|
Senor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie] 1
#24091799 - 02/14/17 11:41 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
What percentage of the world's physicists thought in the year 1874 that Newton had described gravity as it actually is?
How many after Einstein?
You think that because we have used science to create these miraculous technologies, that that means that we understand the universe?
All we have is a bunch of educated guessmanship. And it's constantly wrong. The scientific process is based on everything being not solved, always.
That's why in true science, dissent is welcome. Debate is encouraged. Ideas are forged. You claim to have respect for science because scientists have an opinion?
That is not respect for science. Scientists ask "how can I prove them wrong?"
They look for the holes and the cracks and in them they make new discoveries. They don't say "Newton solved it. Let's go home."
I mean, come on here guys. You want to go through life not understanding your own beliefs? Why?
Sciientists don't do that. They question EVERYTHING. They sure as hell don't throw some extrapolation against the wall and call it THE END OF DAYS.
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 13 minutes, 49 seconds
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
#24091991 - 02/15/17 01:55 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Why do you keep going on about extrapolations? Actually, one of the hallmarks of scientific knowledge is that it can make predictions about future events. When it comes to climate, they are being proven correct.
The planet is warming as expected. The ice caps are getting smaller every year. Glaciers that existed 100 years ago are gone. Sea levels are rising faster and faster.
Scientist understand the fundamental drivers of climate. They know that some gases trap heat energy. We know that humans are almost entirely responsible for levels which have not occurred naturally in millions of years. We know this because we know how much carbon dioxide we emit and that corresponds with the levels we see in the atmosphere.
We are seeing the warming that these extreme levels would predict The evidence is completely and totally overwhelming.
You actually don't get to question everything in science. There are principles and theories that are essentially settled. You have to have compelling evidence to challenge these ideas. They aren't debatable in the general sense. They are basic scientific facts that everyone is expected to agree upon. Included among these settled facts is that energy output in relation to energy input to the earth system decreases as CO2 concentrations increases. This is a quantifiable property of carbon dioxide. Those observations can then make predictions about past climate, and those confirmed predictions can then be used to make predictions about the future.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (02/15/17 02:00 AM)
|
nothing exists
master of fire
Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods] 1
#24092193 - 02/15/17 07:02 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Scientist understand the fundamental drivers of climate
looks like the only thing koods has is conjecture, opinions and lies.
-------------------- i like you...
|
nothing exists
master of fire
Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
#24092201 - 02/15/17 07:06 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Senor_Doobie said: As far as I know...this is part of a process that started 800 years ago
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
You can't compare current CO2 levels to previous trends because at no point in the past couple million years have CO2 levels been this high. Look, it's not a debatable fact that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It is property of the gas that can be measured in a laboratory, and those values applied to the atmosphere. CO2 is transparent to visible light but is somewhat opaque to certain wavelengths of infrared. This means heat energy can get to the surface, but not irradiated back out again. More CO2 shifts the equilibrium towards retaining more heat energy.
As for the lag of CO2 to temperature. That only applies to the initiation of the end of the ice ages, which is kicked off by orbital changes.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
koods, the article you link disagrees with you about CO2 and goes on to speculate further, no conclusions can be drawn from opinion.
you really need to work on your reading comprehension
or become a better liar
-------------------- i like you...
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
SirShroomsAlott said: I'm good, as I already said, if you think this argument is still open for debate then there's already no convincing you. The vast majority of scientists world round already agree and even if you still want to believe humans aren't the cause
that's and absolute falsehood, in fact this ridiculousness is based on the 9 question Zimmerman/Doran survey in which they sent out an invitation to 10,257 'earth' scientists, out of those 10,257 invitations only 3146 responded they rejected many of those and whittled it down to only 79 respondents out of the 3146 answered surveys. the first question was: When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?, only 77 of the 79 responded with "risen", those 77 were then asked the second question which was worded as: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? only 75 of those 77 remaining respondents believed that global warming was caused by man. the remaining 7 questions had no bearing on their claims of 97% consensus
so in the reality of it, there is no 'vast majority' of scientists that believe global warming is caused by man, there is a shitload of cherry picking for these people to come to their conclusions, even before it was founded the people involved with the IPCC were aimed at claiming man was the cause of global warming because of man is the cause it allows them to push for legislation and to pad their pockets
Quote:
If you don't agree with the idea then you believe in a global conspiracy that almost all scientists are in on, and if you already don't believe the people actually providing the evidence then you're not going to believe anyone trying to show you evidence.
or you've bought into the conspiracy of a handful of people that cherrypick data, refuse to accept anything that doesnt support their conclusion and extort others into supporting their conclusions in order to receive research funding
why so many people here claim to be free thinkers but absolutely believe what they're told because the people making the claims are in a position of authority is astounding to me, it takes very little to research this information and yet so few ever do, they simply believe what the media pushes without reading the first paper on the subject or bothering to look at how 'consensus' was obtained
|
nothing exists
master of fire
Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
#24092439 - 02/15/17 09:29 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
why so many people here claim to be free thinkers but absolutely believe what they're told because the people making the claims are in a position of authority is astounding to me, it takes very little to research this information and yet so few ever do, they simply believe what the media pushes without reading the first paper on the subject or bothering to look at how 'consensus' was obtained
-------------------- i like you...
|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
#24092465 - 02/15/17 09:44 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: Why do you keep going on about extrapolations? Actually, one of the hallmarks of scientific knowledge is that it can make predictions about future events. When it comes to climate, they are being proven correct.
The planet is warming as expected. The ice caps are getting smaller every year. Glaciers that existed 100 years ago are gone. Sea levels are rising faster and faster.
Scientist understand the fundamental drivers of climate. They know that some gases trap heat energy. We know that humans are almost entirely responsible for levels which have not occurred naturally in millions of years. We know this because we know how much carbon dioxide we emit and that corresponds with the levels we see in the atmosphere.
We are seeing the warming that these extreme levels would predict The evidence is completely and totally overwhelming.
You actually don't get to question everything in science. There are principles and theories that are essentially settled. You have to have compelling evidence to challenge these ideas. They aren't debatable in the general sense. They are basic scientific facts that everyone is expected to agree upon. Included among these settled facts is that energy output in relation to energy input to the earth system decreases as CO2 concentrations increases. This is a quantifiable property of carbon dioxide. Those observations can then make predictions about past climate, and those confirmed predictions can then be used to make predictions about the future.
Wait wait wait.
The ice caps are shrinking because they're the largest they've been. The little ice age wasn't too long ago.
"Scientists have been keeping a wary eye on Greenland’s ice sheet, which holds in its frozen waters the equivalent of 7.4 meters of sea level rise. Many of the glaciers that jut out into the ocean are thinning, but whether the ice sheet itself has remained stable and intact, even during warm interglacial periods, is a matter of considerable debate. So scientists are keen to learn more about the icy island’s past. One period of particular interest is a warm, wet interglacial stage known as the Eemian that occurred from 124,000 to 119,000 years ago, featuring average global temperatures about 2°C warmer than today."
Now, I know humans had to have caused that 2 degree difference in temp. We were around back then, I just know it.
Come the fuck on people. The human species is the mold on this planet. Do any of you realize just how small you are? Fuck.
We have got probably 0.0005% of understanding about what's really going on. Shit, just look at the light spectrum and the tiny amount were able to see and sense.
The planet is warming, and it will cool, and it will warm again, human influences or not. Eventually, mother will be tired of the destruction of our species.
A fine example of how fast the climate can change. Wooly mammoths have been found in Siberia, frozen through and through with undigested grass still in its stomach. An expert in flash frozen foods says that in order for a full sized mammoth to be frozen so fast that there was still food in the stomach, the temps had to be somewhere around -150 degrees and frozen through in 10 hours or less.
Space rocks people.
An asteroid will have more of an impact on climate change that anything. IMO, the periods in between impacts are recovery time.
But keep arguing over human co2 production, the plants love that shit.
-------------------- The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited, but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders https://www.icandecide.org/
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: HamHead]
#24092477 - 02/15/17 09:50 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HamHead said: Many of the glaciers that jut out into the ocean are thinning
tell them to stop that shit
|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
#24092492 - 02/15/17 10:00 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Nah, let them melt. We need more water here in Colorade. Once they figure out an economic way of desalination.
I'm surprised we're not mining the glaciers for their pure water by now. Water is becoming a valuable resource.
Kickstarter for a glacial mining operation anyone?
I can see it now, bottled water straight from the glacier!
-------------------- The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited, but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders https://www.icandecide.org/
Edited by HamHead (02/15/17 10:07 AM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: HamHead]
#24092513 - 02/15/17 10:14 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HamHead said: We need more water here in Colorade.
california was saying that too. now they're evacuating because dams are getting ready to burst
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 13 minutes, 49 seconds
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
#24092725 - 02/15/17 11:56 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nothing exists said:
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Senor_Doobie said: As far as I know...this is part of a process that started 800 years ago
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
You can't compare current CO2 levels to previous trends because at no point in the past couple million years have CO2 levels been this high. Look, it's not a debatable fact that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It is property of the gas that can be measured in a laboratory, and those values applied to the atmosphere. CO2 is transparent to visible light but is somewhat opaque to certain wavelengths of infrared. This means heat energy can get to the surface, but not irradiated back out again. More CO2 shifts the equilibrium towards retaining more heat energy.
As for the lag of CO2 to temperature. That only applies to the initiation of the end of the ice ages, which is kicked off by orbital changes.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
koods, the article you link disagrees with you about CO2 and goes on to speculate further, no conclusions can be drawn from opinion.
No, it's doesn't. you wanna show me what you're talking about.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
nothing exists
master of fire
Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
#24092741 - 02/15/17 12:04 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you wanna show me
you cant afford my sallery
-------------------- i like you...
|
SirShroomsAlott
Howdy
Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
#24092749 - 02/15/17 12:06 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nothing exists said:
Quote:
you wanna show me
you cant afford my sallery
Whats a sallery?
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 13 minutes, 49 seconds
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
#24092757 - 02/15/17 12:10 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The ice caps are shrinking because they're the largest they've been. The little ice age wasn't too long ago.
Quote:
koods said: For the first time in human history there would be no ice.
This winter has seen record warmth in the artic, with extended periods where the temperature has been above freezing - and melting in winter. If trends continue as they have for the last two years, 2017 will be the year the ice cap melts completely.
We’ve never seen global sea ice levels this low before
Quote:
Something very unusual — and unnerving — is happening on this planet of ours. The chart below shows the total extent of floating sea ice in the Earth’s oceans at any given point in time. Normally it waxes and wanes with the seasons.
But ever since September, as the red line shows, global sea ice has utterly collapsed, following a pattern never seen before. On January 14, total sea ice extent was at its lowest level since satellite records began in 1978 — and likely the lowest it’s been for thousands of years. And yes, global warming is an important part of the story here.
This article was written last summer, before the historic warmth this winter.
Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 13 minutes, 49 seconds
|
|
Quote:
SirShroomsAlott said:
Quote:
nothing exists said:
Quote:
you wanna show me
you cant afford my sallery
Whats a sallery?
That's what they pay him for his unpresidented reeding comprehension.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
nothing exists
master of fire
Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
-------------------- i like you...
|
nothing exists
master of fire
Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
#24092765 - 02/15/17 12:13 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i think i proved my point
-------------------- i like you...
|
SirShroomsAlott
Howdy
Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
#24092769 - 02/15/17 12:14 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
How? Were you proving you actually thought sallery was a word? Lol
Salary
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 13 minutes, 49 seconds
|
|
Alternative Fax
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
#24092785 - 02/15/17 12:20 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
HamHead said: We need more water here in Colorade.
california was saying that too. now they're evacuating because dams are getting ready to burst
I saw that. Another great example of how quickly earth can erode away givin the amount of force water is capable of.
Now, imagine how much water it takes to make a gouge in the earth this large. Those are farms down there.
-------------------- The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited, but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders https://www.icandecide.org/
|
|