Global Climate Change Science News

[mistermack]

You're making no sense. We can't predict exact temperatures because the system is chaotic. But that doesn't mean all of a sudden the fundamentals stop working. If you put more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere you will have more greenhouse effect. This is the basics. If you can't even accept that, then there's not much point going on.

Right. Like if I piss into a full bucket, the bucket will get heavier right? Wrong.

This is the basics. More CO2 MIGHT have a big effect. It MIGHT have a tiny negligible effect. Or a medium effect or no effect. It might be very temporary, or it might be long lasting.
Get a model that works, and we're in business.
Not a million models, all different. That just proves that the don't yet understand climate.
If they understood it, there would be just ONE accepted model. And it would be accurate.
Neither of those things are the case.

[mistermack]

Pathetic. Like I said to rEv, if it was that simple, you wouldn't need huge banks of computers, and the MODEL (singular) would be always right.

You blokes haven't got a clue.

[pErvinalia]

You're making no sense. We can't predict exact temperatures because the system is chaotic. But that doesn't mean all of a sudden the fundamentals stop working. If you put more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere you will have more greenhouse effect. This is the basics. If you can't even accept that, then there's not much point going on.

Right. Like if I piss into a full bucket, the bucket will get heavier right? Wrong.

This is the basics. More CO2 MIGHT have a big effect. It MIGHT have a tiny negligible effect. Or a medium effect or no effect. It might be very temporary, or it might be long lasting.
Get a model that works, and we're in business.
Not a million models, all different. That just proves that the don't yet understand climate.
If they understood it, there would be just ONE accepted model. And it would be accurate.
Neither of those things are the case.

Not understanding it perfectly doesn't mean we can't predict broad changes. Same as predicting broad human behaviours despite not having a working model of the brain.

And your bucket analogy is wrong as the atmosphere isn't full. Adding more co2 to it increases the amount of energy that will be trapped inside the atmosphere.

[pErvinalia]

Pathetic. Like I said to rEv, if it was that simple, you wouldn't need huge banks of computers, and the MODEL (singular) would be always right.

You blokes haven't got a clue.

Says the guy who thinks tens of thousands of scientists are involved in a giant conspiracy.

[mistermack]

And your bucket analogy is wrong as the atmosphere isn't full. Adding more co2 to it increases the amount of energy that will be trapped inside the atmosphere.

You really fundamentally don't get it, do you?
Energy is NOT trapped. How the fuck does the world cool by so much at night, if energy is trapped? Get out of that fucking kitchen, and ditch that jam jar. It's addled your brain.

[pErvinalia]

more co2 equals more energy trapped. Not ALL the energy trapped.

[Animavore]

Pathetic. Like I said to rEv, if it was that simple, you wouldn't need huge banks of computers, and the MODEL (singular) would be always right.

You blokes haven't got a clue.

You're don't even know what you're looking at. Do you?

[Hermit]

The Kalam argument is just as much bollocks as the CO2 argument.

Cause and effect are what's missing to both.

I recommend you overcome your reluctance to consider information that contradicts your opinion on the effects of CO2. This short clip, posted by Animavore a couple of days ago, demonstrates that air with a higher concentration of CO2 warms up more than air with a lower one.



Sure, in this experiment the concentration is vastly out of proportion with what happens in the real world, but it does demonstrate the principal claim you seem to dispute if I have not misread your posts beyond a shadow of a doubt: Increases of CO2 content in the air causes increased warming.

And yes, our earth is comparable to a jam jar, albeit a rather large one. If it was not, it would have no atmosphere. Without it our daytime temperatures would climb to 123°C where the sun shines on it and drop to minus 153°C where it does not - like it does on the near by moon.

[pErvinalia]

The moon isn't there, Hermit. It's a projection in the sky. Illuminati and stuff.

[pErvinalia]

By the way, I don't doubt his qualitative results, but he should have squeezed the bottles first so that when the co2 was added the bottle could expand. Without the bottle expanding you get increased pressure, which of course will result in increased temperature on it's own.

[mistermack]

Has anybody noticed the slight difference between a jam jar and a planet yet?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As I've said on numerous occasions.
That doesn't mean that the tiny bit of warming that has happened is down to increased CO2. Nor whether any increase would be permanent or transient.

At present, the Earth manages to lose exactly the same amount of heat at night, as it gains in the day. Is that just coincidence? Does that happen with jam jars?

[Animavore]

I see you haven't figured out the equation yet.

[Tero]

And your bucket analogy is wrong as the atmosphere isn't full. Adding more co2 to it increases the amount of energy that will be trapped inside the atmosphere.

You really fundamentally don't get it, do you?
Energy is NOT trapped. How the fuck does the world cool by so much at night, if energy is trapped? Get out of that fucking kitchen, and ditch that jam jar. It's addled your brain.

Ah, you don't know about gas MOLECULES yet. They are there even if you can't see them. You would be freezing your butt every night if there was no atmosphere. Glad we could clear that up once and for all.

Just in case you did not understand, here is a nice little cartoon about the kinetic theory of gases. What makes the molecules move? Energy. The same energy they collected all day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
planets and atmospeheres
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/clima ... tures.html

Get yourself a ticket to Mercury and take a thermometer. it will be cold at night. Take some heat with you as the the day is 58 our days long.

[pErvinalia]

Has anybody noticed the slight difference between a jam jar and a planet yet?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As I've said on numerous occasions.
That doesn't mean that the tiny bit of warming that has happened is down to increased CO2. Nor whether any increase would be permanent or transient.

At present, the Earth manages to lose exactly the same amount of heat at night, as it gains in the day. Is that just coincidence? Does that happen with jam jars?

Do you realise what a clown you look like when you use the roflmao smiley when you clearly have no idea of the physics of this subject, and believe that 10's of thousands of scientists are involved in a gigantic worldwide conspiracy?

I mean, your post is just spectacularly dumb. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That means that heating will absolutely occur. IT HAS TOO. That's what a greenhouse gas does. It can't do anything else (in regards to heat). And the Earth clearly DOESN'T lose the exact same amount of heat at night as it gained in the day, as temperature is GOING UP over time. The only other source of heat can come from the interior of the Earth. But measurements take out estimates of volcanic activity in the heat equation.

And there is no problem with the jam jar concept in this regard, as a jam jar lets light in and out and traps some heat. If you think this doesn't apply, then you need to explain your reasoning for that, instead of just continually posting inane roflmao smilies.

[Animavore]

This is getting silly. It's like when you get some kid in class acting the fool and disrupting the class.

We know for a fact denialism is based solely on lies. We know who orchestrated the lies. We know why they did it. We even know they safeguarded their investment from climate change while at the same time disseminating lies. We have the documents. The culprits are being investigated by the FBI. They could be getting sued for lying to their investors. There is no version of this where denialism comes out on top.

The only ones laughing here are those of us who understand the science laughing at the gullible morons who bought into propaganda and are now, after all the lies are coming to light, digging their heels in, rather than just accepting they were wrong and getting mad at the people who lied to them, in a counterproductive effort to save face.