28 Jan 15
16 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is exactly what I have been telling you. My only point here is that last year's temp means nothing. I proved that and now you are finally admitting it. Thanks. 😏
That is exactly what I have been telling you.
So you are telling us the irrelevancy many of us have repeatedly told you (and which we "told you" because, although it is irrelevant, you make out we are pretending the contrary ) all along but which you repeatedly pretend we did not? That just proves that you are a complete moron.
Nobody, including all us scientists and all posters here, CLAIMS nor believes nor pretends nor has ever said/implied there are no natural causes for temperature variations and none of us have ever said/implied otherwise. It is only YOU that pretends we do. This is your moronic straw man, not ours, and you are just embarrassing yourself with it.
last year's temp means nothing. I have proved that...
Nope; last years record high temperature are the final nail in the coffin for denialists for that record high temperature cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate scientists have proved that.
If last year's record high temperature was caused by only natural causes, exactly which natural causes could account for the whole magnitude of that warming?
Tell us here else your silence proves to all of us you know you are wrong...
28 Jan 15
4 edits
Found this totally appalling political news:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/jan/27/climate-change-denier-given-top-brazilian-science-job
"...Climate-change denier given top Brazilian science job
Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff has named an outspoken climate-change denier as head of the country's science ministry. Aldo Rebelo – who was previously Brazil's sports minister and has no scientific background ..."
In other words, a stupid politician as appointed a total moron totally ignorant of science with no understanding of science to be the head of science in a totally vain attempt to convince us all that it is a proven scientific fact that there is no man made global warming; -typical political crap from stupid politicians.
Of course, the climate-change denier has to be a none scientist! It would be hard to find a scientist let alone a climate scientist to do all the denying for you! -the scientists tend to know too much. Now can't allow someone that knows too much about science and the scientific facts that contradict your claims to be the head of science, can we?
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhitehead"Also, a very large proportion of CO2 production (and global warming) is from change in land use due to agriculture."
I already did, but you are apparently unable to read.
This is the only thing you said, but you provided no source of information and ignored my question about slash and burning and such. You are being just as evasive as humy.
What is your source of information?
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by humyMaybe if your posts were not such long drivel without much meaning I would pay attention more. You need to be more concise. Most of that writing you do is for nothing but your own entertainment. Nobody else cares about your emotional baggage and misleading junk. Stick to the facts instead of encouraging misinterpretation. Say what you mean for a change....and try to avoid the personal attacks on my character. It makes you look petty.
this is wildly by far not the first time he has been apparently unable to read.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo, it most definitely is not the only thing I said. Nor is it an accurate quote of what I said. You really need to learn to read, until then, you can't hope to understand climate science.
"Also, a very large proportion of CO2 production (and global warming) is from change in land use due to agriculture."
This is the only thing you said, .....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou know, I've re-read my post.... can't find any mention of satellites, or satellite readings...
No, you are really stupid. Do you expect satellite readings before satellites? LOL!
🙄
Surface temperature measurements tend to be made with thermometers actually on the surface
of the earth as opposed to satellites 100's of miles high from which it's actually pretty hard to
take surface temperature readings. And we've had thermometers on the earth's surface for quite
some time now.
Also Ocean temps... Not generally measured by satellites.
What can be determined with quite considerable accuracy using satellite measurements is the
difference between the energy the Earth is receiving from the Sun and the energy it radiates
back out into space. If the Earth is in balance [on average] then the Earth is neither gaining
nor losing thermal energy [on average]. If the Earth is radiating away more or less heat than it's gaining then
it wont be in balance and will be cooling or warming depending on the direction of the imbalance.
What satellites can also tell us is what is causing the Earth to retain heat.
By measuring the thermal spectrum of the Earth at sea level, and again from satellites above the
atmosphere, and comparing the two spectra. We can see how much energy is being absorbed by
the atmosphere [acting as an insulator] and by looking at the absorption spectra we can determine
what chemicals in the atmosphere are blocking the radiation and by how much.
This means we can see exactly what chemicals in the atmosphere are acting as insulating greenhouse
gasses, and we can see how big an effect each has.
This gives us the total heat gain over the Earth's surface, and what is causing that heat gain.
And we can total up the measured energy gain in the land, ice, sea, and air; and see if they match [they do].
Giving us greater confidence in both methods.
The data also accurately reflects model predictions giving us even more confidence. [And so on and so
forth as all the evidence mounts up.]
However while satellites are indeed useful, and provide strong evidence for man made global warming...
That is not at all relevant to the argument I made, and indeed my post stands regardless of whether
satellite data exists or not.
So for a response to your post I am going to go with; "WTF", and "I think you should go back to school
and learn how to read, and then how to comprehend what you have read".
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by humyYou are still being petty while being evasive.
not exactly the same topic as in this thread but related:
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-erratic-arctic-sea-ice-loss.html
Why no mention of the antarctic ice? There is ice there too. Why does nobody explain the specific cause of the warming of 1900-1940? Is it too hard for all of you alarmists to admit you don't know?
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainOne thing you should check: Look at photo's of glacier's in that time, 1900 to 1940.
You are still being petty while being evasive.
Why no mention of the antarctic ice? There is ice there too. Why does nobody explain the specific cause of the warming of 1900-1940? Is it too hard for all of you alarmists to admit you don't know?
There may have been a warming then but strictly episodic. The glaciers did not start disappearing as they have in our century.
The disappearing glaciers will give ANYONE cause to worry.
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe quote is accurate as I copied and pasted it from your past post. The additional part of the paragraph doesn't explain the specific cause at all. Nothing you have written is specific and you will not provide your source of information since you have none. You have resorted to making stuff up as you go along and providing no proof of your claims. You are just trolling at this point. Don't you have anything meaningful to contribute?
No, it most definitely is not the only thing I said. Nor is it an accurate quote of what I said. You really need to learn to read, until then, you can't hope to understand climate science.
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainDid you read MY post?
The quote is accurate as I copied and pasted it from your past post. The additional part of the paragraph doesn't explain the specific cause at all. Nothing you have written is specific and you will not provide your source of information since you have none. You have resorted to making stuff up as you go along and providing no proof of your claims. You are just trolling at this point. Don't you have anything meaningful to contribute?
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy are you omitting the Antarctic ice? Is ice only at the top of the world? Educate yourself and get back to me.
One thing you should check: Look at photo's of glacier's in that time, 1900 to 1940.
There may have been a warming then but strictly episodic. The glaciers did not start disappearing as they have in our century.
The disappearing glaciers will give ANYONE cause to worry.