[Bored chemist]

despite all the historical evidence and actual physics.

Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.
This is a nice illustration of the rate of change of temperature compared to historical data.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

You are part of the problem.

[paul cotter]

New theories? How about "that can't be true". We don't seem to have an " absolute nonsense" subforum.

[The Spoon]

despite all the historical evidence and actual physics.

Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.
This is a nice illustration of the rate of change of temperature compared to historical data.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

You are part of the problem.

And he wonders why he is referred to as a denialist..

[alancalverd]

Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.

Good physics tells us by how much. Since the absorbance in the critical 15 micron band is already at least 90% (according to NASA, and I'm in no mood to argue with them), you can calculate how depressingly little effect adding or subtracting a bit more will have on the remainder..

Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.

except for at least three times in the last 500,000 years.

Whether you consider rate of change or total content of CO2 to be relevant, I think it would be more useful at this stage to concentrate on mitigation of the effect of climate change (which can be achieved) rather than prevention of its cause (which probably can't).

No denial, just an appeal to science and humanity to do something more positive than hoping that physics is wrong.

[championoftruth (OP)]

Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.

Good physics tells us by how much. Since the absorbance in the critical 15 micron band is already at least 90% (according to NASA, and I'm in no mood to argue with them), you can calculate how depressingly little effect adding or subtracting a bit more will have on the remainder..

Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.

except for at least three times in the last 500,000 years.

Whether you consider rate of change or total content of CO2 to be relevant, I think it would be more useful at this stage to concentrate on mitigation of the effect of climate change (which can be achieved) rather than prevention of its cause (which probably can't).

No denial, just an appeal to science and humanity to do something more positive than hoping that physics is wrong.

Using NASA every time as the repository of truth and authority figure is wrong.

i never said physics is wrong. I said something else

[championoftruth (OP)]

despite all the historical evidence and actual physics.

Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.
This is a nice illustration of the rate of change of temperature compared to historical data.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

You are part of the problem.

That is the worst graph i have seen drawn by a primary school kid!

How can anyone trust that?

[championoftruth (OP)]

Here it is. i had to split the 169 page to just a few as 19meg pdf

You're aware that someone giving grants to organizations is not the same thing as forcing those organizations to secretly falsify information in accordance with some sinister plan, right? I want evidence for the latter, not the former.

Okay, so I'm looking at the timeline here and things are not adding up for this conspiracy theory. It seems that evidence for climate change was starting to be observed as far back as the 1950's. In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. So the evidence must have been pretty good for climate change even so long ago.

Now I take a look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and it was started in 2000. Same thing for the Global Alliance of Vaccines and Immunization. The first conference of the World Education Forum was also held in that same year. So donations from those organizations could not have plausibly been responsible for faking the evidence for climate change that led to the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In physics and in general no such thing as a free lunch. the money was given to promote the beliefs and views of the givers.

i note everyone has ignored the leaked climategate 5000 emails from the CC dept at East Anglia University. Because that would ruin the whole theory.

I note as soon as i attached proof the thread was moved very quickly to a different forum. proving my point.

[alancalverd]

A word of advice: don't attack those whose arguments might just support your own conclusions. Including NASA - or are you into moon landing conspiracies too?   

The xkcd graph is correct as far as it goes, but like all statements of the faith, it ignores the previous 500,000 years' data.

[Kryptid]

the money was given to promote the beliefs and views of the givers.

Evidence? I've donated before, and it wasn't to promote my beliefs.

i note everyone has ignored the leaked climategate 5000 emails from the CC dept at East Anglia University. Because that would ruin the whole theory.

I can't ignore something that I haven't seen.

I note as soon as i attached proof the thread was moved very quickly to a different forum. proving my point.

Your document isn't proof of your conspiracy theory:

So what is your evidence that their terms and conditions are to falsify climate change data? If the data was already supporting climate change before the donations were given (which I already pointed out), then nothing would have to be falsified anyway.

[championoftruth (OP)]

the money was given to promote the beliefs and views of the givers.

Evidence? I've donated before, and it wasn't to promote my beliefs.

i note everyone has ignored the leaked climategate 5000 emails from the CC dept at East Anglia University. Because that would ruin the whole theory.

I can't ignore something that I haven't seen.

I note as soon as i attached proof the thread was moved very quickly to a different forum. proving my point.

Your document isn't proof of your conspiracy theory:

So what is your evidence that their terms and conditions are to falsify climate change data? If the data was already supporting climate change before the donations were given (which I already pointed out), then nothing would have to be falsified anyway.

You can google the cliumategate emails. They are shocking.

constantly dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory is a reflection on you. not that difficult for 2 evil people to do evil.

The place i live in had 7 to 12 days of 30 degrees this summer. in 1970 to 1980 the heat wave lasted 2 to 4 weeks.

I just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.

And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!! It was in the News too.

This discredits temperature measurements even more.

[championoftruth (OP)]

A word of advice: don't attack those whose arguments might just support your own conclusions. Including NASA - or are you into moon landing conspiracies too?   

The xkcd graph is correct as far as it goes, but like all statements of the faith, it ignores the previous 500,000 years' data.

Using Nasa as a authority crutch is absurd. This organization spent a billion on building a launch tower when SpaceX spend only 20 million !

Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !


They spend 80 billion on the Artemis SLS. I just discovered  its cobbled together from old space shuttle parts!
Where did the 80 billion go?

[Bored chemist]

That is the worst graph i have seen drawn by a primary school kid!

How can anyone trust that?

Given that it's a cartoon, drawn to  make a point as well as present the data, what's wrong with it?

[Bored chemist]

except for at least three times in the last 500,000 years.

Please cite evidence.
In particular, you need to refute this
". Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years (Fig. 2). The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years. "
From
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

[Bored chemist]

Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !

OK, how good is the water cooling system in Dubai?

Or do you accept that you really don't know what you are talking about?

[Kryptid]

You can google the cliumategate emails. They are shocking.

You are the claimant. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.

constantly dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory

Until you can supply the evidence that something sinister is going on, calling it a conspiracy theory is justified.

not that difficult for 2 evil people to do evil.

That doesn't mean that Bill Gates is making organizations falsify climate change data. You need to supply evidence for that. Him giving donations does not count as such evidence. What you need is evidence for sinister intent. Please supply us with such evidence.

The place i live in had 7 to 12 days of 30 degrees this summer. in 1970 to 1980 the heat wave lasted 2 to 4 weeks.

That's called cherry-picking: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

I just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.

Link?

And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!! It was in the News too.

Link?

Using Nasa as a authority crutch is absurd. This organization spent a billion on building a launch tower when SpaceX spend only 20 million !

Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !


They spend 80 billion on the Artemis SLS. I just discovered  its cobbled together from old space shuttle parts!
Where did the 80 billion go?

You're claiming they can't be trusted because they spend a lot of money? I'm afraid I don't understand how that follows.

[championoftruth (OP)]

You can google the cliumategate emails. They are shocking.

You are the claimant. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.

constantly dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory

Until you can supply the evidence that something sinister is going on, calling it a conspiracy theory is justified.

not that difficult for 2 evil people to do evil.

That doesn't mean that Bill Gates is making organizations falsify climate change data. You need to supply evidence for that. Him giving donations does not count as such evidence. What you need is evidence for sinister intent. Please supply us with such evidence.

The place i live in had 7 to 12 days of 30 degrees this summer. in 1970 to 1980 the heat wave lasted 2 to 4 weeks.

That's called cherry-picking: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

I just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.

Link?

And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!! It was in the News too.

Link?

Using Nasa as a authority crutch is absurd. This organization spent a billion on building a launch tower when SpaceX spend only 20 million !

Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !


They spend 80 billion on the Artemis SLS. I just discovered  its cobbled together from old space shuttle parts!
Where did the 80 billion go?

You're claiming they can't be trusted because they spend a lot of money? I'm afraid I don't understand how that follows.

Shiny objects and surfaces give higher temperatures...thus making the Earth warmer thus becoming a self fulfilling prophesy...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425719303852

[Kryptid]

Shiny objects and surfaces give higher temperatures...

I think you've got that backwards. Shiny objects reflect electromagnetic radiation. Dark surfaces absorb it and turn it into heat.

[evan_au]

I just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.

That is why the measurements from orbit are repeated hundreds of times per hour, in hundreds of locations around the world.
- Average that over an orbit (to remove latitude variations)
- Average that over a day (to remove daily variations)
- and over a year (to remove seasonal variations)
- this will then give you very small margin of error when measuring whole-planet changes in climate over a number of decades
- I do recognise that satellite data only goes back a few decades, with a new generation of more sophisticated satellites every decade

And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!!

Jupiter is a gas giant, far from the Sun.
- The cloud tops of Jupiter get very little heat from the Sun, and are cold enough to produce methane rain.
- It is believed that the core of Jupiter has a temperature higher than the surface of the Sun.
- If you look at different levels in the atmosphere, you will measure different temperatures.

JWST is able to measure the temperature of Jupiter at various infra-red wavelengths, allowing it to peer deeper into Jupiter's thick atmosphere than is possible with Hubble's visible and UV sensitivity.
- So the image of Jupiter from JWST shows it glowing like a night light.

But what has that to do with the temperature of the Earth? Earth is a rocky planet close to the Sun, with a shallow atmosphere.
- We have a good understanding of the way temperature varies with altitude (from weather balloons, aircraft and satellites).
- At cruising altitude, the temperature outside a passenger jet is typically -40C to -60C, even in the tropics, where the surface temperature is typically around +30C.

[JLindgaard]

 @evan_au
  The media has asked if the IPCC has changed data. Why this matters is how data has been collected. Around 1900/1910 Russian fisherman recorded abnormally warm readings in the Arctic. I know there is a war going on but this was before the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 (the rise of communist Russia).
 I have yet to see how satellite data shows a relationship to historical data collected using thermometers. This gets into O16 and O18 isotopes of oxygen.  Warmer temperatures will influence the ratio of O16 to O18. That science is fairly basic. Then with deposits in the ground of vegetation, how accurate is that historically when compared with modern measurements? Science is exacting and these are questions that science has to allow for.
 With deposits made over time, what different isotopes of oxygen and the moisture content the atmosphere allows for should be consistent. With the IPCC changing data, they might not have realized that the global warming pause of 1998 - 2013 was ozone recovery in the stratosphere. And yet the weather is getting wilder. Global warming didn't stop, it was just slowed.
 The thermohaline circulation takes about 800 years to circulate the globe. The length of a cool period such as a Little Ice Age lasts about as long (maybe 700 years). Go figure.

[JLindgaard]

 With historical data, it is derived from soil samples and what has grown in a given region. How accurately can the ratio
between O16 and O18 be translated? Why this matters is because wind patterns influence humidity and what can grow in any given region. Basically what allows for a local climatic zone?
 It's possible that how those 2 levels change will need to be considered along with a change in the local trade winds. And then the Earth's position relative to the Sun will add to that as well.