BillT

2 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

See you’ve changed tactics. First you denied the greenhouse effect entirely. Now you deny that more ghgs will increase the effect. Which is it?

and there went the civility, i have not in any way denied the greenhouse effect......it clearly makes the earths atmosphere warmer than it would be by slowing the movement of the heat in our system.......,with no atmosphere the earths temperature would have huge swings daily from super hot during the day to bitterly cold every night.

3 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I’m sure you did. What I appreciate is that you are thinking about it and I am sure that if you think and engage enough you are more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion.

i already have arrived at the correct conclusion = NO insulator ever traps any heat and cant make the total heat in any system increase, and the greenhouse effect is an insulating effect....btw i do appreciate the now civil content of your comments, ty....also we have to do some errands and our weekly grocery pickup so i will be busy for the next several hours.

2 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

It’s full of holes but also miles thick. Which is why the surface of the earth isn’t freezing cold like other similar planets. Planets with more ghgs are even hotter.

the primary GHG  on earth is water vapor.......and Venus is much closer to the sun, Mars has a much higher %age of co2 in its atmosphere than earth and is much colder.

1 minute ago, skierinvermont said:

Bill, I will say I appreciate the more effort you e put into reading and responding. Your short one line posts and then ignoring the responses when people try to help you understand are extremely frustrating, so I apologize if my post was too personal.

ty but you refuse to accept i did this research long ago, these posts are not based on recent study, i have done no additional research in the last 24 hours or even in years when it comes to what an insulator does and doesnt do.

the co2 is similar to a blanket that is over 80% holes and doesnt slow any heat movement.....in most of the area of it.....try wearing a coat that only covers less than 20% of your upper body and tell me how warm you feel in zero degree weather?

2 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

When a blanket absorbs radiation from your body it doesn’t re-emit the radiation in any particular direction. The first layer of molecules absorb radiation and then scatters it in all directions. And yet the blanket warms you. This is because even though it is scattered in all directions which slows the dissipation of the heat relative to the radiation having no obstacle at all. 

it doesnt release it with any directional push it simply releases it........at least you seem to accept it does NOT trap any heat that is progress....you are warmer under the blanket because it slows the heat being lost from your body and get warm right next to your skin.....and it does NOT increase the overall total heat in the room, the blanket does NOT make the total heat in the room any more in any way.....

i make no comment about anybody here on a personal level, the previous post is uncivil and utterly wrong.......i am not mincing words in any way i am posting the science the cause comes before the effect not after.......changes in the weather CAUSE changes in the climate stats......what causes the weather changes is countless factors and one of the smallest of those factors is the human released co2.....you can insult my intelligence all you desire but it does not alter the FACTS and science i post......the IR wave leaves the earth heading UP towards space and a small portion of that wave excites a co2 molecule when it hits it, most of that IR wave goes right on by the co2 since the co2 only impacts tiny segments of the wave, the molecule that gets excited quickly releases a new IR wave with NO directional push, there has to be some force that would cause it to go back towards the surface rather than towards the much cooler space.......the claim that human released co2 is "trapping heat" and making our atmosphere and oceans hotter makes no sense at all in science because as an insulator it does NOT "trap heat" it slows the movement but NEVER traps any heat.......so the tiny compared to nature amount of co2 released by humans and the  co2 that gets excited by a tiny portion of the IR wave quickly releases it is claimed to be the "cause" of warming the oceans and atmosphere and that makes NO sense in science........attack me and claim i dont understand this stuff all you desire, i remain with the science and FACT that NO insulator ever "traps heat" in any system....just like a real greenhouse gives up the heat it slowed during the day each night through IR waves,the proof is simple fact even a real greenhouse does NOT get hotter each day and hold that heat because it is "trapped" .........again mock me all you desire i can handle it and wont be silenced.

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

You misunderstand the differences of climate (fixed point in time) and climate change (delta between two states of the climate) and the role that measurements play in providing insight into both.  

An analogy is useful:

Average heart rate is a statistic. Average heart rate has no power over one’s health and has never caused one a heart attack or other serious heart issue. The underlying assumption, if one applies the implicit arguments concerning climate change to this measure, would be that whether one’s heart rate is rapidly slowing or becoming highly irregular would be irrelevant. In other words, there’s nothing to see. That would be dangerously naive. Large and dramatic changes could well indicate that a person is suffering a heart issue which, if not addressed, could pose a mortal threat.

The same holds true for climate statistics. The change over time has meaning. And, because there is a relationship between many of the climate variables (higher temperatures-incidence of extreme heat, changes in global distribution of temperatures and the jet stream, greater warmth-greater capacity of the atmosphere to hold moisture, etc.) the overall changes taking place pose risks ranging from heat waves, drought, rising sea levels, etc. None of these changes are trivial.

 

 

and climate change is not the cause of any of those things, the same things causing those changes are the CAUSE of the climate change....the effect does NOT come before the cause.....simple fact climate change again has no power and has never caused anything related to weather, the change comes BEFORE the change in the climate stats......

On 8/25/2020 at 12:13 PM, donsutherland1 said:

No one has made the misleading argument that 'statistics cause or drive weather.' They are measures. Nothing more.

i must ask why did you post something  that indeed does blame climate change(statistics) for the fires in california?

On 8/23/2020 at 5:38 PM, donsutherland1 said:

There's a growing body of literature linking climate change to a slowing of the jet stream. The end result is "stuck patterns." Alaska's record warm summer last year, Siberia's record warmth earlier this year, and Phoenix's record-setting summer this year are some recent examples resulting from a greater persistence in prevailing patterns.

there it is, in another thread i pointed out the climate has no power and causes no weather event and some here DENIED that reality saying of course the past doesnt control the future, BUT that is exactly the claimed quoted here, that "climate change" is causing things and that simply is NOT possible and denies simple basic science......the OPPOSITE is reality any slowing of the jet stream would be the a cause of changes in the climate.....NOT caused by the climate....correction it was THIS thread where i pointed out the simple FACT of what the climate is and can do.

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

even if what you say is true, urban heat island aint a good thing- too much concrete...and higher overnight mins during the summer in urban areas leads to various health problems.  It's why you need to switch to green

what %age of the earth do you think is covered in concrete?  and indeed the urban heat island effect is VERY local not global in any way.

that is the reality of the urban heat island effect....they are taking a reading from the warmest locations around our cities and calling it the temperature for a very wide area........claiming the very localized warming is much larger and a general area wide warming when it clearly is not......in any persons yard the north side is cooler than the south side, temperature variances in very small areas.

simple common sense = an area that was mostly trees and grass would be cooler then than it is now with it is mostly concrete and blacktop, and both the cool and warmth are LOCAL not global in nature.

the climate is a set of statistics, the average weather stats from the previous 30 years for a given area, the climate has no power and has never caused even one weather event.......i deal in reality and science.

IF global warming is causing a loss of the ice and going to be catastrophic, why are so many here openly HOPING it is happening?

there goes that sneaky warmth in the oceans HIDING

why was that period cherry picked to use as the baseline?    because it was a cooler period?

it appears the many claims of not snow possible in north carolina have proven true now?

has any model ever in any time frame been wrong by predicting too warm????   i ask because it seems here the word is the models are NEVER ever wrong that way....like yesterday here imby they had forecast high in mid 50s and low 40 and the temp hit 50 for about 5 minutes and the low was only 29......

some people live their lives trying to stay aware of the weather but NOT letting something they have zero control over(weather) dictate their mental approach to life daily......my outlook on life remains the same no matter what the weather happens to do or not do.

emporia kansas is the place you oughta be tonight

been around several years and i still cant understand why each model run is accepted as the gospel? they have almost no consistency and each run while being accepted as gospel proves to be wrong.......

nice little snow in washington dc right now

i saw a comment in the other thread "thanks boomers" do people seriously blame baby boomers for the WEATHER?

pretty sure it is very cold in alaska right now saw a claim of 60below at one location