At least get this right. Nobody doubts climate change. The contention is over causes. (and the best evidence points towards the effects 8 billion people are having on earth right now)
Proposal in Iowa will remove climate change from educational standards.
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
This ain't clever but it does reveal that you know your personal supposed christianity is bullshit you go along with for reasons unrelated to faith, so that's new ground.
That's a tired line I haven't heard in a while. Get with it.
The rate and cause of change is what's interesting here.
But we can't. Data that was gathered 40+ years ago isn't reliable. The advancements of today's world are far more accurate than even 20 years ago.
Read my #71 post. We have to look at it in a 3D model. in 21 $22 we were blasted with hundreds of solar flares. The warming trend from those cause disruptions in the normal patterns. Just like when you turn off your heat, it takes awhile to cool down. CO2 isn't the issue.
A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and...
science.nasa.gov
What in the billy hell is that chart. Not even close. Looks like a grade schooler put that together.What exactly is your theory on water vapor here?
It's transient. You have evaporation -- which increases in warmer temperatures -- which leads to water vapor, which leads to clouds, which function as a greenhouse gas and trap heat.
But clouds release their moisture (precip) or evaporate quickly -- like, in a matter of days. Gases like methane and Co2 do not -- they can stick around decades.
If clouds didn't we would've had a run away greenhouse effect long ago and we'd be boiling right now.
The key is warming the atmosphere (from some other non cloud source) That allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, ultimately. (which contributes to warming from water vapor)
The models probably struggle with clouds because they're a very short lived, transient item.
I really don't care about the IPCC report. Nobody is interested in taking drastic steps to reduce Co2 anyway.
I deal with confidence levels -- there is lots of evidence to support a significant man-made contribution to global warming.
Oh sweet jesus, it's a simple visualization of the water vapor feedback loop. Would you rather read about it in a paper?
Awww, yes, NASA...who gets funding for Climate change.
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and...
If that was the case, then wouldn't solar flares mess up space equipment? Because they do.
Not to mention that NASA pushed the "Ozone" hoax and how the sun is burning up the earth's atmosphere. Well that was complete BS. Now they claim the sun has little effect. Figures.
My belief in Christianity is completely based in faith, just like your belief in climate change.
Has it ever occurred to you that you don't know much of anything about this topic? Kind of like heart surgery or building skyscrapers?
What you just said about solar flares makes no sense at all.
Why the hell wouldn't NASA receive funding for climate change? Given it's potential impact on all of mankind it's sort of worth knowing about, don't ya think?
What the hell are you yammering about with the Ozone? Humans stopped contributing so many substances that deplete and the Ozone hole started shrinking -- they were right.
Well when you come up with one single prediction from the climate (whatever they're calling it today) people that has come true in the past 50 years, then we can continue to fund it. All the money spend over the past 50 years has proved na da, nothing. WE NEED TO STOP WASTING MONEY ON A BS LIE!!!!!
Faith in the scientific method and the competitive self-correcting nature of the science profession =/= faith in unfalsifiable supernatural explanations. They're different things.
If only people like you looked at the consensus data in the same way you look at the "globalist agenda" data.
What exactly is a science denier?
Definition of science:
the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
Seems to me, to be tough to be a denier, when the very definition of science is "study" and "theories". Nothing in science is exact and especially weather.
A science denier is someone who refutes the authenticity of acceptable standards and other forms of empirical evidence.
Except for all the models and analysis that predicted the warning we're seeing.
Seriously, Google your question and you'll get plenty of examples
While I have studied the theory of relativity, I've never studied Einstein in a biographical way.
You tell me, patriot.
All the other scientist didn't believe him, even when his theories proved them wrong. So by what you're saying a science denier is, he was one.
Sure. As you wish.
And what you're saying is, we can't count on his theories because the instruments he used weren't accurate because of how long ago it was.
There are strong arguments against consensus and poor arguments.
Poor arguments being significantly easier to manufacture.
Ummm, no, you changed and twisted what we were discussing.
You said, "Data that was gathered 40+ years ago isn't reliable."
(By definition, science denying)
So yeah, by your standards Einstein's work isn't reliable.
You're trying really hard to change and twist what I say. If you can't accept that science isn't exact and to question and look father then what people tell you, then that's on you. You want to believe that the weather is so bad that we all need fallout shelters, then go ahead. I know how the atmosphere works and I don't believe anything is different. So if questioning science is science denying, then I am. But Einstein questioned the scientists of his time and the scorned him for it. He was on the right side of science back then.
Did you not say, "Data that was gathered 40+ years ago isn't reliable." ???
If I've misquoted you, I'll certainly correct the record.
Please advise, patriot.
So you're a science cherry picker?
Data collected 40 years ago is reliable, unless it verifies something you disagree with. Is that what you mean?
Where and how was it collected? What were the instruments used to gather the information? Where is that data stored at and what are the sheets they were written on?
Now that we have that all “settled”…is climate change caused by men or simply a cyclical phenomenon? Who knows. 🤔
Water vapor and clouds are very unpredictable (probably because they are short term variables). But clouds make a much more substantial difference in the weather and climate than co2 does.What exactly is your theory on water vapor here?
It's transient. You have evaporation -- which increases in warmer temperatures -- which leads to water vapor, which leads to clouds, which function as a greenhouse gas and trap heat.
But clouds release their moisture (precip) or evaporate quickly -- like, in a matter of days. Gases like methane and Co2 do not -- they can stick around decades.
If clouds didn't we would've had a run away greenhouse effect long ago and we'd be boiling right now.
The key is warming the atmosphere (from some other non cloud source) That allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, ultimately. (which contributes to warming from water vapor)
The models probably struggle with clouds because they're a very short lived, transient item.
I really don't care about the IPCC report. Nobody is interested in taking drastic steps to reduce Co2 anyway.
I deal with confidence levels -- there is lots of evidence to support a significant man-made contribution to global warming.
Clouds can both hold heat in or it can reflect heat depending on the type of clouds. I assume you would agree that a hot summer day with sun will be warmer than a summer day with cloud cover.
The sun is the most important factor in heating the earth, if the sun is blocked by clouds, this can have a dramatic effect on the daily temperatures.
CO2 does have some impact on climate, but there is not an agreement on how it will act at higher levels. An example is painting a wall. The first coat makes a big difference, second coat a little difference, third coat and you barely can see a difference. Some predict co2 has a similar effect. If this is the case, then the ipcc models would all be wrong.
Specifically, WTF are you talking about?
Are we talking about the data for:
What causes total alkalinity to drop?
Melting of the polar ice caps?
Rising sea temperatures?
Rising sea levels?
Rising air temperatures?
What does it matter if you're only going to cherry pick and deny the data anyway?
Thank you. That's the question. Not whether Climate Change is real. We know it's real. What's unclear is the cause.
When did I say I was cherry picking anything? I will deny the accuracy of it. Damn right. I was young, stupid, didn't care and didn't collect the data the correct way. So I absolutely know it's not correct. My co-workers used to joke about making up stuff so they didn't have to go outside. That data is still being used today. The data today is collect with computers.
You didn't say you were cherry picking. I simply called you out for it.
Please follow along (I've made a bulleted list to make it easier).
- Earlier you said that, "data collected more than 40 years ago isn't reliable."
- Then you claimed that Einstein proved all his naysayers wrong with science and data.
- So I asked why would you believe Einstein's data? After all, it was collected more than 40 years ago.
- You said I was using your words against you.
- So I asked again if data collected 40 or more years ago was unreliable.
- And you said, "When it pertains to weather, yes."
