Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate
    #24088040 - 02/13/17 07:00 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I'll be on the side of the affirmative.  All are welcome to join either side.

What I ask for is an actual scientific discussion based on the best arguments that it is real.

I haven't done any research and until recently just took it for granted that it was a thing, or that it didn't matter as long as climate change was real.

But I have changed my mind on that.  Because these two possible truths require a different set of political policies.

If global warming is real, then I agree that we should take steps to ensure that we push for a conservation of our natural resources on a global level.

If it is not, then I am far less concerned with the use of carbon-based fuel sources and would likely promote using the energy we have while we have it.

So, let me hear the arguments.  I want to see the hard evidence that global warming is a thing.

Please don't just link to an article that says "it's a thing."  Use links to site evidence or data only and only as part of an argument or claim.

Let's see how this goes.


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCalifornia
A E S T H E T I C S A T A N
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/27/04
Posts: 72,118
Loc: H A U N T E D H O U S E Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #24088186 - 02/13/17 07:58 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #24088209 - 02/13/17 08:09 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

the problem with the topic of global warming is that it's a political stage directed by stooges


here's an example of one climate scientist that's had enough

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: California]
    #24088434 - 02/13/17 09:47 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

California said:
Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.




This is evidence of a trend toward the climate warming.  I will concede that this trend is happening.

I am looking for the causal link between human industry and that warming.

It's the difference between global warming and climate change.  I admit we are trending toward warming.  I am interested in the human element.


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


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: Senor_Doobie]
    #24088574 - 02/13/17 10:41 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Sorry to bring this up, but. . .

Space rocks!:rockon:

I recommend listening to the Joe Rogan experience when he has Randall Carlson as a guest, number 501 and 606 notably. Better yet, watch them on YouTube.

Catastrophes has caused more climate change than humans ever will in their entire existence on this planet.

You think about a volcano and the amount of gasses expelled into the atmosphere, engulfing the planet, blocking sunlight, etc.

Global warming is real, but humans have little to do with it. IMHO


--------------------
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 (02/14/17 02:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleI_was_the_walrus
eggshells
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/01/02
Posts: 11,887
Loc: next door
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie] * 1
    #24088585 - 02/13/17 10:44 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

CO2 abundances are from the combustion of fossil fuels, not volcanoes. This is evidenced by isotopic ratios.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: HamHead]
    #24088586 - 02/13/17 10:45 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Again semantics.

Please, climate change refers to changes in climate, manmade or otherwise.

Global warming refers to human contributions to climate change.


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


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: Senor_Doobie]
    #24088953 - 02/14/17 03:23 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)



Graph shows ice core data from central Greenland.

:popcorn:


--------------------
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/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,779
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: HamHead]
    #24088960 - 02/14/17 03:29 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

This link shows a steady increase in CO2 over the last 50 years at the very isolated observatory on the wide of Mauna Loa on the Big Island.


https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/



--------------------
"What you must understand is that your physical dimension affects everyone in the higher dimensions as well. All things are interconnected. All things are One. Therefore, if one dimension is broken or out of balance, then all other dimensions will experience repercussions." - Pleiadian Prophecy 2020 The New Golden Age by James Carwin

PROJECT BLUE BOOK ANALYSIS! (312 pages!) | Psychedelics & UFOs | Ready to Contact UFOs? | The Source on Mushrooms:shroomeryhead:| Trippy Gematrix | Dj TeknoLogical | Fentanyl Test Kits R.I.P. Big Worm :tombstone: || The Start of the Ascension Process was 2020. Welcome to the Next Great Era of Earth 🌎🌍🌏                                                         
:sunny::bliss::mushroom2: Oregon Eclipse Festival 2017 :: Aug 19th - 21st :: Pure Paradise :mushroom2::bliss::sunny: :rainbowdrink: Very Effective LSA Extraction Tek :rainbowdrink: | 💧 Advanced Cold Water LSA Extraction Method 💧 | :cacti::bongload: Mescajuana - Mescaline with Marijuana | DMT Dab Bongs | UFO Technology! :shpongle:Shpongle:shpongle:   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNiffla
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/09/08
Posts: 47,701
Loc: Texas
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: HamHead] * 1
    #24088962 - 02/14/17 03:29 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

this photo was taken this past winter



jack from titanic, clearly alive

i rest my case


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Niffla] * 1
    #24089008 - 02/14/17 04:17 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

HamHead said:
Sorry to bring this up, but. . .

Space rocks!:rockon:

I recommend listening to the Joe Rogan experience when he has Randall Carlson as a guest, number 501 and 606 notably. Better yet, watch them on YouTube.

Catastrophes has caused more climate change than humans ever will in their entire existence on this planet.

You think about a volcano and the amount of gasses expelled into the atmosphere, engulfing the planet, blocking sunlight, etc.

Global warming is real, but humans have little to do with it. IMHO



Current CO2 levels are not natural. Going back half a million years. CO2 cycled reliably in a limited range. Then 150 years ago, coinciding with the industrial revolution, levels broke out of the long term trading range.





Temperatures were fairly stable over the past 1500 years until the past century.



Sea levels were stable until the last century



CO2 drives the climate and we now have CO2 levels nearly twice as high as they had been at any point in the last 3 million years.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Edited by koods (02/14/17 04:20 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #24089145 - 02/14/17 06:57 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
This link shows a steady increase in CO2 over the last 50 years at the very isolated observatory on the wide of Mauna Loa on the Big Island.


https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/







shows the CO2 on the isolated but active volcano, Mauna Loa

one of the graphs that koods posted already showed that CO2 rises after the temperatures

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblehowsyournaggerdoin
Happy


Registered: 02/04/16
Posts: 1,600
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #24089159 - 02/14/17 07:10 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The temperature rise being caused by humans definitely seems most plausible to me

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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]
    #24089160 - 02/14/17 07:10 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

AGW is a ruse to keep fools from focusing on real environmental issues that actually are killing the planet such as triclosan, pharmaceuticals and fukushima.

happy arguing, fools


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24089163 - 02/14/17 07:11 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Senor_Doobie said:
Quote:

California said:
Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.




This is evidence of a trend toward the climate warming.  I will concede that this trend is happening.

I am looking for the causal link between human industry and that warming.

It's the difference between global warming and climate change.  I admit we are trending toward warming.  I am interested in the human element.




The notion that CO2 is the most important climate driver or "cause" of global warming brings human activity to be blamed as the reason.  The climate scientists and those bought off have agreed that it's CO2 and the EPA has agreed those humans shall be punished!  Even the Pope and the Catholic Church have gotten into the act.  Thou will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 

Think for a minute about all those SRM planes flying around.  Look it up if that didn't make sense. 

Think for a minute about 400 nuclear reactors boiling water over and over and over, pulling water into their cooling towers from rivers or the ocean, warming that water.  Maybe we need to tax the nuclear industry.  Oh wait, they get our tax money instead after fucking things up.  Never mind.

Think for a minute about water vapor and methane as greenhouse gases.  Water is the big one by volume, methane the big one by it's potency.  Are humans also to blame for methane releases from the seabed, because we added the CO2 from driving our cars and burning coal?

Pray for the earth, and pay your taxes.  The fossil fuel taxation is going to get insane.  Before you know it we will be taxes by the mile. 
Check out CA they are always in bed with the UN and are pushing hard for 50% cuts in fossil fuel use alone with massive taxes.  Walking and bicycling being their "alternatives" along with live where you work eat and shit.

Catholic Church and their climate change push to punish the congregation.



--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #24089203 - 02/14/17 07:46 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Not even the very deepest, darkest depths of Earth’s oceans can escape mankind’s legacy of toxic pollution.

In a shocking discovery highlighting the interconnectedness of our planet, scientists have detected “extremely high levels” of organic chemicals in the fatty tissue of amphipods, a type of crustacean, living in Mariana trench ― the deepest part of the world’s oceans.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/toxic-pollutants-mariana-trench-alan-jamieson_us_58a1f7fee4b03df370d8eaac?fvog5z4vmb3wbqpvi&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1] * 2
    #24089223 - 02/14/17 07:55 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Temperature does not drive CO2 levels, CO2 levels drive temperature. In fact, CO2 sequestration actually increases with warmer temperatures in a very weak negative feedback .

Quote:

Think for a minute about 400 nuclear reactors boiling water over and over and over, pulling water into their cooling towers from rivers or the ocean, warming that water.  Maybe we need to tax the nuclear indust




an average nuclear power plant produces 10,000,000,000 BTU per hour.

The sun shining on one square mile produces 6,000,000,000 BTU per hour.

The heat from nuclear power is totally insignificant as a heat source especially since nuclear heat is generated by radioactive decay that would happen anyway. Reactors are simply concentrating that heat. The amount of heat produced would be the same if the the uranium was never mined..


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24089230 - 02/14/17 08:00 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

since nuclear heat is generated by radioactive decay that would happen anyway



if this is the level of ignorance we are dealing with, then this planet is certainly doomed


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelarry.fisherman
shoulda died already
I'm a teapot

Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24089240 - 02/14/17 08:04 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I used to live within a few kilometers of one of, if not THE, world's largest nuclear power facilities and that shit does not take up even a square kilometer, let alone mile. We're talking twice the output of the sun.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: larry.fisherman]
    #24089251 - 02/14/17 08:09 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

i get it, you guys work for the nuclear power industry.

carry on.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: howsyournaggerdoin]
    #24089252 - 02/14/17 08:11 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

howsyournaggerdoin said:
The temperature rise being caused by humans definitely seems most plausible to me

https://xkcd.com/1732/






so wait... the ice sheets started to melt in 18,000 BCC?

wasnt that around the same time that man emerged from the caves

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24089263 - 02/14/17 08:16 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Temperature does not drive CO2 levels, CO2 levels drive temperature. In fact, CO2 sequestration actually increases with warmer temperatures in a very weak negative feedback .




the graph you posted showed the temperatures rising before the CO2 levels

explain that

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists] * 2
    #24089286 - 02/14/17 08:34 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

since nuclear heat is generated by radioactive decay that would happen anyway



if this is the level of ignorance we are dealing with, then this planet is certainly doomed




Quote:

The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47 terawatts (TW)[1] and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth.[2]




--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePatlal
You ask too many questions
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/09/10
Posts: 44,822
Loc: Ottawa Flag
Last seen: 14 hours, 2 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods] * 1
    #24089300 - 02/14/17 08:42 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

We don't need to debate global warming. It's happening and it's a fact.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: larry.fisherman] * 2
    #24089302 - 02/14/17 08:43 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

XLCaps said:
I used to live within a few kilometers of one of, if not THE, world's largest nuclear power facilities and that shit does not take up even a square kilometer, let alone mile. We're talking twice the output of the sun.




Not the output of the sun. Input of the sun. The amount of heat energy produced by a reactor is similar to the amount of heat energy sunlight adds to the earth when it shines on a little more than a square miles of earth.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblehowsyournaggerdoin
Happy


Registered: 02/04/16
Posts: 1,600
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #24089307 - 02/14/17 08:47 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

howsyournaggerdoin said:
The temperature rise being caused by humans definitely seems most plausible to me

https://xkcd.com/1732/






so wait... the ice sheets started to melt in 18,000 BCC?

wasnt that around the same time that man emerged from the caves




Moral of the story : We should go back to farting in caves

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: howsyournaggerdoin]
    #24089315 - 02/14/17 08:51 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

GREAT IDEA! let's debate facts! :goodluckwiththat2:


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1] * 1
    #24089317 - 02/14/17 08:52 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

koods said:
Temperature does not drive CO2 levels, CO2 levels drive temperature. In fact, CO2 sequestration actually increases with warmer temperatures in a very weak negative feedback .




the graph you posted showed the temperatures rising before the CO2 levels

explain that




You don't know how to read a graph.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24089333 - 02/14/17 09:00 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47 terawatts (TW)[1] and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth.[2]






speculation, not facts.

accretion disk cosmology is the hallmark of stupidity.

it has no observable reality.

the universe is electric, this is the observable reality.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXUL
OTD Janitor
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America Flag
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #24089390 - 02/14/17 09:30 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Senor_Doobie said:


So, let me hear the arguments.  I want to see the hard evidence that global warming is a thing.







Unless you have access to the Illiad or a subscription to several journals, you will probably have a hard time finding relevant literature. Further, peer reviewed articles are the most relevant.

The hard evidence would be deciphering the methods and findings behind every study and determining whether not they were scientifically sound. Are they measuring what they purport to measure?

A large peer reviewed meta-analysis on climate change literature is probably a good place to start.


--------------------
TRUMP 2020

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24089404 - 02/14/17 09:36 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

koods said:
Temperature does not drive CO2 levels, CO2 levels drive temperature. In fact, CO2 sequestration actually increases with warmer temperatures in a very weak negative feedback .




the graph you posted showed the temperatures rising before the CO2 levels

explain that




You don't know how to read a graph.





please, post the graph again and explain how the CO2 levels were rising before the temperatures

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: XUL]
    #24089411 - 02/14/17 09:39 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

first page of google news returns for "peer review" arent too flattering, plus, you know, corporate influence, ivory towers and the fact that it shows zero benefit for the sciences.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24089415 - 02/14/17 09:40 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
first page of google news returns for "peer review" arent too flattering, plus, you know, corporate influence, ivory towers and the fact that it shows zero benefit for the sciences.






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelarry.fisherman
shoulda died already
I'm a teapot

Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24089547 - 02/14/17 10:33 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

XLCaps said:
I used to live within a few kilometers of one of, if not THE, world's largest nuclear power facilities and that shit does not take up even a square kilometer, let alone mile. We're talking twice the output of the sun.




Not the output of the sun. Input of the sun. The amount of heat energy produced by a reactor is similar to the amount of heat energy sunlight adds to the earth when it shines on a little more than a square miles of earth.



Ok, but still your comparison isn't equal. You give the sun a surface area measurement but not the nuclear reactor. Your example 'fluffs' nuclear power. I'm pointing this out because you're usually so intent on the details.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXUL
OTD Janitor
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America Flag
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Patlal]
    #24089549 - 02/14/17 10:33 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Patlal said:
We don't need to debate global warming. It's happening and it's a fact.




I agree. :stoned:


--------------------
TRUMP 2020

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelarry.fisherman
shoulda died already
I'm a teapot

Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: XUL]
    #24089552 - 02/14/17 10:34 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

But it's fun to be right about inconsequential details.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXUL
OTD Janitor
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America Flag
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24089560 - 02/14/17 10:35 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
first page of google news returns for "peer review" arent too flattering, plus, you know, corporate influence, ivory towers and the fact that it shows zero benefit for the sciences.




news? The news is garbage.

At least use google scholar, if not an electronic database, such as the Illiad.


--------------------
TRUMP 2020

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: XUL] * 1
    #24089576 - 02/14/17 10:42 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

XUL said:
The news is garbage.



so is peer review.

prove its not.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelarry.fisherman
shoulda died already
I'm a teapot

Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24089582 - 02/14/17 10:46 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Have you ever like, been anywhere?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: larry.fisherman] * 1
    #24089629 - 02/14/17 11:06 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

XLCaps said:
Have you ever like, been anywhere?



if this is directed at me...

i am a gourmet chef, including vegetarian and live/raw foods

i am one of the best glass blowers in the world

i am an accomplished musician

i am an experienced mechanic, from simple machines to gas and diesel engines, including rare/unavailable part fabrication

i am a master gardener

i have been thanked for saving lives multiple times from preventing drowning to talking several out of suicide

i have been rich, i have been homeless

i went to the mountains and studied healing with essenes from Alexandria

i asked the sacred mushroom for universal wisdom

is that enough, because i could continue...


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXUL
OTD Janitor
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America Flag
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24089633 - 02/14/17 11:06 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

XUL said:
The news is garbage.



so is peer review.

prove its not.




I can't. I don't know enough about the subject. But there are other souls out there who can.

I believe in science and I believe in peer reviews. When we review scientific studies we seek out errors and question validity. Proving each other wrong only brings us closer to truth. Research is plastic in that it can always change. A peer review is just an extra step in quality. You can trust anecdotal evidence or popular tripe, but I choose to trust in science.


--------------------
TRUMP 2020

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24089654 - 02/14/17 11:13 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

XLCaps said:
Have you ever like, been anywhere?



if this is directed at me...

i am a gourmet chef, including vegetarian and live/raw foods

i am one of the best glass blowers in the world

i am an accomplished musician

i am an experienced mechanic, from simple machines to gas and diesel engines, including rare/unavailable part fabrication

i am a master gardener

i have been thanked for saving lives multiple times from preventing drowning to talking several out of suicide

i have been rich, i have been homeless

i went to the mountains and studied healing with essenes from Alexandria

i asked the sacred mushroom for universal wisdom

is that enough, because i could continue...




Yeah, but have you ever left your hometown?


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,779
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #24089662 - 02/14/17 11:14 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
This link shows a steady increase in CO2 over the last 50 years at the very isolated observatory on the wide of Mauna Loa on the Big Island.


https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/







shows the CO2 on the isolated but active volcano, Mauna Loa

one of the graphs that koods posted already showed that CO2 rises after the temperatures




Volcanoes dont produce CO2, they produce other gases. I will find a source for this...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelarry.fisherman
shoulda died already
I'm a teapot

Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24089665 - 02/14/17 11:15 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

You know what I was saying, you didn't have to stroke your dick over it. :lol:

The info is blatant and all over the place. It's the type of thing not worth convincing someone of if they haven't already figured it out for themselves.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: XUL] * 1
    #24089666 - 02/14/17 11:15 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

XUL said:
Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

XUL said:
The news is garbage.



so is peer review.

prove its not.




I can't. I don't know enough about the subject. But there are other souls out there who can.



no, they cannot.

Quote:

XUL said:
I believe in science and I believe in peer reviews.



ah, so its a faith thing, sorry, didnt realize we were discussing religion.

Quote:

XUL said:
When we review scientific studies we seek out errors and question validity. Proving each other wrong only brings us closer to truth. Research is plastic in that it can always change. A peer review is just an extra step in quality.



a beautiful platitude in the face of reality, oh if only it worked like that, must be nice to live in your world.

Quote:

XUL said:
You can trust anecdotal evidence or popular tripe, but I choose to trust in science.



i dont trust anything, i find out and know.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #24089676 - 02/14/17 11:18 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

They do, but volcanic activity usually has a suppressive effect on temperatures because sulfur dioxide and dust reflect sunlight back into space.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24089680 - 02/14/17 11:18 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Yeah, but have you ever left your hometown?



haha, is funny cause you too stupid to argue, i get joke!


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,779
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #24089685 - 02/14/17 11:21 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Ok, apparently volcanos do produce CO2 as well as SO2, but the concentrations compared to human activity is much lower:

https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

And the activity at Hawaii National Park has been pretty consistent over the years.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXUL
OTD Janitor
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 28,261
Loc: America Flag
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24089703 - 02/14/17 11:28 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Do you know? If, Then, enlighten me.

Provide the information, please. Be sure you explain it, rather than just posting links and graphs.


--------------------
TRUMP 2020

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #24089712 - 02/14/17 11:30 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We've only actually measured 33.

If the 117 unsampled peaks follow a similar trend, then the research community's current projection might stand. But looking through such a small window, there's no way of knowing if what we have seen until now is typical or not. It's like shining a light on a darkened globe: randomly, you might hit Australia, and think you’d seen it all – while on the edge of your beam, unnoticed, would be Asia. Our planet's isolated volcanic frontiers could easily be hiding a monster or two; and with a bit of exploration, our estimate of volcanic CO2 output could rise even higher.

You'd think that would be enough. That might be my fault — I tend to save the weird stuff until the end. Recently, an enigmatic source of volcanic carbon has come to light that isn't involved with lava — or even craters. It now seems that not only is there CO2 we can't get to, there's some we can't even see.

Carbon dioxide is always invisible, but its presence can be inferred in volcanic plumes — betrayed by the billowing clouds of water vapour released alongside it. Without the water, though, it's a different story. The new poster-child of planetary degassing is diffuse CO2 — invisible emanations which can occur across vast areas surrounding the main vents of a volcano, rising through the bulk of the mountains. This transparent haze is only just beginning to receive proper attention, and as such we have very little idea of how much it might contribute to the global output.

Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still 'erupt' gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

If these additional 'carbon-active' volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we've measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.




http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24089730 - 02/14/17 11:37 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

And still doesn't get close to man made emissions.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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]
    #24089734 - 02/14/17 11:39 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

the sun is the driver of all processes in the solar system, from gravity to mental health and everything in between, this is well known to science, and even now, behind the caterwauling, there is new research in all fields showing the impact of the sun.

all of that is semantic when you consider what hundreds of trillions of people have known through the ages and what they felt was important to carve into rocks, they understood what it meant to be part of the system


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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
    #24089737 - 02/14/17 11:41 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
And still doesn't get close to man made emissions.



there actually are ways of improving your reading comprehension, if you care


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24090813 - 02/14/17 05:55 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

i have a strong feeling the people who want you to believe in global warming are going to keep posting graphs and nonsense that is biased towards global warming being  a true phenomenon.  notice how dumb the graphs are, notice how  they keep griping about "150 years this, 150 years that" but no graph actually shows just hundreds of years, they all show thousands and hundreds of thousands, yet they keep harping on the last 150 years , and try and carve out a small sample in the same graph that depicts hundreds of thousands of years...also, they take samples from all over the fucking place including one of the mos active volcanic areas in the world, and say LOOK THE CO2 is rising!

yes, im calling you out. you know who you are.


and as far as the one graph that shows temperatures relatively stable??? i highly doubt the mother fuckers in the middle of the graph thought it was normal that the average temp dropped so much. during their time period of life. 

as time went on however, it normalized, like you said.  who is to say in a decade or two the overall data wouldn't be normalized? you're trying to come up with a scientific fact with minuscule information. of course the outcome will be what you want it to be, because thats all the data you have at the moment.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Edited by keyser_soze (02/14/17 06:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24090842 - 02/14/17 06:03 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
the sun is the driver of all processes in the solar system, from gravity to mental health and everything in between, this is well known to science, and even now, behind the caterwauling, there is new research in all fields showing the impact of the sun.

all of that is semantic when you consider what hundreds of trillions of people have known through the ages and what they felt was important to carve into rocks, they understood what it meant to be part of the system



How do you deny sience then talk about things that are "well known to science" do you really not understand and appreciate peer review? Do I need to explain a fundamental part of science to you before giving you evidence that we are destroying the planet? Because I better get a teachers sallery and heath benefits!  :goodmorning:


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24090886 - 02/14/17 06:22 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Ok, so to everybody who has posted here so far...thanks for not honoring the request in the title.

A bunch of graphs do not indicate anything that I have not already accepted.  Temperatures are rising.  Got it.  Now show me why humans are responsible.

Again, I'm not interested in mere corrolation.  It isn't enough.  As Pris showed, the trend is for CO2 to trail temperature rise.  This was shown in one of the graphs.

Also, the graphs are all so...limited.  We know the earth goes through cooling trends and warming trends.  We also know that the earth is billions of years old.  Why are you guys only showing graphical representation of the past thousand or ten thousand years?

Have there been other dramatic increases in temperature?  Have they happened just as rapidly? 

Also, people saying "SCIENCE SAID SO" are not even really worth addressing...but seriously...get a clue.  If you really just get all your knowledge from being spoonfed by institutions, you should probably keep that (and those opinions) to yourself.


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #24090954 - 02/14/17 06:47 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Senor_Doobie said:
Ok, so to everybody who has posted here so far...thanks for not honoring the request in the title.

A bunch of graphs do not indicate anything that I have not already accepted.  Temperatures are rising.  Got it.  Now show me why humans are responsible.

Again, I'm not interested in mere corrolation.  It isn't enough.  As Pris showed, the trend is for CO2 to trail temperature rise.  This was shown in one of the graphs.



No graph showed that, because it doesn't work that way. We know humans are causing it because CO2 levels drive the climate and we are responsible for the high levels.

Quote:

Also, the graphs are all so...limited.  We know the earth goes through cooling trends and warming trends.  We also know that the earth is billions of years old.  Why are you guys only showing graphical representation of the past thousand or ten thousand years?



Because that is the most recent interglacial period with a stable climate. There are regular, predictable glaciation cycles that go back 3.5 million years. All life on earth has evolved in that environment, where climate changes over thousands of years, not a couple decades.

Quote:

Have there been other dramatic increases in temperature?  Have they happened just as rapidly? 




Yup, every 30k years or so, we have an ice age and a thaw. (However, we never thaw out completely and there has never been a complete melting of the polar ice cap.)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Quote:

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.




--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #24091025 - 02/14/17 07:12 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

tryptkaloids said:
How do you deny sience then talk about things that are "well known to science" do you really not understand and appreciate peer review? Do I need to explain a fundamental part of science to you before giving you evidence that we are destroying the planet? Because I better get a teachers sallery and heath benefits!  :goodmorning:



hi little boy, not smart enough to explain anything to anyone if going to spell salary wrong.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24091044 - 02/14/17 07:18 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
bunch of speculation presented as fact



nice job


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24091101 - 02/14/17 07:34 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

and i am just throwing this out there:

what if the sun is actually getting hotter?


everyone worried about earth, but not the actual physical forces in space that can and do act upon it.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24091107 - 02/14/17 07:36 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

koods, a graph did show that.  Pris isn't lying to you.  Go look at your graphs some more.

Quote:

Because that is the most recent interglacial period with a stable climate. There are regular, predictable glaciation cycles that go back 3.5 million years. All life on earth has evolved in that environment, where climate changes over thousands of years, not a couple decades.





How do you know how all life evolved on this planet, and when that began? And why we're at it...how is it relevant? 

Quote:


Yup, every 30k years or so, we have an ice age and a thaw. (However, we never thaw out completely and there has never been a complete melting of the polar ice cap.)




Where's that graph?

Quote:

some more extrapolation (which ain't even science)




Self-evidently irrelevant.


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #24091120 - 02/14/17 07:44 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

there's an article.

more importantly, it relates to the magical fucking 150 years you get your boners over.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24091155 - 02/14/17 07:56 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

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/


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24091163 - 02/14/17 07:58 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The sun just went through one of its weakest solar cycles in a century. Solar irradiance has been lower than normal, but temperatures have continued to rise faster and faster.



--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #24091171 - 02/14/17 08:01 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
This link shows a steady increase in CO2 over the last 50 years at the very isolated observatory on the wide of Mauna Loa on the Big Island.


https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/







shows the CO2 on the isolated but active volcano, Mauna Loa

one of the graphs that koods posted already showed that CO2 rises after the temperatures




Volcanoes dont produce CO2, they produce other gases. I will find a source for this...






good luck, while volcanoes do produce other gasses, they also produce CO@ and the volumes are staggering

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24091175 - 02/14/17 08:02 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

How about core temperature?


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleI_was_the_walrus
eggshells
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/01/02
Posts: 11,887
Loc: next door
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie] * 2
    #24091183 - 02/14/17 08:06 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

:lol:

These threads are always great. High-school drop outs arguing science.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24091184 - 02/14/17 08:06 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
The sun just went through one of its weakest solar cycles in a century. Solar irradiance has been lower than normal, but temperatures have continued to rise faster and faster.





https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sun1lite.htm

Quote:

Sunlight carries energy, which warms up the Earth and is the driving force behind all our weather and climate. As the ground is heated by sunlight, it begins to radiate, but being too cool to radiate even a dull red, its radiation is in the infra-red range. A hot pot or a hot laundry iron also radiates IR, and your hand can easily sense that radiation (as heat), if held close without touching.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #24091221 - 02/14/17 08:18 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

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/


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #24091223 - 02/14/17 08:19 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Senor_Doobie said:
How about core temperature?



Of what? The sun? This is getting silly.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24091238 - 02/14/17 08:23 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The earth, numbnuts


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: I_was_the_walrus]
    #24091246 - 02/14/17 08:25 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I_was_the_walrus said:
:lol:

These threads are always great. High-school drop outs arguing science.




Why don't you engage?

I'm no high school dropout.  I have a BS and 2 AS's.  I understand scientific principles very well. 

Why don't you make your case instead of ducking in real quick to feel superior?


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie] * 1
    #24091258 - 02/14/17 08:28 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Because these "debates" never go anywhere, anyone who posts in them are already convinced of what they believe regardless of what's actually true and no one ever changes their mind.

Plus debating it would suggests there's actually something to debate. It's like asking to debate whether creationism is real, if you don't already know that answer then there's no point.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24091270 - 02/14/17 08:30 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I have said that I am open to a valid argument.  No one has delivered one.  If you want a shot, go for it.  If you want to go on believing stuff without knowing if it's true, go for that.

Hone your ideas, grasshopper.


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie] * 1
    #24091291 - 02/14/17 08:39 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

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 then look at how quickly nature itself all over the world is rapidly changing and no matter how you look at it it's still going to have a massive effect on us and what we call society so something will still need to be addressed whether it's sooner or later because we're not set up to handle it. Nature clearly already knows the answer whether we care to believe it or not

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24091332 - 02/14/17 08:55 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I'm just asking to see the evidence.

More importantly, I'm looking for the argument for why the evidence reaches its conclusion.

Consensus of opinion does not equal fact.  You can pretend it does, despite ten thousand years of human history proving you wrong. 

Do you know what makes up reliable science?  Do you care?  Or, do you just believe these things because they come from on high?  That's a reckless way to believe in things.  It makes you susceptible to manipulation.

Do you know what extrapolation is?  It's very unreliable.  Any science or math text book will tell you that, if you read that.

Correlation is also not a good indicator on its own of anything. 

And neither is just observing a pattern.

But here we have a prediction based on extrapolation based on correlation and the identification of a pattern.

Bad science.

And when the causal phenomenon trails the effect phenomenon,

It's not even science.

So, where's your argument, grasshopper?

(the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy)


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleI_was_the_walrus
eggshells
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/01/02
Posts: 11,887
Loc: next door
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott] * 1
    #24091416 - 02/14/17 09:18 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SirShroomsAlott said:
Because these "debates" never go anywhere, anyone who posts in them are already convinced of what they believe regardless of what's actually true and no one ever changes their mind.

Plus debating it would suggests there's actually something to debate. It's like asking to debate whether creationism is real, if you don't already know that answer then there's no point.




Pretty much exactly what I was going to write. People on either side are already set in their ways.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #24091462 - 02/14/17 09:30 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The appeal to authority is perfectly legitimate when the authority is an authority in topic.

Global warming skepticism is a political position, not a scientific one.  There's no point in arguing with someone who lets their politics determine what science they believe. It's kinda pathetic how any semblance of intellectualism has fled the American right. It's all alternative facts, result driven science and rejection of reality.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24091776 - 02/14/17 11:29 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
The appeal to authority is perfectly legitimate when the authority is an authority in topic.

Global warming skepticism is a political position, not a scientific one.  There's no point in arguing with someone who lets their politics determine what science they believe. It's kinda pathetic how any semblance of intellectualism has fled the American right. It's all alternative facts, result driven science and rejection of reality.





No, it's not legitimate.  It's garbage.  If you're talking about core beliefs.  Beliefs that you use to motivate yourself...and your best defense is "cuz a bunch of people said so", you are a puppet.


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: I_was_the_walrus]
    #24091783 - 02/14/17 11:32 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I_was_the_walrus said:
Quote:

SirShroomsAlott said:
Because these "debates" never go anywhere, anyone who posts in them are already convinced of what they believe regardless of what's actually true and no one ever changes their mind.

Plus debating it would suggests there's actually something to debate. It's like asking to debate whether creationism is real, if you don't already know that answer then there's no point.




Pretty much exactly what I was going to write. People on either side are already set in their ways.




Well, I knew you weren't actually here to make a good argument because you just came in here to try and make yourself feel superior.

But now that you're 0-2 with that strategy, why don't you try an argument.


--------------------
"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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24092375 - 02/15/17 08:59 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


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. :rockon:

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/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


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?
:slowreaction:

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
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”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
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”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24092762 - 02/15/17 12:11 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

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”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24092763 - 02/15/17 12:12 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24092775 - 02/15/17 12:16 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Alternative Fax


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


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.
:shrug:


--------------------
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/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: HamHead]
    #24093278 - 02/15/17 04:12 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
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





I'm more than willing to change my mind but for now still hold my position that whether it's 97% or not, the majority with actual expertise in climate science mostly agree, I'll keep myself open but I have no idea how or why you think it's only based off a single survery of 77 people and that's the only reason it's believed.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

I have looked into it and could easily keep going, whatever survey you're talking about is not even close to the only criteria for why it's believed that most climate experts agree.

Quote:

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




it's way more then a handful, I don't care what the media says, science in general (mainly space related) has been a borderline obsession of mine since I was a kid. I follow studies, not people. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting that humans have a large effect on climate change than I have evidence that shows we don't, and most of the ones I have seen that say we don't are usually claims without supporting evidence.

"extort others
into supporting their conclusions in order to receive research funding"

What's your reason for believing this? While I won't deny that it almost undoubtedly happens because corruption exists to some extent in all walks of life, I highly doubt it's most that are doing it and have never saw a reason to suggest that's the case.

Edited by SirShroomsAlott (02/15/17 04:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24093414 - 02/15/17 05:11 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

im still waiting for koods response on an article i posted about the sun getting warmer, starting around 150 years ago...

the same 150 years ago koods is crying about, yet he didnt respond to the article....



aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand still waiting.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24093466 - 02/15/17 05:36 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

No offense but if you mean that link there's nothing to say about it or disprove. It doesn't provide citations, references, or studies, that entire link is a claim that for whatever reason felt no need to provide anything to back up what it's saying. A lot of it seems immediately skeptical considering the brightness of a star is usually dependent on it's mass and age, 150 years isn't a significant amount of time in any stars lifespan to make any real noticeable difference when it's not going through a phase of changing into a different type of star. Aside from that, the sun goes through a solar cycle about every 11 years where it will go relatively quiet to a more agressive phase over that time span, then repeat itself.  Considering it's from 2004 and didn't go anywhere I'd guess its findings came to a halt.


"Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures."

"Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase."

There's quite a few quotes like that in that article that aren't even going against what we're saying so I don't even see what you find significant about it in the first place, it has a catchy title though :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24093500 - 02/15/17 05:53 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SirShroomsAlott said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

No offense but if you mean that link there's nothing to say about it or disprove. It doesn't provide citations, references, or studies, that entire link is a claim that for whatever reason felt no need to provide anything to back up what it's saying. A lot of it seems immediately skeptical considering the brightness of a star is usually dependent on it's mass and age, 150 years isn't a significant amount of time in any stars lifespan to make any real noticeable difference when it's not going through a phase of changing into a different type of star. Aside from that, the sun goes through a solar cycle about every 11 years where it will go relatively quiet to a more agressive phase over that time span, then repeat itself.  Considering it's from 2004 and didn't go anywhere I'd guess its findings came to a halt.


"Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures."

"Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase."

There's quite a few quotes like that in that article that aren't even going against what we're saying so I don't even see what you find significant about it in the first place, it has a catchy title though :shrug:





don't cherry pick paragraphs that immediately jump out at you, and read the whole article...everything is explained.

especially the ending.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Edited by keyser_soze (02/15/17 05:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24093509 - 02/15/17 05:57 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Feel free to provide something that proves this ""Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists."

but not just scientists because that's a blanket statement considering how many different types of science there are, show me something that proves people who are experts in the field of climate are growing to believe it because I've already provided links that seem to disagree and cite the sources for their information.

I read the entire article, I didn't find anything providing something to back up what they were saying as reputable sources tend to do, like for instance, the studies they did to come to these conclusions. You should read the Quran, make sure not to cherrypick things that immediately jump out at you, read the whole thing....everything is explained.

Edited by SirShroomsAlott (02/15/17 06:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24093528 - 02/15/17 06:09 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

i rarely quote wikipedia, but since some of your arguments came from a user based and anonymously editable internet encyclopedia, i will too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Edited by keyser_soze (02/15/17 06:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24093537 - 02/15/17 06:12 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24093549 - 02/15/17 06:18 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)



the shit this video points out is the reason why we have climate religion today.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24093550 - 02/15/17 06:18 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Dude, you're not even trying, only one link I posted was wikipedia and nothing else is user based and anonymously editted links....aside from that, one of the very first lines in the wikipedia link you posted "This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint." So are you agreeing that there's definitely a consensus?

Your second link tries to say the arctic is cooling when the ice is practically fucking gone, either they're that clueless they're mistaking the antarctic for the arctic or they're just spewing shit for the hell of it.  Almost all of the links provided in it take you to news websites lol seriously are you just trolling?

Edit: good video showing Al Gore is an idiot, considering there's no one who takes this issue seriously that uses him as a reference or anything.

Edited by SirShroomsAlott (02/15/17 06:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24093570 - 02/15/17 06:25 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SirShroomsAlott said:
Dude, you're not even trying, only one link I posted was wikipedia and nothing else is user based and anonymously editted links....aside from that, one of the very first lines in the wikipedia link you posted "This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint." So are you agreeing?

Your second links tries to say the arctic is cooling when the ice is practically fucking gone and almost all of the links provided in it take you to news websites lol seriously are you just trolling?




umm, that's the point dude. I know a majority of the scientists believe in the shit, i don't. i know the majority opinion is "global warming human caused", i am against that notion.

the second links to a lot of articles with cites saying global warming is a bullshit enterprise.


thirdly, enjoy the video. it shows how people like you get brainwashed into climate religions.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24093574 - 02/15/17 06:26 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SirShroomsAlott said:
Dude, you're not even trying, only one link I posted was wikipedia and nothing else is user based and anonymously editted links....aside from that, one of the very first lines in the wikipedia link you posted "This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint." So are you agreeing that there's definitely a consensus?

Your second link tries to say the arctic is cooling when the ice is practically fucking gone, either they're that clueless they're mistaking the antarctic for the arctic or they're just spewing shit for the hell of it.  Almost all of the links provided in it take you to news websites lol seriously are you just trolling?

Edit: good video showing Al Gore is an idiot, considering there's no one who takes this issue seriously that uses him as a reference or anything.




again, he's the "idiot" who gave birth to all you fucking idiots.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24093588 - 02/15/17 06:33 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

You're right, it can't be the overwhelming evidence in support of it from scientists around the world who actually are experts in the field, let me learn from that second link you posted so that I may know truth.

Omg I never knew, look at this, Jupiter is experiencing climate change, look at all the studies they provided to prove it https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html it's almost a whole paragraph with nothing but speculation to support that claim!

And look they say global fluctuation is natural, you can see how they provided a graph with no link to substantiate it's claims, a single newspaper article, and youtube video to back it up and absolutely nothing else...I'm convinced.

OMG, look at this, http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest sunspots are vanishing, it's not like that completely dismisses the article you posted earlier about how sunspots are part of the reason the sun is brighter or anything as is suggested in this quote from that article you were annoyed koods didn't respond to "They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

And luckily they're showing that the north arctic is gaining ice, it'll sure help with all that ice that's barely there now. Yup, I'm totally brainwashed, so glad you provided that to clear me up.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24093591 - 02/15/17 06:36 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

#globalwarmertriggered


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24093623 - 02/15/17 06:49 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Ahhh the hashtag, the turn to for everyone who has nothing else to say.

In all seriousness though, I'll just wait for Pris to respond, at least he has reasons behind his arguments rather then posting the first thing he finds on google without even reading it to see if it contradicts shit he said earlier in the same thread lol

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24093656 - 02/15/17 07:01 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

my reason still stands.

ya'll too brainwashed into the "greater good, hive mind, group think, emotions, secret disdain for the human race over nature" to accept any counter arguments to the fact.

the go to response is: "more people believe man is main cause of global warming than not, so nanny-nanny-boo-boo".  you've stated that argument at least twice with me.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24093690 - 02/15/17 07:11 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

counter arguments and counter evidence don't compare so yeah, I'm not willing to accept counter arguments without something to back it up, something you've failed to do multiple times at this point because you're coming off like you don't know the difference between a claim/opinion and studies/evidence just based off what you're posting to back your point.

The argument of climate change isn't that man is the cause, the climate is always changing and has been well before man has ever been here, the argument is how much man is influencing it and why it's changing so quickly. And no, my argument isn't that more people believe man is the main cause of global warming, my argument is that people who are experts in the field and study this thing regularly largely agree that people are heavily influencing it. You can keep saying brainwashed, you literally posted two articles that contradicted each other completely to try and prove it's bullshit suggesting you didn't really read them or care what they had to say before posting them simply because you thought what they claimed backed up what you already believe. If that isn't some kind of proof that you're the one that's brainwashed then idk what is.

Edit: "to accept any counter arguments to the fact. " well...it's hard to accept counter arguments to something you call a fact isn't it? Otherwise...it's not a fact. Also, I already told you to provide me evidence so that I actually can consider it, the reason I didn't and don't accept what you provided is because you still haven't done so and I've already shown why, you haven't provided anything that is anything more than a claim.

Edited by SirShroomsAlott (02/15/17 07:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24094385 - 02/16/17 03:03 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
im still waiting for koods response on an article i posted about the sun getting warmer, starting around 150 years ago...

the same 150 years ago koods is crying about, yet he didnt respond to the article....



aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand still waiting.




I already posted a graph showing the past ten years and the decrease in solar irradiance. Temps are still riskng.

My next door neighbor was one of the worlds leading experts on solar irradiance and global warming and had the same opinion that irradiance was driving warming, but he changed his opinion in the last couple years. Then he died.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods]
    #24094560 - 02/16/17 05:40 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

keyser_soze said:
im still waiting for koods response on an article i posted about the sun getting warmer, starting around 150 years ago...

the same 150 years ago koods is crying about, yet he didnt respond to the article....



aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand still waiting.




I already posted a graph showing the past ten years and the decrease in solar irradiance. Temps are still riskng.

My next door neighbor was one of the worlds leading experts on solar irradiance and global warming and had the same opinion that irradiance was driving warming, but he changed his opinion in the last couple years. Then he died.




my neighbor bill gates disagrees with you.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThemanwiththeplan
Ghost

Registered: 01/12/17
Posts: 141
Loc: Nc,USA
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24094725 - 02/16/17 07:58 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Just my .2 cents it's going on...


--------------------
Have I been here before..I'm pretty sure I've been here before..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,673
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Themanwiththeplan]
    #24094740 - 02/16/17 08:06 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

big spender. What are you gonna do with the other 8/10th of a cent?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesearching
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/08/11
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 6 months, 23 days
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods] * 1
    #24095135 - 02/16/17 11:29 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

There's really not much to debate.

We know from the discoveries and experiments of Joseph Fourier that some gasses convert infrared radiation into heat at different rates. Fill a glass box with oxygen and another one with carbon dioxide and put them outside on a sunny day. The box with carbon dioxide will be warmer.

Couple that knowledge with the fact that each year man pumps over 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and now you have a prediction that man will cause the earth to become warmer. Those predictions are proving to be true with the measured global temperatures.

Now can anyone give a theory or some evidence why releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide WON'T cause the earth to become warmer?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


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: searching]
    #24095203 - 02/16/17 12:06 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I dunno, just something I googled. Here, have a look. What do you think? There's references and shit at the bottom.

Could be true or false. You decide.



Global Warming:
A Chilling Perspective

Comparison of Atmospheric Temperature with CO2
Over The Last 400,000 Years
|| Temperature -vs- CO2 || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||


For more than 2 million years our earth has cycled in and out of Ice Ages, accompanied by massive ice sheets accumulating over polar landmasses and a cold, desert-like global climate. Although the tropics during the Ice Age were still tropical, the temperate regions and sub-tropical regions were markedly different than they are today. There is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations during this time.

Historically, glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interupted by brief warm interglacial periods-- like the one we enjoy today. Changes in both temperatures and CO2 are considerable and generally synchronized, according to data analysis from ice and air samples collected over the last half century from permanent glaciers in Antarctica and other places. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite from the normal state of our natural world-- an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago.

Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!




NOTE: All charts were plotted directly from composite data sets using Lotus 1-2-3.
  CO2 Graph Sources:
Temperature Graph Sources:
2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data
1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica
1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica
2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data 2000-1979: Satellite stratospheric data
1979-1871: S. Hemisphere ground temp. data
1871- 422k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data
|| Temperature -vs- CO2 || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||
References:

Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core
The data available from CDIAC represent a major effort by researchers from France, Russia, and the U.S.A.

1) Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,00 years).
Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov,
V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987.
Nature 329:403-8.
2) Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period.
Jouzel, J., N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, C. Genthon, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou, and P. Yiou. 1993.
Nature 364:407-12.
3) Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records.
Jouzel, J., C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaize, M. Bender, J.R. Petit, M. Stievenard, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, T. King, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz, and T. Sowers. 1996.
Climate Dynamics 12:513-521.
4) Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.
Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.
Nature 399: 429-436.

End quote.

There are some graphs and stuff that didn't copy, but you get the idea.

The climate is, and will always be changing. Human influences or not.


--------------------
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/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesearching
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/08/11
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 6 months, 23 days
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: HamHead]
    #24095218 - 02/16/17 12:17 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

It's true that the earth's climate is always changing. But what were debating here is does man have a significant impact on that change? My answer is yes because we're releasing 38 billions tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

Basically I haven't heard any arguments why this wouldn't affect the temperature. All I've heard is "yeah but the earth climate changes anyway so who cares if we warm it up some?"

Let me just ask again. Why do you think releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere will NOT warm the earth?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: searching]
    #24095251 - 02/16/17 12:33 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Dont forget about deforestation on top of that too, theres a lot that we do that influences it

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott] * 1
    #24095829 - 02/16/17 04:16 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

what I've seen here is people posting data and others calling it fake for whatever reason. notice how not a single denier has actually posted any evidence to support their ideas? the irony of shutting down science calling it unreliable with a device that science made possible is not only hilarious but it's a huge slap in the face to any and all progress humanity has made


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate *DELETED* [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24095835 - 02/16/17 04:19 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Post deleted by tryptkaloids

Reason for deletion: bad link



--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #24095839 - 02/16/17 04:19 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #24096029 - 02/16/17 05:27 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

tryptkaloids said:
what I've seen here is people posting data and others calling it fake for whatever reason. notice how not a single denier has actually posted any evidence to support their ideas? the irony of shutting down science calling it unreliable with a device that science made possible is not only hilarious but it's a huge slap in the face to any and all progress humanity has made






we posted sources links, videos, news articles etc...

i even mega dumped links. with citations and links to articles.....i dont know what your going on about other than people choose not to believe them, and so choose to call them fake.

climate changers bring up : the science is in, more people believe in it than not, therefore it is true.


just like the news video i posted about al gore starting this shit for monetary purposes. what a fucking gold mine it has become.

not too bad of 2nd job for someone who was planning on being president and lost. and suddenly came into the global warming scene.

why would someone need to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches on global warming if he was trying to save the planet?

you are perpetuating a climate ponzi scheme which inevitably fail. be it through dumb ass EPA regulations like you see, to charging taxes on carbon output....

If liberal politicians want to tax it, something the fuck is up.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Edited by keyser_soze (02/16/17 05:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24096077 - 02/16/17 05:45 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
Quote:

tryptkaloids said:
what I've seen here is people posting data and others calling it fake for whatever reason. notice how not a single denier has actually posted any evidence to support their ideas? the irony of shutting down science calling it unreliable with a device that science made possible is not only hilarious but it's a huge slap in the face to any and all progress humanity has made






we posted sources links, videos, news articles etc...

i even mega dumped links. with citations and links to articles
.




You posted links that contradicted other links you posted and none of them had any citations, references, or sources of the studies done to show what they claimed. All you did was contradict your own position using only opinion and claim based articles that you yourself probably didnt read as shown by the fact some of them back what I've said and also contradict other shit you posted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24096294 - 02/16/17 07:20 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

my point remains the same.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24096578 - 02/16/17 09:20 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

And what is that point exactly? That you have an opinion you'll hold regardless of any evidence presented and will google and post anything that might support what you already believe without even reading it even if it supports my view or contradicts your own?

If you, Pris, or anyone else jumps in with actual evidence that provides a different argument, I'd be more than willing to look at it and consider it and even change my view based on it, the only thing you've presented is that you couldn't care less what's true as long as it fits whatever you already think is true and will provide literally anything as proof even if it lacks any basic form of evidence to support it. Simply stating your point remains the same despite anything shown to you just proves you couldn't care less what's actually true and what's not even though you're the one calling us brainwashed.

All you keep harping on is that "more people believe it than not", that doesn't matter, more people who are experts in the field of climate believe it than not, public opinion is irrelevant here because they're not the ones studying it. Or Al Gore, someone who literally no one gives a shit about and has even been mocked by climate experts themselves. Don't show me news, don't show me opinions, and don't show me claims, unless those claims are backed by something to verify their claims in which case I'd be more than willing to consider...as I've said at least 10 times by this point.

And just to prove my point because I'm done responding to you after this post, I'll use your own posts to show what I mean.

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

there's an article.

more importantly, it relates to the magical fucking 150 years you get your boners over.




First link you posted in the thread and what it claims, keep in mind that once again it doesn't provide a single source to a study or any type of evidence to what it claims. "To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer"

So sunspots increasing in number is the cause of earths increasing temparture, according to the link you posted. You know what one of the other links provides as proof? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm a news website...rather than evidence. Which also has no studies, references, or citations.


Quote:

keyser_soze said:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html




From this link, one of the next two you posted.

"Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet" YOUR links proof of this http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest So apparently it's the complete opposite of the first link you provided, so which one is it? It also provides no studies to show what it claims. The same link also claims that the arctic is gaining ice, which is pretty much all but gone at this point. This entire link you provided as proof is literally nothing more than a ten minute read and any link it provides takes you to a news website that doesn't provide any links whatsoever to any studies done to show what it's claiming

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
i rarely quote wikipedia, but since some of your arguments came from a user based and anonymously editable internet encyclopedia, i will too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming




"This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint."

"The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[4]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[5]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[6] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[7]"

This is the literally the very beginning of the third out of three links you posted. You want to say I'm not willing to read or consider counter arguments because I'm brainwashed yet you're posting a link that almost completely agrees with me? You clearly aren't reading what your using as proof and using it as proof anyway.

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
we posted sources links, videos, news articles etc...

i even mega dumped links. with citations and links to articles




So once again, no you haven't, and until you do there's no reason to take anything you say seriously. Unless you think articles and citations to news websites that don't provide anything to back their claims is proof of anything.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24097063 - 02/17/17 05:45 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

my point, if you read it, still remains the same. it's still in this thread...so i dont know why you keep asking.


again, my point remains the same.

and you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

that wikipedia article i posted is about scientists that disagree with climate change believers. they are the dissidents. that paragraph is merely background information for the list of scientists that DISAGREE WITH THAT PARAGRAPH. you quoted it like 3 times trying to prove a point, but failed to realize the shit went over your head every time.

but i see your argument is still going strong, " more people believe it that not, so it must be true", otherwise you wouldn't keep pointing to a paragraph that has nothing to do with the scientists that disagree with it.


seriously, it's like you stop at the first thing that agrees with your stance, without further reading. #officialcherrypicker LOL fucking hilarious.

you dumb motherfuckers don't realize you are getting hyped up over like 1000 years of data for a planet that is billions of years old. there is a book out there about you guys and the main point of that one is that the sky is falling, read it.



--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Edited by keyser_soze (02/17/17 06:06 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesearching
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/08/11
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 6 months, 23 days
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24097105 - 02/17/17 06:47 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I've made a valid argument and no one has replied to it. It seems like you're ignoring it.

Tell me why carbon dioxide won't increase the earth's temperature. Humans have doubled the ppm of c02 in the atmosphere.

Or maybe you tell us why Venus is hotter than mercury even though mercury is closer to the sun.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24097106 - 02/17/17 06:48 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I honestly think you must be retarded at this point, my reading comprehension needs work? More evidence (some of which ive posted btw) claims its true..., not people, for the last time, you have not posted evidence for me to consider...for the last time.

Official cherry picker? You took an article that says 97% percent of scientists agree but you're convinced its not true because of the 3% in it that arent. Of course theres scientist who dont agree, according to YOUR article its only 3% of them so seriously explain to me why i should agree with 3% over 97%? Oh thats right, because youre cherry picking because youre desperately looking for something to hold on to.

Notice how in these ones it links something directly related to everything it claims so that you can verify what it's saying? If you actually took the time to read them they collected large numbers of peer reviewed studies on this topic from various groups and provide the statistics for how many reach the same conclusions. Rather than going off what people believe like you keep trying to cling to.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

This is like talking to a wall lol Have a good one dude, you clearly dont care to have an actual conversation about it and just go to insults when you cant back up your own stance. :cheers:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24097369 - 02/17/17 09:52 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

they collected large numbers of peer reviewed studies


these guys don't trust peer review.. it's basic we have majorly disrupted the carbon cycle. it's supposed to stay in the ground and in the life, not the air and water...


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: searching]
    #24097383 - 02/17/17 10:00 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

searching said:
It's true that the earth's climate is always changing.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation


Quote:

Let me just ask again. Why do you think releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere will NOT warm the earth?





shouldnt you be asking if it contributes since the earth was already warming, man
and his CO2 production didnt bring us out of an ice age. while you said earlier
there isnt much for debate, clearly there is since you believe this is completely
made by man

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing 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]
    #24097458 - 02/17/17 10:30 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We've only actually measured 33.

If the 117 unsampled peaks follow a similar trend, then the research community's current projection might stand. But looking through such a small window, there's no way of knowing if what we have seen until now is typical or not. It's like shining a light on a darkened globe: randomly, you might hit Australia, and think you’d seen it all – while on the edge of your beam, unnoticed, would be Asia. Our planet's isolated volcanic frontiers could easily be hiding a monster or two; and with a bit of exploration, our estimate of volcanic CO2 output could rise even higher.

You'd think that would be enough. That might be my fault — I tend to save the weird stuff until the end. Recently, an enigmatic source of volcanic carbon has come to light that isn't involved with lava — or even craters. It now seems that not only is there CO2 we can't get to, there's some we can't even see.

Carbon dioxide is always invisible, but its presence can be inferred in volcanic plumes — betrayed by the billowing clouds of water vapour released alongside it. Without the water, though, it's a different story. The new poster-child of planetary degassing is diffuse CO2 — invisible emanations which can occur across vast areas surrounding the main vents of a volcano, rising through the bulk of the mountains. This transparent haze is only just beginning to receive proper attention, and as such we have very little idea of how much it might contribute to the global output.

Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still 'erupt' gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

If these additional 'carbon-active' volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we've measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.




http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html




--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #24097483 - 02/17/17 10:41 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

searching said:
It's true that the earth's climate is always changing.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation


Quote:

Let me just ask again. Why do you think releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere will NOT warm the earth?





shouldnt you be asking if it contributes since the earth was already warming, man
and his CO2 production didnt bring us out of an ice age. while you said earlier
there isnt much for debate, clearly there is since you believe this is completely
made by man



not a single person here said it was 100% man made. however the massive shift in the carbon cycle has been caused mainly by man. go head, disprove decades of peer reviewed studies


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24097485 - 02/17/17 10:42 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

That article also states

Quote:

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years




They're just stating that their findings have been underestimated for a long time and that we have no idea how much volcanoes as a whole produce but that it's also pretty much constant even if our numbers of how much were off.

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:


clearly there is since you believe this is completely
made by man




Where did he even imply that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,166
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: searching] * 1
    #24097524 - 02/17/17 10:52 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

searching said:
It's true that the earth's climate is always changing. But what were debating here is does man have a significant impact on that change? My answer is yes because we're releasing 38 billions tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.





I've said many times, and am tired of saying it, that isn't the only thing we do.

We tear down rainforests. Destroy watersheds. Dam rivers. These are much more obvious and tangible examples of how we've been fucking shit up.


What do rainforests do? convert co2 into oxygen

What do watersheds do? clean out pollutants and filter oxygen

What do natural river paths do? they cleanse the land and replenish underground water levels as well as atmospheric water (this is why California isn't getting the rain it used to)


We alter the earth. It is very capable of regulating itself and cleaning out our poison. But we have been destroying it's ability to self regulate at a not only unsustainable but also cycle breaking rate.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24097525 - 02/17/17 10:52 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SirShroomsAlott said:
That article also states

Quote:

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years




They're just stating that their findings have been underestimated for a long time and that we have no idea how much volcanoes as a whole produce but that it's also pretty much constant even if our numbers of how much were off.



actually, the article says there is no good understanding of the carbon cycle and that plenty of research is still needed just to begin to understand this one component of the climate.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24097542 - 02/17/17 11:00 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

All I can see that article state is were not sure how much CO2 volcanoes actually release into the air but that it takes generations for the volcanic backround level to change, not years. I didn't see it say we have no good understanding of how the carbon cycle works, just that we underestimated how much volcanoes were releasing total. I do agree more research has to be done though so we have a better understanding of it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24097573 - 02/17/17 11:12 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We've only actually measured 33.

If the 117 unsampled peaks follow a similar trend, then the research community's current projection might stand. But looking through such a small window, there's no way of knowing if what we have seen until now is typical or not. It's like shining a light on a darkened globe: randomly, you might hit Australia, and think you’d seen it all – while on the edge of your beam, unnoticed, would be Asia. Our planet's isolated volcanic frontiers could easily be hiding a monster or two; and with a bit of exploration, our estimate of volcanic CO2 output could rise even higher.

You'd think that would be enough. That might be my fault — I tend to save the weird stuff until the end. Recently, an enigmatic source of volcanic carbon has come to light that isn't involved with lava — or even craters. It now seems that not only is there CO2 we can't get to, there's some we can't even see.

Carbon dioxide is always invisible, but its presence can be inferred in volcanic plumes — betrayed by the billowing clouds of water vapour released alongside it. Without the water, though, it's a different story. The new poster-child of planetary degassing is diffuse CO2 — invisible emanations which can occur across vast areas surrounding the main vents of a volcano, rising through the bulk of the mountains. This transparent haze is only just beginning to receive proper attention, and as such we have very little idea of how much it might contribute to the global output.

Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still 'erupt' gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

If these additional 'carbon-active' volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we've measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.




http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html






yes, before the industrial revolution volcanos were the primary source of Co2 however, there was enough plant life to keep the levels down. but now deforestation alone puts out more Co2 while destroying carbon sinks than the forest


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #24097654 - 02/17/17 11:41 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

from the article:

Quote:

any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: As scientific progress is widening our perspective, the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.



in other words, the carbon cycle has more parameters than are currently known since uptake must be more dynamic considering such high base input levels which havent even been set yet and rise every year.

Quote:

Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption.




Quote:

diffuse CO2 — invisible emanations which can occur across vast areas surrounding the main vents of a volcano, rising through the bulk of the mountains. This transparent haze is only just beginning to receive proper attention, and as such we have very little idea of how much it might contribute to the global output.




Quote:

If these additional 'carbon-active' volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we've measured a grand total of nine percent.



this is misleading as is noted in the article, no proper measurements have ever been taken given the ongoing discovery of CO2 inputs, so even nine percent is too high, more like zero percent.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesearching
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/08/11
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 6 months, 23 days
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #24097695 - 02/17/17 11:59 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The warming of earth isn't completely caused by man. Youre right man made warming is jusf a contributing factor.  I guess the debate is not IF man is causing the earth to warm, but by HOW MUCH. It just bothers me when people deny it completely when the theory is sound and the predictions are coming true.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: searching]
    #24098000 - 02/17/17 02:12 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

searching said:
The warming of earth isn't completely caused by man.



a statement with equal weight: the warming of earth is independent of mans activity.

both opinions

Quote:

searching said:
Youre right man made warming is jusf a contributing factor.



if any of mans activities are causing warming, deforestation is the top, but really, have you guys never heard of microbeads? triclosan? fukushima? this planet is winding down, the real pollution is already in circulation in large enough quantities to extinguish all life, humanity will not last long enough to see the climate warm out of control, if that even happens, get real guys


Quote:

searching said:
I guess the debate is not IF man is causing the earth to warm, but by HOW MUCH.



this kind of self importance is what led to catastrophic pollution, get over your self.

Quote:

searching said:
It just bothers me when people deny it completely when the theory is sound and the predictions are coming true.



dumbest comment o the day award


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24098354 - 02/17/17 05:08 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

i am willing to bet those clinging to the global warming caused by man is real party are the same people who think nature should prevail over human life.


like white guilt with the SJW, but environmentalist hippies like the ones at standing rock...(who left tons of fucking garbage and trash in their wake, by the way)


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24098534 - 02/17/17 06:36 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Nature doesn't need us, we on the other hand need it. Contrary to what you believe, I care about people so much I want nature to be as sustainable as possible so people can survive with it as long as possible. Pollution, deforestation, wiping out species without care, displacing entire ecosystems, our rape of the surface, etc. At the rate we seem to be going it doesn't seem like we'll last very long, maybe within our life times, maybe our childrens, maybe their children, eventually we'll do enough destruction it will make it unsustainable for society as a whole and there's no one thing we're doing that's to blame, it's a combination of things. Nature will survive regardless of what we do to it, we might not though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24099558 - 02/18/17 06:23 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

Nature will survive regardless of what we do to it



then why care about AGW?

i felt this way once, i went out to the Earth and tried to help her stay clean, but the damage was done long ago, in fact, most of it when the dinosaurs were exterminated, we live on the last dwindling resources, in a fading ecosystem, no, nature will not survive, this planet will be dead as mars soon.


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,166
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24099572 - 02/18/17 06:43 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Yes why care that everything we know and love will be destroyed?


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24099579 - 02/18/17 06:49 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

wow, reading comprehension around here is dragging ass, are you serious?


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,166
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24099581 - 02/18/17 06:52 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

Nature will survive regardless of what we do to it



then why care about AGW?




Quote:

CookieCrumbs said:
Yes why care that everything we know and love will be destroyed?




What's not to comprehend?


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24099588 - 02/18/17 06:59 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)



if nature will survive no matter what, then why worry about climate change?


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,166
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24099607 - 02/18/17 07:17 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Because the polar bears are gonna die for one.

And so are human beings.

And with human beings dead our nuclear fuel sources either explode and make 99% of the earth uninhabitable except maybe to cockroaches. Or if we do "dispose" of all that before we die off then eventually that radioactive material will leach into the ground and water and poison what does live. Thousands of years after we are gone we will still be toxic to the world.

50% of all sea life is already gone with us dumping shit into the water and over fishing. I personally think that if we DO have to kill ourselves we should maybe not take out everything with us.

All the things that have inspired the greatest stories, poems, paintings, film, and human imagination will die with us. Not because of global warming honestly. That's only a small part of the problem. Hunting and deforestation, lack of habitat, has driven down the population. The numbers that remain cannot migrate or evolve efficiently as the climate changes.


Yes we are responsible for that.
And yes I care more about us destroying our home and our source of EVERYTHING that has ever made humanity great than for humanity itself killing itself. I would rather see us all die without defacing anything else on the earth. Maybe in a few hundred million years apes would evolve out a new mankind that isn't such a selfish piece of shit.


Call me an environmentalist hippie with white guilt - what we're doing and thinking it doesn't matter while we doing it because thats what we WANT to believe is quite frankly retarded. And natural selection weens out retards. At some point we do deserve to die out. But no other species has taken out at least 50-60% of all the other life on earth with it.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24099613 - 02/18/17 07:24 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

wow, just wow, nobody reads the thread before posting, do they?

unfuckingbelievable


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,166
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24099618 - 02/18/17 07:29 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Hell no. It's 8 pages long and I've been avoiding it because I've been over this a hundred times and nothing really seems to change.


Out of curiosity, how can you have joined over 6 years ago and have less than 200 posts? Is there just not alot of things that interest you or do you prefer to lurk or do you just not have alot of time to shroomery? You don't have to answer. I just wonder since I would make like <100 posts in a year just popping in to lurk every once in a while and comment on something like this where I really feel the need to insert my opinion but I still would have had at least 300 in 3-4 years.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24099623 - 02/18/17 07:35 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

its good that you fear those unlike you

go back to disregarding


--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24099649 - 02/18/17 07:55 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

CookieCrumbs said:
Hell no. It's 8 pages long and I've been avoiding it because I've been over this a hundred times and nothing really seems to change.


Out of curiosity, how can you have joined over 6 years ago and have less than 200 posts? Is there just not alot of things that interest you or do you prefer to lurk or do you just not have alot of time to shroomery? You don't have to answer. I just wonder since I would make like <100 posts in a year just popping in to lurk every once in a while and comment on something like this where I really feel the need to insert my opinion but I still would have had at least 300 in 3-4 years.




probably because some people come here to learn about mushrooms, but then very quickly see this website is just filled with drug addled people who take god knows what chemicals and then post shit in forums thinking its going to be the next bible and there is no reason to respond to incoherent thoughts brought on by psychosis.

*not this thread but a lot of others

Edited by keyser_soze (02/18/17 07:57 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,166
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24099694 - 02/18/17 08:33 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
its good that you fear those unlike you

go back to disregarding




...wut.


Quote:

keyser_soze said:
Quote:

CookieCrumbs said:
Hell no. It's 8 pages long and I've been avoiding it because I've been over this a hundred times and nothing really seems to change.


Out of curiosity, how can you have joined over 6 years ago and have less than 200 posts? Is there just not alot of things that interest you or do you prefer to lurk or do you just not have alot of time to shroomery? You don't have to answer. I just wonder since I would make like <100 posts in a year just popping in to lurk every once in a while and comment on something like this where I really feel the need to insert my opinion but I still would have had at least 300 in 3-4 years.




probably because some people come here to learn about mushrooms, but then very quickly see this website is just filled with drug addled people who take god knows what chemicals and then post shit in forums thinking its going to be the next bible and there is no reason to respond to incoherent thoughts brought on by psychosis.

*not this thread but a lot of others




Well this is partly true I suppose.
But when you are in the boat why would you be afraid to talk with the oarsmen?


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24099721 - 02/18/17 08:52 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

because while they are content with being simple oarsman who know only how to row, i'd rather be the captain with some knowledge.

take a gander at the pub and mark down every "im on this drug right now" or "insert cemical here" "which drug can't you live without" etc...

i'd say 75% of the shroomery is like that.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #24099737 - 02/18/17 08:58 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

tryptkaloids said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

searching said:
It's true that the earth's climate is always changing.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation


Quote:

Let me just ask again. Why do you think releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere will NOT warm the earth?





shouldnt you be asking if it contributes since the earth was already warming, man
and his CO2 production didnt bring us out of an ice age. while you said earlier
there isnt much for debate, clearly there is since you believe this is completely
made by man



not a single person here said it was 100% man made. however the massive shift in the carbon cycle has been caused mainly by man. go head, disprove decades of peer reviewed studies





they sure seem to be pushing the idea that it's man made as is the IPCC, you know,
the political body that's pushing cor carbon taxes to reverse global warming

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24099747 - 02/18/17 09:00 AM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

SirShroomsAlott said:
That article also states

Quote:

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years




They're just stating that their findings have been underestimated for a long time and that we have no idea how much volcanoes as a whole produce but that it's also pretty much constant even if our numbers of how much were off.

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:


clearly there is since you believe this is completely
made by man




Where did he even imply that?





read the RE:

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/24097383#24097383

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #24100269 - 02/18/17 01:17 PM (7 years, 30 days ago)

global warming caused california droughts and global warming caused the rains that flooded california.

soon global warming will bring summer temperatures in a couple months!

sky is falling people!


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24100355 - 02/18/17 02:10 PM (7 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

searching said:
The warming of earth isn't completely caused by man.



a statement with equal weight: the warming of earth is independent of mans activity.

both opinions

Quote:

searching said:
Youre right man made warming is jusf a contributing factor.



if any of mans activities are causing warming, deforestation is the top, but really, have you guys never heard of microbeads? triclosan? fukushima? this planet is winding down, the real pollution is already in circulation in large enough quantities to extinguish all life, humanity will not last long enough to see the climate warm out of control, if that even happens, get real guys


Quote:

searching said:
I guess the debate is not IF man is causing the earth to warm, but by HOW MUCH.



this kind of self importance is what led to catastrophic pollution, get over your self.

Quote:

searching said:
It just bothers me when people deny it completely when the theory is sound and the predictions are coming true.



dumbest comment o the day award



you keep giving examples that contradict your position... everything you brought up here are other factors (among hundreds) contributing to climate change


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Disaster at sea: global warming hits UK birds ekomstop 1,957 18 08/02/04 11:52 AM
by MyInsanityTrip
* Global Warming might cybrbeast 502 2 07/30/04 10:08 AM
by kindkesey
* 104.5 f temperature fee 2,499 12 03/22/04 01:33 PM
by Infrared
* 1st GLOBAL SHROOMERY MEETING idea
( 1 2 3 all )
Sterile 9,197 54 03/04/03 11:46 AM
by Sterile
* What's the temperature of outer space and why?
( 1 2 3 all )
TheHateCamel 4,201 54 04/07/17 05:51 PM
by mca0824
* Global Marijuana March - May 7
( 1 2 3 all )
trendalM 6,409 55 03/23/06 02:09 PM
by trendal
* Debating
( 1 2 all )
MovingTarget 2,192 27 11/28/04 07:55 PM
by MovingTarget
* Keep my face warm?
( 1 2 all )
freddurgan 1,645 23 01/25/05 10:46 AM
by gdman

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
2,805 topic views. 6 members, 12 guests and 41 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.099 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 14 queries.