Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

Earlier today I started this thread: A Question For The Climate Skeptics

Which proposed a basic question: does global warming, regardless of source, lead to rising sea levels? Despite a bit of off-topic drift that seems to come naturally with every climate discussion, the general consensus seems to be yes – more heat in the system would produce more open water. Duh, it’s simple physics.

That leads us here. Mods I apologize for the two threads, but the real meat is below, so I’d like to actually represent the "OP" in this post rather than being buried away in the other. If you need to delete one of these then please delete the first one as it was just a preamble to the following info.


To pick up where we left off then:

If it’s perfectly obvious and acceptable logic that warming temperatures lead to rising sea levels, because of the basic cause and effect physics involved – then why do so many skeptics reject those same physics when they dictate that more greenhouse gases will lead to warming temperatures?

On every single climate thread you hear this endless protest about how climate changes all the time, so therefore we have no evidence linking current warming to greenhouse gases. But the fact is no one ever claimed the climate hasn’t changed before – it’s a pointless strawman argument. The core issue is that we currently have TONS of evidence linking man made emissions to current warming.

The greenhouse effect is proven science most of us learn about in 3rd grade. Greenhouse gases like CO2 were first demonstrated to trap heat in 1859. Today it’s such a trivial experiment that anyone can confirm for themselves right at home if they want to:




Even the Mythbusters did it:



And before anyone chimes in that CO2 is an “insignificant” trace gas – so is water vapor! On average H2O makes up only about 0.25% of the full atmosphere by mass. Over 99% is made up of non-greenhouse gases that are virtually invisible to this heat trapping effect, yet without it the planet would be unlivable. It’s actually quite ironic to hear some skeptics constantly remind everyone that CO2 is plant food essential to all life on Earth, while declaring it an insignificant trace gas in the same sentence.

Furthermore the trace gas argument is moot because we already have satellite data directly showing less and less heat escaping over time at the exact spectrum increasing CO2 is known to be trapping infrared radiation at:



Similarly there’s also corroborating data from the surface of the Earth showing more and more heat building at that same bandwidth:



These are real world observations, NOT computer models. CO2 has literally been witnessed, in high resolution now, doing exactly what the basic physics predicted it would, as we release more and more of the stuff into our atmosphere:



Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

So this is where the “theory” of man made climate change comes from, not (after) the fact that our climate is observed to be changing. The so-called scam here was hatched before we even had enough data to confirm the planet was actually warming. First predictions that more CO2 would cause this warming were made in 1895.

Everything since that time has been working confirmation of a theory that already existed before Al Gore was even born. It follows exactly how the scientific method is supposed to work.



On the flip side, we have virtually zero hard evidence to explain modern warming as a natural phenomenon. The Sun, if anything, is currently cooling:



Cosmic rays do not correlate either:



All natural factors combined simply don’t add up:




In fact, the only real “evidence” we have for this supposed natural phenomenon right now is some lazy anecdotal observation that “well, climate changes all the time”, repeated ad nauseum by most skeptics. It essentially rests on a strawman argument to begin with, and ignores all 150 years of hard scientific evidence and methodology above.

It does nothing to change the bigger picture. Just as rising seas naturally follow rising temperatures, so do rising temperatures follow proven heat trapping molecules. It’s like putting on a blanket but then claiming you have no way of knowing what’s making you warmer, because it could be a fever since people get those naturally all the time. But what about the %$#& blanket??

This is why it’s so frustrating trying to discuss this topic rationally when some just do everything in their imagination to avoid the blanket or pretend it's “unproven”.

So I think it’s interesting that some people will completely accept basic scientific principles up to a point, but then slam on the brakes when those very same principles carry ideological consequences they just don’t want to accept.

That’s not science, and it’s a pretty sorry excuse for skepticism.

a reply to: mc_squared

So before we had global warming and climate change ,every thing was a garden of Eden but then came the ice age . What caused the ice age .... Tropic to the North and Tropic to the south and so the globe was warmer and then the 5 miles of ice on top of North America . Where is the data and what explains our past . as far as climate change ...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

There's plenty of data out there, much of it centered around orbital changes and natural releases and sequestration of greenhouse gases.

Are you suggesting that because man made emissions explain modern warming, nothing else can explain past climate change?

What is with this mental block that prevents skeptics from separating these things?


Forest fires happen naturally all the time - does that mean tossing a lit cigarette into a dry bush is a good idea? If lit cigarettes can cause forest fires, does that mean they can't happen naturally??

a reply to: the2ofusr1

So before we had global warming and climate change ,every thing was a garden of Eden but then came the ice age . What caused the ice age

We are in an ice age so I guess you would be talking about glaciation.

Where is the data and what explains our past

ossfoundation.us...

a reply to: mc_squared

I think if you look into the scientific journals you will find that clear cutting of forests was justified because we have controlled natural occurring forest fires .Or at least had what is considered a positive effect on them .The CO2 man made green house gas is a very weak link to showing that man has a large effect on climate . More CO2 makes for more warming but ,warming is really not a bad thing in the Northern parts where I live . Heck ,I would love to be able to grow Bananas and Oranges . But I will have to wait and see what Nature hands me .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Heck ,I would love to be able to grow Bananas and Oranges .

Will you love it when people who live south of you have to move to your neck of the woods? There are a lot of them.
You know those guys trying to cross the Med now? That's a drop in the bucket.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Great - good point.

Millions of people dead or displaced due to rising seas, extreme weather, agriculture changes, etc. God knows how many species extinct - but YOU get to grow bananas & oranges now, wheeeeee!

a reply to: Phage

We are in an ice age

Oh really ...so where is all the ice ....Last I looked at a ice age we were under 5 miles of the stuff .And it has been receding ever sense then except for a few rebounds but never to the extent it was .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Oh really ...so where is all the ice ....Last I looked at a ice age we were under 5 miles of the stuff .

"All the ice" is pretty much in polar regions. What you're talking about is a glacial period. We are now in an interglacial period.

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).

geology.utah.gov...

And it has been receding ever sense

No. Not really. Not since about 10,000 years ago.

Let's say that man has caused the planet to heat faster than it would have naturally by about a century.
Would we not still have to deal with the changes just a little later than what we are facing now?
We know that New York City was covered by a glacier not all that long ago in a planetary scheme of things.
So we will have to deal with that in 9k years instead of 10k. We will just need to adapt or die.

a reply to: Phage

Heck looking back of the history I can`t say I am impressed with the people that fled Europe to get to a better land only to set up shop to produce all these toxins and weapons of war but climate I can live with . There are plenty from the south that make the treck north to get away from the heat now and have done so in the past . It`s like a tourism in a sense , wait awhile and they will head south when it gets cold again . and it always does . every winter ....

a reply to: the2ofusr1
Demanding complete solutions or asking impossible questions can be considered a disinformation tactic... Not saying that is what you are trying to do here. However it needs to be noted that everyone of these climate discussions this seems to happen.

As someone who respects science and learning I find it extremely frustrating that almost every climate discussion gets bombarded with posters who will seemingly stop at nothing to smear good science and offering snake oil solutions with no merit as if some how the scientist got it wrong and their closed minded and ignorant view is correct.

The fallback argument that probably irks me the most is the claim that we are not significant enough to change the climate and we are arrogant for thinking we are that mighty.

I have been called out for using ridicule against climate deniers, and ridicule is a tool of manipulation so therefore I must be pushing some agenda or belong to the church/cult of AGW. I feel that given the account of information we have concerning human induced climate change, those who insist on denying deserve the ridicule. We can not expect to progress as a society when ignorance is encouraged and embraced. To deny that humans are causing changes to the climate is embracing ignorance and there are very real shills out there who get paid to spread ignorance regarding our role in climate change.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Let's say that man has caused the planet to heat faster than it would have naturally by about a century.

What makes you think the planet would be heating naturally, that rapidly?

Would we not still have to deal with the changes just a little later than what we are facing now?

Don't you think that more time to deal with major changes in a large civilization would be helpful in doing so successfully? Don't you think that more time to produce solutions might be able to reduce the misery caused by the changes?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

There are plenty from the south that make the treck north to get away from the heat now and have done so in the past .

You're talking about snow birds? I'm talking about entire populations, not a few wealthy people.

a reply to: Phage

So you are changing from , we are in a ice age to a glacial age . No problem because glaciers add much needed fresh water to our rivers add streams ... it may just come down to a glass half full or half empty outlook . I am not worried in the least either way though . I think wars are really the great killers of humans .

a reply to: Phage

More people running from wars then climate at this point in our history ...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

So you are changing from , we are in a ice age to a glacial age .

No, I've not changed anything. We are in an ice age and have been for millions of years. We are in an interglacial period within that ice age.

No problem because glaciers add much needed fresh water to our rivers add streams

Yup. Sure helping California, ain't it?

I think wars are really the great killers of humans .

Your point?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluntone22

Let's say that man has caused the planet to heat faster than it would have naturally by about a century.

What makes you think the planet would be heating naturally, that rapidly?

Would we not still have to deal with the changes just a little later than what we are facing now?

Don't you think that more time to deal with major changes in a large civilization would be helpful in doing so successfully? Don't you think that more time to produce solutions might be able to reduce the misery caused by the changes?

The planet has heated and cooled in the past without mans help and it will do so again. Maybe man made it happen faster.
And if we can't deal with it in 100 years maybe we don't deserve to still be here.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The planet has heated and cooled in the past without mans help and it will do so again.

This rapidly? It has? When there were this many people on it?

And if we can't deal with it in 100 years maybe we don't deserve to still be here.

We don't "deserve" anything.

a reply to: jrod

As someone who respects science and learning I find it extremely frustrating that almost every climate discussion gets bombarded with posters who will seemingly stop at nothing to smear good science and offering snake oil solutions with no merit as if some how the scientist got it wrong and their closed minded and ignorant view is correct.

So you have not noticed in the history of science that they have got it wrong before . Back in the 60`s we were heading into a ice age and now we are heading into a warming age . I didn't freak then and I am not going to freak now .

Doom porn is for the gullible and those that are paid to put out the scientific documents for the politicians to put the burden on the joe public .