why is the earth as warm as it is in the first place? It is not because of the atmosphere, it is becasue of radioactive decay.

A glowing example of misdirection there.

More accurately: About 50% of Earths 'heat' 'given off' (err 'radiated') is believed to be by radioactive decay - although the figures are rough as it is unclear how much of that heat is radioactive decay and how much residual heat from the Earths creation for example caused by rotational friction of the Earths magnetic core - which also protects us from solar and cosmic radiation.

In any case, Dont forget that although if it wasn't there the Earth would have always been far far colder, radioactive decay is relatively constant so would NOT account for large swings.

so lets bring this down to a simple practical example.

Co2 is a greenhouse gas, called such because it makes the Earths atmosphere act more like a greenhouse. Cow farts are even more effective as greenhouse gas.

I just went out in my garden, right now.

The air temperature in my garden is about 13 degrees

In my greenhouse, in the sunshine, its 27.8 degrees.

Not a perfect example, but good enough.

Ericsbrother,

Asking for evidence and links from you and king is not to be awkward,

its in the hope that you will at least do some sanity checking before you spout complete carp - which requires me to correct you if the subject matter matters to me.

Of course, you could actually already know its carp and simply hope that no-one will take the time to correct it - but I hope not.

Even if Stephen Hawkins came back from afterlife and gave you evidence, you wouldn't change your mind or even consider that you've been conned#

So why should we, mere mortals try this mission impossible.

Just a waste of time.

A few posts ago I said you're right, isn't that good enough?

Even if Stephen Hawkins came back from afterlife and gave you evidence,

How would you know - given your poor excuses for NOT giving any evidence?

The simple VISIBLE evidence of just these few pages is : I link valid evidence - you don't.

Talk about kettle and teapot.

Oh, and here you go

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-40473841/stephen-hawking-at-75-trump-and-climate-change

http://kenburridge.com/stephen-hawking-quotes-on-climate-change-and-global-warming/

"“The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. ”

Thanks for the support Steve ..

Try using breitbart or Trump or at least some oil lobbyist as an evidential reference king

All others are almost certain to fail you, even the Mail.

... or do YOU accept Stephen Hawkins testimony on this subject - as I do?

I said you're right.

We're doomed and it's all our fault, not just nature.

So as punitive measures let's pay more tax so politicians can pay scientists to make up some more claims, so we can pay even more tax.

In the mean time whatever we have done and will do hasn't stopped nature.

But as I said, you're right.

I said you're right.

But as I said, you're right.

Yep Me and Steve and 97% of all climate scientists

We're doomed and it's all our fault, not just nature.

So as punitive measures let's pay more tax so politicians can pay scientists to make up some more claims, so we can pay even more tax.

Nope

What we are doing, we CAN stop and even undo - but it will take changes.

It may well take more taxes, but not necessarily. But its a small price to give our Children and grandchildren a planet they can live on

What we need to do is CHANGE the politicians and pay more scientists and engineers to come up with answers and solutions AND IMPLEMENT THE ONES WE ALREADY HAVE WHILE WE ARE WAITING

and VERY importantly NOT just stop listening to those that say differently - but call them out on their lies.

there are no large swings in atmospheric temp, also your greenhouse isnt full of CO2, jsut that the glass changes the wavelength of some of the radiation passing through it so it stays inside to heta the air contained theirin. Your argument is aboutman made global warming, not the physics of how the atmpsphere retains heat and this is the nub of the problem, Kingy and I asre saying that this is part fo a natural cycle that has been seen repeatedly over the geological eras and man's pollution has no real effect in the scheme of things.

A volcano in the Phillipines can chuck out more CO2 in an eruption than mans entire output but the world didnt chnage because of it as the link between atomspheric CO2 levels and temperature is tenuous. Climate change is based on modelling, not strict observation. what is observed fits the model because the model is designed that way.

I can give you yesterdays weather forecast with stunning accuracy and claim my predictions for that fit with my model for tomorrow because it is known there wont be a sudden arctic blast to upset that prediction. Liewise I can say that next year there will be floods somewhere and that will be down to climate change when the reality si the flooding wil be the result of man's use of the land rather than anything especially different about the actual rainfall. A good example of thay is the flooding at Uckfield soem 30 years ago. All caused by the building of the A22 bypass and culverting the rivers and sod all to do with changes in rainfall patterns or climate generally but it was used as an example becuas ethy had floods when there wrent any beofr so this extrapolation of cause and effect wa fixed into may people's heads.

Where I get annoyed is where you decide is the start point for the predictions of doom due to man's interference and thus when thsi recent warm period was decided to begin. This is something that those who want us to live in a cave have moved arouund constantly so tell us when you think it started? was it 1998 or maybe you accept 1900. What about 1700. In short what is normal? I also repeat that the data for the past has been altered to fit in with the current mantra where the dendrochrhonology tells a different tale. The famous "hockey stick" or j-curve prediction was based on evidnece form 1 tree and some dodgy maths that could only produce one result whatever the input dats was where all the other actual tree data showed a very different story. 1 tree= microclimate to me.

the UEA got slated for telling porkies regarding their data and now all of the big hitters in the climate change circus refuse to publish their raw data for peer review ( not that anyone wants to read it, all the money and accolades goes in one direction so pointless even bothering to argue against it sometimes).

Quoting Stephen Hawking actually creates a problem as does the 97% of all scientists agree type quote. One thing I was told a long time ago is that there is no consensus in science, there are laws, theories and observations but when you use words that apply to politicians it ismt science any more. Prof Hawking was a great scientist but i wouldnt have asked him to operate on me, not his specialisation. that doesnt mean he hadnt read up on the subject, just that he can only really consider other peoples work. It is the critical review of the 3% that dont agree with the so called consensus that is vital.

The BBC is a religion in this country, as is the NHS and the EU is treated likewise. all have good things going for them like more traditional religions but you dotn have to follow a god to think that murder is wrong but I dotn want to live my life under a regime that doesnt accept a different opinion to the majority, it might as well be the inquisition rather than scientific discourse. The climate change lobby is a global religion with belief and doctrine pushed upon others.

Abdus Salam's daughter failed her A level physics because she used her father's work in her answers. He won the Nobel prize for that but schools examimers werent ready for a differing opinion to their set answers at that time. The big bang theory wasnt generally accepted when I did physics at school and global warming was a new theory we studied at uni as part of my degree in geology. Even had Al Gore as a guest lecturer. Interesting and convincing if you look at his short term perspective. he was of course a tobacco farmer turned politician who then went on to make $200 million form renewable energy contracts and carbon crdedit trading. It helps if you invent soemthing that is intangible like bitcoin or carbon credits. again we return to the quasi religious aspects of it all that I just cannot buy into as the evidence isnt robust enough.

there are no large swings in atmospheric temp, also your greenhouse isnt full of CO2, jsut that the glass changes the wavelength of some of the radiation passing through it so it stays inside to heta the air contained theirin.

For God's sake at least look up how a greenhouse works before you babble nonesense

The glass does not change the wavelength.

Heres the basics - study hard for a week and then we'll move on to reflection and absorption and infra-red radiation provided you successfully answer a few basic questions ..

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

A sneak peek at next weeks lesson

https://sciencing.com/a-greenhouse-work-4564037.html

For someone with a degree in geology this should be ... I cant even think of a term.

Its basic for someone with cse's

Well many ideas are out there.We have to change things many say.Drastically and quicky for the believers.

For the unbelievers in Climate Change I do not know.

And i have found the posts made so far very interesting.

I was going to put this on the Basic Income thread but found it interesting enough and relevant

This Idea Can Literally Change the World: Partial Basic Income through Universal Carbon Dividends

 

At its most simple, the idea is to make it cost more for everyone to use the atmosphere as a toilet. In its most ideal form, the idea is to add a new and annually increasing fee per ton of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions, and to simply rebate that revenue back to everyone in the form of monthly dividends for all.

Even better, we’d also surpass our goal of reducing our emissions by 28% below 2005 levels by 2026, by reducing them instead by a whopping 50%!

A Bipartisan Free Market Solution to Climate Change Through Atmospheric Justice

https://medium.com/basic-income/this-idea-can-literally-change-our-world-107cbc94057a

Well many ideas are out there.We have to change things many say.Drastically and quicky for the believers.

For the unbelievers in Climate Change I do not know.

And i have found the posts made so far very interesting.

 

I was going to put this on the Basic Income thread but found it interesting enough and relevant

 

https://medium.com/basic-income/this-idea-can-literally-change-our-world-107cbc94057a

They won't do it because then people would be owed money for being green.

Too risky.

Anyhow, we already pay this tax via gas and electricity bill, road tax, council tax, etc.

They'll only use it to charge yet another tax.

And the climate will keep changing relentlessly.

They won't do it because then people would be owed money for being green.

Too risky.

Anyhow, we already pay this tax via gas and electricity bill, road tax, council tax, etc.

They'll only use it to charge yet another tax.

And human abuse will keep damaging the climate relentlessly.

.. Corrected that last line for you king

tobyjugg2, do you really believe that if humans disappeared from earth today, climate would stop changing?

tobyjugg2, do you really believe that if humans disappeared from earth today, climate would stop changing?

Absolutely not, it would start to return to as nature intended.

Trees and plants would quickly start to reclaim areas, locking carbon out of the atmosphere, fish stocks would start to recover - increasingly as the seas slowly eradicated the pollution or adapted to it

In as little as a few hundred years, the Earth would probably be back in an Ice age.

Whereas with humans continuing as they are

Within a hundred years there will be no ice, deserts spreading, the Seas looking like the local yob estates pond

... if we are lucky

quite possibly the earth would already be well on the path to being another Venus.

The answer is somewhere inbetween

- hopefully mostly the first part but without the ice age.

I think you are confusing the climate change argument (which I disagree with) with the wider pollution matter.

I totally agree that we should be worried about dumping plastic and other non recyclable material everywhere and have been saying that for decades, but climate change is something else.

Plastic in the ocean kills marine life and this worries me because it's a fact.

Air pollution don't cause climate change, unless unmistakable evidence is provided.

An erupting volcano emits a lot more pollution than we can think of and that is a natural event.

Can we stop nature?

Air pollution don't cause climate change, unless unmistakable evidence is provided.

Already supplied the unmistakable evidence as 97% of climate scientist agree

You can ignore it all you wish of course - doesn't make it any less true.

Now you supply some evidence to the contrary

Climate has been changing for billions of years and all scientists agree 100%.

Fact.

Nothing new.

It would be helpful if you posted a link, King, rather than stating facts without backing them up.

Climate has been changing for billions of years and all scientists agree 100%.

Fact.

Nothing new.

Actually evangelical Christian 'scientists' dispute that, just like Human driven climate change deniers dispute human driven climate change

So you have nothing to support your opinion?

Just trolling to try to blot out valid evidence then?

If some other genuine, quality evidence from a reputable source gives you the slightest doubt in the face of pretty much ALL major and minor legitimate bodies of scientific knowledge and opinion, please link it with your understanding of it for discussion.

So, its kings entirely unsupported opinion

VS

The three-minute story of 800,000 years of climate change with a sting in the tail

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-three-...mate-tail.html

https://environmentcounts.org/ec-per...limate-change/

https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/02/11/...we-should-care

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-...-next-15-years

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ire-171693652/

* Steven Hawkins + 97% of all Climate Scientists (Heating mechanisms are at least as much physics as geology)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/scienc...climate-change

http://kenburridge.com/stephen-hawki...lobal-warming/

"“The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. ”

* NASA + The National Centers for Environmental Information + The Climatic Research Unit

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

What causes climate change?

1. Burning fossil fuels

2. Farming

3. Deforestation

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page3.php

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

* The United Nations (https://unfccc.int/resource/annualreport/ http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues...limate-change/)

* Nature Magazine

* National Geographic (as linked despite the Murdock links)

* theccc (https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-c...limate-change/)

* Gov.uk (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained)

* The metoffice.gov.uk (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news)

* The Smithsonian Institute (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ire-171693652/)

* UK's Geography GCSE (If NASA kids doesn't suit) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/climate_change/greenhouse_effect_rev1.shtml)

Just a brief summary of the world class institutions who dispute kings opinion.

Perhaps you should start with the NASA kids link before moving up to a UK GCSE curriculum king? or are you just trolling?

2 words: ice age.

Been happening on a cycle well before we started walking the earth.

But unless you get a link you won't believe it, would you?

Climate never changed until we started burning fossil fuel.

Starting from this statement nothing else can be said.

So once again I say: you're right.

Nothing will change your mind.

BTW, you must have some serious issues if you claim that I'm trolling when in fact you keep on trying to offend me on more than one thread.

Unfortunately for you, I treat the internet as it should be treated: a collection of rubbish piled up together by half human half keyboard beings without a real life and human contact.

This amuses me, hence my presence in certain discussions.

How can anybody be offended by someone on the internet is a mystery that one day I will try to solve.

In the mean time I keep myself amused.

And I bet my right arm nobody bothered to click on any of the links you posted.

Well, considering that you're trying to convince people that climate never changed before we arrived...

Just out of curiosity I googled "climate never changed before humans"

Not one result supports this statement.

Not even the nutters over the pond religiously brainwashed.

Can we just stick to facts and links to mainstream publications please and drop the personal stuff because you don't agree over this?

HB

It would be helpful if you posted a link, King, rather than stating facts without backing them up.

Seriously HB, you're asking to post a link confirming that climate has been changing for billions of years?

What's next?

Please post a link confirming there's water in the ocean???

Well, someone must have researched it or you wouldn't know that climate has been changing for billions of years.