance to climate change.

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

... the IPCC and climate science agree with you, but their agreement is deeply hidden in tens of thousands of pages of reports.

Another outright lie.  IPCC Reports are presented for lay readers and, separately link to the underlying science.

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Therefore the AGW argument Requires forcing, the idea being that slightly more CO2 will "force" considerably more water vapor into the atmosphere. And, as any scientist knows, water vapor is many times stronger as an absorber of infrared than CO2 can ever be. CO2 only "blocks" three infrared wavelengths, out of hundreds.

"Forcing" occurs naturally - it's a principle of physics wrt to GHGs.  Your water vapour idea has been repeatedly knocked on the head by climate scientists, but you keep trotting it out.  Water vapour is a "feedback" and has zero GWP.

As to your harping on about AGW theory, it's simple.  If there were no changes in the levels of gases in the atmosphere, could we determine what drove changes in temperature?  If the content of gases with known forcing effects did change, would these be apparent separate from the natural signature?  Given we can measure changes in GHGs over time, and isotopically measure human contributions of GHGs, is it likely that changes in temperature can, in statistically significant terms, be attributed to humans.

3 hours ago, DallasTEC said:

Simply put, continuing the Global Warming theory is DEAD WRONG!

Thanks for the laugh.  

image.jpeg.420a9a478fdf2badddd37e1ca5197aa0.jpeg

Edited by Red
added "the gases"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The bots are fighting back…

Yep.  Unable to properly respond to any rebuttals but instead continues to parrot variations of the bot's theme that the science settled, so there can be no debate, and everyone else is wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep.  Unable to properly respond to any rebuttals but instead continues to parrot variations of the bot's theme that the science settled, so there can be no debate, and everyone else is wrong.

Give it a rest Tom.  I did respond to your earlier issues, and you had a chance to rebut what I said, but did not.

Not a single sensible claim has been made in this thread wrt to climate from those who deny climate science.  

I laid out what climate change deniers needed to show if their ideas had any merit, and all that gets thrown into this forum is unscientific mumbo jumbo.  Your cheerleading is admirable, but not overly helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy and Geopolitics Are under Attack

Global warming.  Climate change.  Renewable energy.  Carbon-free societies.  All of these terms have gained status as the balm to eliminate fossil fuels, which is supposedly causing anthropogenic global warming.  What should be noted is that, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC):

  1.  The primary force is that the sun heats the Earth's oceans and land.
  2.  Then, secondarily, the Earth's oceans and land heat the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is not heating the Earth; it's the sun.
  3.  Consequently, after the above two, increasing air temperature then increases sea surface temperature.

Facts tell us that the one constant on Earth is that the climate is always changing.  Facts also tell us that CO2 is statistically irrelevant as a factor in determining the Earth's climate.  Therefore, CO2 is a minor factorin weather determination.

Whether or not there is or isn't climate change or global warming, and regardless of who is or isn't to blame, here is why that sentiment is dangerous from noted climatologist, and true scientific consensus believer, Dr. Judith Curry:

Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies.  If you don't support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a 'climate-change denier,' who must be banned from the scientific community.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to know if your talking to a Climate Change expert or Cultist.

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

The group/leader is always right.

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible

https://therevolutionaryact.com/ten-warning-signs-cult-climate-change/

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

25 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 Facts also tell us that CO2 is statistically irrelevant as a factor in determining the Earth's climate.

Complete and utter LIE.

Why are you making baseless claims about climate science when so much information is available?

Next, weather and climate are not the same, and to continue to confuse how they relate to each other merely confirms your ignorance.

Try quoting actual climate science if you want to make a claim on this subject.

Edited by Red
s
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James Regan said:

How to know if your talking to a Climate Change expert or Cultist.

AND

How do we tell climate science denialists:

  • Obfuscation
  • Irrelevance
  • Confused senses and poor logic
  • NO science to support their claims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red said:

AND

How do we tell climate science denialists:

  • Obfuscation
  • Irrelevance
  • Confused senses and poor logic
  • NO science to support their claims

“Worse than being blind is seeing something that isn’t really there”

L Red Hubbard of the first church of Climatology.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James Regan said:

“Worse than being blind is seeing something that isn’t really there”

L Red Hubbard of the first church of Climatology.

You scored a perfect 100% on my scorecard - congrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, do you understand what you post when you borrow from American Thinker?

34 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Then, secondarily, the Earth's oceans and land heat the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is not heating the Earth; it's the sun

Most our atmosphere is transparent to incoming and outgoing radiation.  Greenhouse gases are not transparent to IR (radiation).  Not even Judith Curry would agree with your attribution from AT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Red said:

Tom, do you understand what you post when you borrow from American Thinker?

Most our atmosphere is transparent to incoming and outgoing radiation.  Greenhouse gases are not transparent to IR (radiation).  Not even Judith Curry would agree with your attribution from AT.

Look up stephan boltzman law.  It has NEVER been violated.  The only possible way to heat up the atmosphere is to increase the average pressure.  PV=nRT is still true and likewise has never been violated.  Then compare Earth to Venus, and the two planets are identical.

Climate cultists preach violating basic physics which have never been violated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wastral said:

The only possible way to heat up the atmosphere is to increase the average pressure. 

LOL - yep, all atmospheric physicists are wrong and gases play no part.

Why didn't I think of that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

@James Regan @Tom Kirkman @Wastral

Why are y'all still debating Red?  It's a waste of time. 

Wasn't for him.  Was for everyone else who wishes to use ones brain. All one has to do is compare to Venus and see it has nothing to do with CO2 as Venus has near 100% CO2 yet these cultists morons are claiming a tiny PPM change will warm the earth... HAHAHAHAHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

Wasn't for him.  Was for everyone else who wishes to use ones brain. All one has to do is compare to Venus and see it has nothing to do with CO2 as Venus has near 100% CO2 yet these cultists morons are claiming a tiny PPM change will warm the earth... HAHAHAHAHA

Yep - lots of humans emitting CO2 on Venus.

Such a tired claim from the climate science denial camp - but keep them coming.

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Why are y'all still debating Red?  It's a waste of time. 

Absolutely - you have zero to offer to even make it interesting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites