Climate change: ‘human fingerprint’ found on global extreme weather

I'm a firm believer that the rise and fall of empires throughout history had to do with changes in the climate, but it doesn't mean that those changes were man made.

 

I thought you're a Xn and don't believe in mythology and fair tales.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Please try again.

 

Are you trying to say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that greenhouse gases don't exist at all?

 

The "Volcanoes produce more Greenhouse Gases than humans" argument is absolutely false. Humans produce, on a yearly basis, more than 100x as much greenhouse gases.

The rest of your post is partially correct, though misleading. It is true that the Earth naturally produces about 10x as much CO2 as humans do on a yearly basis. However, that CO2 production also gets naturally sequestered each year and thus the overall concentration does not rise naturally - or to the extent that it does rise/fall, it is extremely slow. Humans produce about 30 gigatons of CO2 each year that is not accounted for in the natural CO2 cycle. And that is why the CO2 concentration has been rising very rapidly. By way of comparison, the last time that the CO2 Concentration rose by 80 points (the amount that it raised from 1900 to 2000), the process took about 5,000 years.

As for it being impossible to prove the causal link, you are correct. We would need a *******n control PLANET in order to prove something like that completely. Such is not possible and thus, climatologists make statements based on the amount of confidence that they have in a particular finding.

 

Reading comprehension problem or an attempt to escape in the state of total denial of reality?

 

If I told you that it has rained on my lawn for a thousand years and that yesterday, my lawn was wet; however, there was no forecast of rain. What would be your first thought?

 

Like I said, nicely and without trying to insult you, please try to phrase your point in a different manner.

And don't be a dick.

 

Reading comprehension problem?
I said: if tomorrow atmosphere turns to be 100% made out of CO2 the overage global temperature
would not change even 1 degree.
There are laws of warming, laws of nature and no fake numbers or fake scientists can overturn them.

 

don't be a dick, what is unclear?

 

OK, perhaps you could explain something to me then since you clearly have a mastery of the "laws of warming."

Why is Venus warmer than Mercury despite being roughly twice the distance away from the Sun and thus only getting about 1/4th of the solar radiation?

 

This post:

 

You know, the best part of this comment are the number of mights, could be's... "likely"... etc. The Guardian published this drivel as if it describes scientific certainty. Laughable. Thanks for demonstrating the lengths to which you'd legally censor folks who disagree with you. How about this, folks who support AGW are eco terrorists because they threaten the rest of us with their religious fervor... Of course you can see the danger to your absolutism.

 

I may guess that I made a false assumption that you have some basic education. It seems I am wrong, you have none. Warming is a subject of 2 disciplines called Thermodynamics and Theory of Heat and Mass Exchange. Does it help or I need to expand more? I didn't mean to be a dick, I just assumed that you received some basic education. I don't mind to explain more if you are interested in anything else beyond pushing your blind beliefs on others.

 

Why is Venus warmer than Mercury despite being roughly twice the distance away from the Sun and thus only getting about 1/4th of the solar radiation?

 

ummm.. How do you deal with squirrel??? Let's see... How about this. Because Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere, because it doesn't have an atmosphere, and the difference is potentially 64 degrees. And at 800F does an additional 64F really matter that much? Oh, and of course, because Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere, it drops to -280F so the actual fluctuation is over 1000F. So, the observation is that there's an apple, and there's an orange, and you're still talking about the banana...

 

Thanks for the extended rant to help illustrate the existence and the physics of greenhouse gases. Hopefully, _Inquisitor_ can understand that as well. He should, given his mastery of the "laws of warming."

 

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-12#post-1067265188
Are you really interested to learn anything about this wonderful world and may consider to stop pushing your blind beliefs on others?

 

You didn't explain anything about this wonderful world in that post. Feel free to do so now.

 

Who says there isn't? Just because this sort of thing is not mentioned on a denialist website does not mean it is not happening - part of the Paris Agreement was to do exactly what you suggest

 

First, I have never been to any denialist website. Second, no move has been made in land management, which would be easier to do, instead of carbon taxes. No talk here in the US, EVER. Only carbon taxes. No lobbying of environmental groups for land management. MSM never mentions it. It is if the idea does not exist and you know it.

 

Glad to see you posting on something other then Israel, moon. really. Even though I do not believe people's role in damaging our environment is as significant as you portray it's to be. Earth will take care of itself and of all of us, you know...

 

I did.
Here I quoted one of fundamental laws of nature directly and unambiguously saying that heat can NEVER be trapped, contained, stored, fed back, reflected back. You have raised no objections, but you still believe scientists, but not me, not the law, not your own eyes.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-11#post-1067236764

Here I applied the law to explain that the overage T of Earth wouldn’t change (no process of warming can be initiated) even if all atmosphere is changed 100% to CO2. You have pointed to no error, you have raised no objections, but you still believe the idiocy scientists tell you.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-12#post-1067253516

Now you are asking the idiotic question why Venus is hot.

But you yourself refuse to explain by what twisted thinking I should answer this question and how if I don’t it can disprove a single word I said.

Who is acting as a dick?

Do you understand the difference between the state of being hot and the process of warming? If Venus was in the process of warming, then the question could be not idiotic. The third time – how refusing answer totally irrelevant and idiotic question can somehow disprove even a single word I said?


OK, I will explain:

Your beloved idiot scientists are asking why Venus is hot and Mercury it is not. They assume that Venus and Mercury have the same mass, the same composition, the same reactions/processes in their cores, the same amount of produced mechanical work if any and had the same content of heat at the moment of their formation. Under no other assumption than this assumption from ignorance one can expect Mercury to be hotter than Venus. As simple as that. I can cut it to 3 words – scientists are idiots. I am not surprised anymore when I find out that the idiots do not know that since the formation of the solar system it has been cooling, and it is quite possible that some time ago the Earth looked very much like Venus today.

You can take my posts to any Thermodynamics professor to find a single error, except for me not using terms thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy, etc, but making it very simple.

Any more questions or you already feel like landing at the state of total denial of physical reality around you?

 

I have a really hard time comprehending your point because it is pretty clear that English is not your first language, but I will note a couple of responses.

In your first post, you claim that heat can never be trapped because it always flows from a colder body to a warmer body. The problem is that this simplistic view ignores the reality of the greenhouse effect. Once solar radiation enters the system, the heat energy is not able to properly flow outside of the system due to the containing factor (like glass or CO2). The heat does continue to flow but inside of the system and, as such, the overall average temperature of the system increases. The same is applying on a Global Scale with CO2. It is a greenhouse gas in that it can reflect the heat energy back towards Earth, preventing the energy from leaving into Space, and thereby increasing the average global temperature of Earth.

In your second post, you seem to argue that all heat energy leaves Earth every single night. I would first note that the result of "all heat energy from the Sun leaving every night" would result in temperatures that are orders of magnitude colder. Seriously, what temperature do you think the internal processes of the Earth would be able to keep the Planet absent ANY heat from the Sun? Then, you say, "That’s why 100% of overwhelming majorities of the scientific community looking for an average Temperature of the Globe are either illiterate or scumbags or both."

And that's where I stop listening. You are an anonymous poster online with zero credibility and no credentials (to my knowledge). You think you can dismiss the overwhelming majority of the scientific community as illiterate or scumbags? What a weak and terribly lazy argument.

 

Language? Simplistic view? I claimed?

I quoted the second law of Thermodynamics as is.

I didn’t write it, I quoted it word by world as it is written in English.

It is not a view, it is the most fundamental, the most supreme law of nature.

Simplistic? “A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) [Thermodynamics] is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.” - Einstein

It is not based on evidence, it is not a logical conclusion, it is not a subject of interpretation, it is not a subject of consensus and when 100% of scientists disagree with it I can only ask to pass me my popcorn.

‘’The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature… if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.’’ - Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington.

The suggestion that a planet can be warmed up by changing its atmosphere is totally idiotic.

The only thing Eddington couldn’t foresee is that today’s scientists will have no feeling of shame, neither you have any, Sir.