You’ll be so pleased to learn, when you watch it, that Professor Happer’s video deals effectively with the doom goblin, Greta.
The guy is a retired physics professor conning climate deniers out of money not a climate scientist. I actually watched the video. I didn’t find his case plausible. I would no more listen to him about climate change than I would consulate a proctologist about a root canal.
1 Like
Evidence please.
Sure you did.
OK. Why?
You don’t have to listen, but you said you did. You were never going to pay attention. Perhaps you missed some bits which explained his expertise on the very physics that causes climate change, the transfer of heat and propagation of radiation through the atmosphere.
Enjoy your “consulate” with your proctologist.
Troll.
1 Like
But I myself am a true Anchor man. Anchor Brewing | Beer | Anchor Steam® Beer
Though I did not realize Heinken came in a can until I saw it on a Shell tanker in L.A. Harbor in mid 70s
I’d be fine believing in climate change, just like I would be fine reading an article from CNN or MSNBC. They’re news, but the ulterior motive is so overbearing and controlling it turns me off. I’ve never heard someone provide further concern or identify personal actions about the environment in the same breath as climate change, other than promoting “fear porn.” In fact, I would lose count of how many people live in my liberal city, hang up blue political signs, and drive Lexus GXs or Denalis.
If you listen to the MeatEater or Cals Week in Review podcasts, the “fear porn” is endemic to environmental concerns. When conservation targets are met, all of a sudden no one wants to recognize that target has been met so it remains illegal to shoot wolves or take a goliath grouper even though such hunting could be controlled and very lucrative for conservation funding.
How many other environmental causes can you personally address before climate change? Like using a refillable water bottle, avoiding paper towels, or specifically buying household products in cardboard or non single use packaging.
1 Like
That’s sad. You’ve surrendered after being asked for evidence and reasons. Predictable.
Here are evidence and reasons from NASA on the subject. (NASA, as in America’s brightest minds using the most powerful computers ever devised to crunch data from the most advanced instruments ever created):
The amount of heat Earth traps has roughly doubled since 2005, contributing to more rapidly warming oceans, air and land, according to new research from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“The magnitude of the increase is unprecedented,” said Norman Loeb, a NASA scientist and lead author of the study, which was published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “The Earth is warming faster than expected.”
Using satellite data, researchers measured what is known as Earth’s energy imbalance — the difference between how much energy the planet absorbs from the sun, and how much it’s able to shed, or radiate back out into space.
…That imbalance roughly doubled between 2005 and 2019, the study found. “It is a massive amount of energy,” said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer for NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and co-author of the study. Johnson said the energy increase is equivalent to four detonations per second of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, or every person on Earth using 20 electric tea kettles at once. “It’s such a hard number to get your mind around.”
2 Likes
Perhaps your English comprehension is as weak as ombugge’s. Don’t give me irrelevant evidence. What’s the evidence for “conning climate deniers out of money”? Start by telling us how much. What’s the evidence he’s “not a climate scientist”? Start by explaining how his field of study is irrelevant to heat and radiation transfer through the atmosphere ie the basis of all climate.
Now, pay attention dear pupil. This is the question you should have and now must answer when providing reasons. Start by eviscerating his speech item by item, not throwing red herrings around and pointing … over there … unicorns.
As for the super scary “four detonations per second” (read, “we’ll all fry”), please tell us how many detonations per second are the normal, average amount of heat arriving on earth. To the nearest thousand should do it.
The issue is whether the earth’s atmosphere is getting hotter or not. Everything else is distraction. I’m not wasting time arguing over whether your expert is right or wrong. I’m offering evidence that Earth’s atmosphere is getting hotter at an unprecedented rate, as collected by the finest scientists and engineers on the planet.
Rather than debating the evidence and reasons, you resort to the classic troll tactic of evasion. You take a single word “Hiroshima”, used in an analogy, and go off on a tangent, to evade talking about science.
Since you’ve lost focus, I’ll remind you the subtext of the thread is this: is Earth’s atmosphere getting hotter? NASA says it is. By leaps and bounds. Now try explaining why NASA is wrong, by countering their evidence and reasoning.
2 Likes
You are not concentrating in class. It is YOU that need to come with evidence.
“Yes there is no global warming”
“If there is, it is not caused by manmade activity”
“In any case, it is not harmful to the planet, or to anybody on it”
Evidence please. (Don’t come with that same evidently biased video again. It has been debunked several times already)
Yes I know it is difficult to prove a negative, but give it your best.
PS> You are right about one thing though; you don’t care what happen to people that live in the Arctic, who already feel the effect of global warming on their livelihood.
Mmmmmm. Seems to me that’s your forte.
Answer the questions I asked about accusations you yourself made.
Really? By whom? Show me.
The other point is. Why be against cleaner forms of energy? If the air one breathes is cleaner what is the objection? Even if clean air cost a bit more but you live longer and not as many young folks die of disease, what’s the problem? Unless of course one has a financial interest in burning dirty fuel . No one seems to be arguing about polluted water science. The need for clean water and air are no brainers to even the most marginally educated…
The subtext of the thread, is, Is Earth’s atmosphere getting hotter? Since your questions have nothing to do with this, I ignore them. Your questions are quibblings over conspiracy theories and personalities, spurred on by your feelings and emotions.
Focus.
Here is more data from the greatest engineers and scientists on the planet.
The Earth takes in about 240 watts per square meter of energy from the sun. At the beginning of the study period, in 2005, it was radiating back out about 239.5 of those watts — creating a positive imbalance of about half a watt. By the end, in 2019, that gap had nearly doubled to about 1 full watt per square meter.
Oceans absorb most of that heat, about 90 percent. When researchers compared satellite data to temperature readings from a system of ocean sensors, they found a similar pattern. The agreement between the data sets surpassed expectations, Loeb said, calling it the “nail in the coffin” for the imbalance results.
“The fact that they used two different observational approaches and came up with the same trends is pretty remarkable,” said Elizabeth Maroon, a climatologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison unaffiliated with the study. “It lends a lot of confidence to the findings.”
1 Like
Professor Will Happer is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists on the planet. But somehow you think he’s wrong. You actually have to say why but nobody here can do that.
Anyway, this war by website is getting tedious. I’ll step out and let everyone else decide the temperature of the planet … and see f the planet complies.
1 Like
You brought your expert. I brought mine (NASA).
You like your expert because he explains things well. So does Billy Nye the Science Guy, who believes in anthropogenic climate change. Who cares? It isn’t a theater review.
I listen to the big guns: NASA. When your engineers and scientists fly helicopters on Mars maybe I’ll listen to them.
I did. I quoted the data arrived at by NASA, backed up by independent studies conducted by independent scientists. At which point you say…
…which is the same thing as taking your ball and going home. Which is fine. But don’t think anyone here is impressed by your debating skill or intellectual honesty.
Here’s what they’re pushing.
NASA “pushes" SUV-sized rovers on Mars using rockets, jet packs, and sky cranes. Then, they launch helicopters from the rover and fly them remotely–on Mars. Then, on a planet with 1/100th of the atmospheric pressure of Earth, an atmosphere which is nearly entirely CO2, they manufacture oxygen. Just for fun. And because NASA astronauts will find it handy for air and rocket fuel, when they arrive not so many years from now.
They do it all use science and engineering. And you’re doubting their expertise because…? 