| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
It’s good to be back! Registered: 06/10/09 Posts: 3,241 Loc: Northern South Midwest Last seen: 8 months, 9 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I suppose we could change it if we put our minds together (nuclear winter anyone), so you're probably right. I just don't think that what we are doing now is driving climate change. Obviously protecting the environment is important and we certainly have too much pollution of all kinds. There are many things we could be doing that would allow us to take better care of our planet. I just will never believe that our governments would want to do anything other the solidify their rule and extort money from the populace.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Do you not think a depletion of ozone would affect the climate of the planet? Because we almost definitely have caused that, and it almost definitely has had an impact on the climate of the planet (changing temperature patterns in Antarctica under the hole, a cooling of the stratosphere). And it is almost certainly exacerbated by the CFCs and many other man-made compounds that potentially occur (although most deny this) in very small amounts naturally from volcanic eruption.
We have also significantly altered the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to NASA by about 24 percent. And that is just one of many greenhouse gasses that have been added to the atmosphere. I'm not so sure that we aren't already seeing catastrophic effects either. Further, I would like to see some evidence for the claim that solar activity is the principle cause of climate change, and that the incredible amount of carbon we have released back into the atmosphere has not altered the climate in any way. Because, many scientists who study this subject their entire lives disagree, with extensive evidence and calculation, with the natural-cycle argument. Here is a graph that shows the amount of effect solar activity has had towards global climate change as indicated by four peer-reviewed studies. ![]() And a graph showing trends - ![]() Arguments that man-made global warming is a hoax, that there is no scientific consensus, that temperatures have not risen, or that there has been a recent global cooling are all incredibly large statements that go against the scientific consensus. As such they require a decent source (peer-reviewed). These claims are also pretty insulting to the thousands of scientists that dedicate their lives to this study. If you believe that it is a hoax, please tell me what you think the scientists, who make little money and who are often very passionate about science, have got to do with it. Are they being lied to? Are they wrong? Tell me what you think. Because they know a fuck of a lot more about climate change than most of the outspoken climate deniers, especially the hordes of Americans denying climate change on forums all over the web. Ultimately, as I have said, the climate is incredibly complicated and this is why we have such difficulty predicting it accurately, especially considering our short time-frames. BUT : Climate change is relatively intuitive (or at least calculable by physics). All we need to know is what I stated a few pages back. CO2 retains heat. Thus, the more CO2 we release the warmer the planet. But anyway, please dissect my post and argue (with references) the science. If anyone fancies checking out an easy to watch video debunking claims that climate change is caused exclusively by the sun - Edited by EddYerb (04/17/14 10:33 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Ok, I was unsure of that claim, checked wiki and they didn't include water vapour in their atmospheric composition graph (because it was composition of dry atmosphere it turns out.
On the second point - please show me peer-reviewed evidence. EDIT: Quote: Mate, I'm sorry, but how can you be so sure of yourself on a topic that you clearly know next to nothing about. I don't know much about it either, and am open to argument. But you seem completely closed to any argument whatsoever. If you provide any reputable link or source to back up your claim then fair - but it is not at all stupid to suggest that we need to limit our greenhouse gas emissions. Its really the opposite. Your second point confuses me. Are you arguing that humanity should be wiped out, which I guess would be a fair (although I could never understand it) position. Or, are you trying to say that it is better if it gets hotter because hot is the opposite of cold and cold weather screws us over? Hopefully it isn't the second point. I won't bother arguing against it, because it is illogical and hopefully it is not what you meant. Quote: Anthropogenic climate change has been theorised and observed long before the idea of a carbon tax came about. I can find no newspaper reference to a carbon tax before 1989. Many proponents of a global greenhouse gas regulation scheme are also fundamentally against the idea of a carbon tax. A lot of people want a control regime, similar to the Montreal Protocol. I really do not understand this mindset of government being a super evil entity. Who do you think are driving government decisions? IMO it is almost definitely a combination of public opinion and corporate lobbying. Surely if you think government is evil, you also think of corporations as evil? Quote: What effect do you think CO2 is going to have on the water vapour cycle? I can post random sites that refute that sites claim too. Edited by EddYerb (04/17/14 12:21 PM)
| |||||||
|
It’s good to be back! Registered: 06/10/09 Posts: 3,241 Loc: Northern South Midwest Last seen: 8 months, 9 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't consider governments evil really, more like greedy and incompetent. Same goes for corporations. Back in 1989 AGW wasn't on the government radar. Sure some scientists were studying climate change but the real push for "action" didn't start until the mid 1990's. It didn't take the powers that be long before they could scheme on a way to profit from the new "green" movement that they had previously mostly ignored or ridiculed. That said, I believe the climate changes constantly. I just believe that the biggest factor that drives climate change is the sun, which to me would seem obvious. How we mere humans could compete with the sun is beyond me.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I agree that governments and corporations are going to try to profitise on any action to reduce CO2. What I disagree with is the opinion that man made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by governments and shadowy figures sitting in a dark room and evilly laughing.
You should watch the video I posted above in regards to the effect of the Sun on the climate. " How we mere humans could compete with the sun is beyond me." Well, the greenhouse gasses are what allows the planet to store that energy that is being radiated by the Sun. Organic organisms have changed the climate of the Earth substantially over its many life-housing eons. Please see my previous posts in response to the 'intuitive' claim that the Sun is obviously responsible for the changes in temperature and climate Edited by EddYerb (04/18/14 05:55 AM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 5,584 Loc: Mitten Last seen: 3 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
People can't see the atmosphere, so unless it does something super crazy normal people will continue to doubt. Almost every other year is the warmest on record. Last summer was extreamly hot, though not where I live
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
1. Is asphalt a greenhouse gas? It stores heat.
2. Is liquid water? It stores heat. 3. How come no warming for 17 years even though CO has continued to rise? 4. What percent of the atmosphere does CO2 constitute? 5. How come the models are 0 fer in predictions? 6. Why do you assume that only bad things will come from warming? The Little Ice Age was associated with massive famine and wars. Why would a little more warmth necessarily be a bad thing? 7. What do you suppose Russia, China, India and other nations not in Europe or English speaking are willing to do about curtailing fossil fuel use?
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It was not. It was roughly the same as the last 17 years.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 5,584 Loc: Mitten Last seen: 3 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote:Are you like, made of ignorance There is warming, polar caps are melring faster then ever go look up official, onpartisan overnmemtal sources We are talking the atmosphere, the bubble between us and death that sustains all. It could be good? No, earth is habitavle now, this is good. Being warmer isn't just more tropics,. The air has more energy, moving normal airstreams, like he jetstream and the tides that bring warm air to western Europe so it doesn't look like Russia. Hurricans become more frequent from the extra energy, and move farther north. You are making false statements, you know it. I don't mean how the fucking air feels when I say warmest year. There is more heat energy, the molocules are vibratng faster causing less dense more unpredictable airflow
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Not one statement was made by me. Only questions asked.
| |||||||
|
It’s good to be back! Registered: 06/10/09 Posts: 3,241 Loc: Northern South Midwest Last seen: 8 months, 9 days |
| ||||||
|
This is a very good article detailing the motives of the global warming fanatics. It is well cited with links to many news stories.
CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (UPDATED FOR EARLY 2014)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/27/13 Posts: 897 |
| ||||||
Quote: You realize that if you're comparing motives of both sides One side has companies who make money on fossil fuels, some of the most powerful interests on the planet And on the other you have people who would like to make rational choices about our energy future. Relying on natural gas and oil isn't sustainable, the sooner we ween ourselves off it the better. Energy policy and foreign policy are irreversibly linked. And until the world's economy isn't dependent on fossil fuels we're going to have wars to keep it flowing.....The problem is as time goes on it's just going to get more and more profitable Blows my mind that you just posted that link. Clearly big oil is doing it's job
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Firstly -
If you believe that it is a hoax, please tell me what you think the scientists, who make little money and who are often very passionate about science, have got to do with it. Are they being lied to? Are they wrong? Tell me what you think. Because they know a fuck of a lot more about climate change than most of the outspoken climate deniers, especially the hordes of Americans denying climate change on forums all over the web. 1. No, it is not a gas.. (also, I wonder what particles principally construct bitumen -Merp its carbon-) 2. No, water vapour is. Because then it is in gas form. 3. I posted articles explaining that. But I could go in more depth - depending on who's meassurements you use the surface temperature rise has slowed - NOT STOPPED WARMING - although, even in cases where the surface temperature data has been skewed by random bloggers to make it appear there has been no surface temperature warming, there has been a huge (in terms of the ocean) rise in ocean temperature. Google it to find out why this is bad, I can not be bothered to try and explain it, as you don't seem to have been reading my earlier explanations. 4. As you and I have said many a time, about 0.04. That makes no difference to the huge effect it has on keeping our planet warm. Water vapour varies between 0.01 to 4.24. These two substances are primarily the reason that our climate is warm and habitable at the moment. They both behave in very different ways - why don't you google it. 5. I've said this loads mate. 6. Oh my god. Are you joking. A "little warmth" makes an incredibly big difference to every ecosystem in the world. By the way, we need ecosystems. Read this if you want to know what difference it will make. Knowing that you won't, here is a quote - "251m years ago, when global temperatures rose by – yes – six degrees, and 95% of species were wiped out" 7. Almost all countries at least express concern and have attempted some form of carbon reduction. China produces more green energy than any other nation, and is investing more than the UK. The Maldives and other Indian island nations are incredibly concerned with climate change resulting from fossil fuel use. China are also extremely concerned about future demand for oil, and are supporting many hybrid/ electric car production schemes. So, you obviously did not, probably will never, read what I wrote. You obviously will not believe anything that other people tell you on this matter for you have already decided that it is a hoax. I'm upset that there are so many people like this in the world - that will argue tooth and nail for something they have no detailed knowledge about, and will only read anything about it as long as it supports their belief. I posted you a video that explains, in a pop format, the carbon cycle. You clearly did not watch it. I will not bother taking any time to intelligently respond to your question from now on, I simply refer you to my past posts. Especially the many links I have posted in the last two. I highly advise that you open yourself up to new ideas concerning questions that are scientific. This is not a political subject, but people (read: vested interests) have somehow made it that. Like I have said, I too am no expert. However, I have read a lot about climate change, learnt about carbon cycle at school, talk about it with my mate (who is an atmospheric climate scientist), watched videos, read academic articles etc. etc. I have tried reading counter arguments, but every time I have seen one they have been rebuffed. They almost all seem to be badly sourced, and often by people who think it is a political issue. However, I am very well open to the fact that climate change is not manmade. I will happily take the time to read any substantiated claims by the deniers, and I have visited that abominable whatsupwiththat blog about six times. It is not credible, and I will not waste any further time reading it. Post me valid links, and maybe you could change my mind. Or, if you do not want to debate but simply ask questions and poke holes in the science, at least take the time to read it when I post it, and to respond to the explanations I have given, instead of going on to repeatedly ask me the same question.. Obviously having not read the original post. Thanks, Edd Edited by EddYerb (04/18/14 06:01 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
No it does not.
What you are accusing scientists, or 'global warming fanatics', of is pure ignorance. You think that people, who work for the LOVE not for the money, who dedicate hours upon hours measuring delicate data in the antarctic. Who are sometimes shunned for the results they published, especially in the early days. You think these people have ulterior motives, that they are all purposefully involved in some huge conspiracy. Trust me, they are not. And they spend most of their days reading scientific peer reviewed articles, reading dense sheets of data, current events in the scientific community. They are not lying, they are not idiots who are being lied to. They are telling the truth to the best of their abilities, and almost all of them are sure that global warming is man made. Because, like I said, if you look at the science it is glaringly obvious. You think that news stories make an article well cited. Mate, this is NOT POLITICS this is science and SCIENCE REQUIRES PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES AS EVIDENCE, MANY OF THE MAINSTREAM NEWS WEBSITES HAVE CONSISTENTLY POSTED EITHER FALSE STUDIES OR STUDIES THAT ARE INCREDIBLY DISREPUTABLE, OFTEN NOT PEER REVIEWED. Once again, science - not politics. Anyone is welcome to share an opinion on political issues, everybody's opinion (IMO) is equally valid, we are constantly involved in governance and politics to some extent. Climate change as a political issue (i.e. what we should do about it) falls into the same category, anybody is equally qualified to decide how we should cut our use of fossil fuels, how we are going to deal with this problem that we have created. The science behind it, however, is barely debated even within scientific communities. It is not a debatable issue by people that have no scientific knowledge. If you want to debate the credibility of the science, then get involved in the science. If you do not, then just accept the scientific communities opinion - realising that these communities are, probably millions, of normal people, with extensive scientific knowledge, who are almost all 100% certain of manmade climate change, through their own observed findings and many others that they have read deeply into. I agree with the guy above, that people believe this stuff just proves how powerful money is in the United States. It has been turned into a political issue. The scientific issue is barely up for debate, least of all by people with literally no scientific knowledge. Weather patterns are not intuitive. That is why we can laugh at people like Herodotus, who offer us such obviously wrong explanations for the flooding of the Nile, or other such environmental event. The breakthrough in science was when we actually looked at results objectively, tested hypotheses rigorously, combined their work with other individuals trying to do the same thing. So let's not revert to archaic attempts to use reason to deduce the working of our weather, our environment. Let's look at the science. Or if not, then let'd not discuss it. My god, I'm getting angry visiting this thread. It's genuinely sad, and worrying, to see people claiming what you guys are. EDIT: Please watch this video This is not biased, this is based on scientific fact. Observable data. There are even climate denial nuts posting in its comment section, I advise you to ignore their unsubstantiated claims, and watch this video in its entirety - with an open mind, and conscious that this video compiles data from thousands of scientists. I'm sure you have spent more than thirty minutes arguing against man made climate change, so please just watch this video. And please respond to my questions/ arguments. EDIT2 : In response to your earlier claim that you believe warming is caused by the sun. That is an intuitive claim with no scientific backing. Intuition can be helpful, but with no knowledge of the processes behind the process you see as intuitive it is incredibly unhelpful. And anyway, I have posted a response to the scientific claim that the Sun is the principle factor in the changing climate. Edited by EddYerb (04/18/14 05:59 AM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I didn't ask you what bitumen was made of. I asjked what asphalt was made of. It is mostly made of rocks and absorbs and stores and incredible amount of heat. Quote: The water in the ocean stores an incredible amount of heat These two questions were in response to this ridiculous statement of fact that you made Quote: That is just incorrect. Even of we had no atmosphere at all the mass of the planet would store energy. Quote: No, The rise in temperature has completely stopped over the last 17 years. Your link doesn't say it hasn't. http://junkscience.com/2013/08/2 Quote: What does water vapor have to do with the nonsense about CO2? This is an almost insignificant portion of the atmosphere. To postulate that such a tiny portion of the atmosphere exercises catastrophic results you had damn well better get some real fucking proof and nobody is anywhere near that. Quote: Well why didn't you say it again. I seem to recall some nonsense about them not being perfect but they are perfect. Perfectly wrong. Quote: What caused the Permian extinction and temperature rise? Hint; it wasn't CO2. I didn't ask you if change doesn't change things. I asked if it was bad. Quote: Link 1 Quote: Link 2 The Maldives? What possible effect could they have in reducing CO2 emissions Link 3 Where do you think China gets the energy to charge the electric cars? http://www.livescience.com/41326 Quote: Quote: I'm not going to watch any videos. I too have read a lot about it. I too have posted several links. We are inundated with Chicken Littles in the mainstream press. I read them. I also read the opposition. Do you? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/ Quote: Computer modeling is NOT science.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: "Note: The terms bitumen and asphalt are mostly interchangeable, except where asphalt is used as an abbreviation for asphalt concrete. This article uses "asphalt/bitumen" where either term is acceptabl" Ok, sorry I didn't understand your Americanism and assumed that you meant bitumen. Quote: The water in the ocean stores an incredible amount of heat. Yep, the ocean retains heat. It has risen in temperature. Quote: Quote: Here's a quote : "Global temperatures have risen from 1950 through the end of 2013." And, like I said, ocean temperatures are warming. ![]() Hmmm.. So it (surface temp) hasn't risen since 1998(taking that as a baseline level), but 1998 was an extremely warm year, and the long term trend is still obvious. It is the longterm trend that is important. I don't think I've made it clear - this is a long term process, intra-generational, and is outside our normally experienced scope of time. It is incredibly important to look at the big picture. There is never a reason to only look at the last ten years, why do that when we have reliable data going back much further? Quote: Hmm.. Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute: The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Said NASA. I can't be bothered to find the papers relating to this. You still haven't answered my most important question about the scientists that dedicate their lives to studying this. Quote: Some nonsense. You are talking nonsense mate. You are posting bullshit blogs left right and centre, questioning incredibly obvious science, doubting the scientific consensus. As I said - Quote: Climate models are incredibly complex, we have not even got computers capable of calculating all of the variables, we also do not even know all of the variables, we do not understand exactly the long cycles and processes of energy transfer etc. This is why they are not accurate. But they are helpful. Quote: Actually, a 2008 study found that it was a significant factor. And yes, it is bad. The previous post had a link that told you what would happen. Quote: Quote: More than the UK is, which was my point. (in terms of GDP) Quote: Just an example of a country (and most island nations obvs) that wants to tackle global warming. Quote: They still produce more green energy than either the US or the EU. Obviously they are a lot more populous, still does not detract from that fact though. Quote: Look, I have said already. That site is bollocks, it is badly referenced, cherry picked and almost always debunked on either other sites or in the comment section. Blogs are handy for quick, tertiary references, but they should never be your primary source of information. Especially on something that, as I have said, has a huge scientific consensus. Prove me wrong with a scientists work, not a bloggers. Quote: Lol. Yes it is. All models have a 'fudge factor' (read: margin of error). Look mate, you do not think they can accurately predict the weather next week do you? Well, imagine trying to do that on a global scale with many more factors, many misunderstood processes. Computer modelling is of course a science. Oh and double lol and asking I read the other side of the news. I don't get almost any info on climate change from the news, it is incredibly biased, simplified and made to be a political issue. Which, like I have said, it is not.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Dude, look at what these blogs talk about. Look at the emotive language they use. Look at the pointless personal attacks they make, look at the irrelevant paragraphs that discuss nothing to do with the climate.
These blogs are junk, clues in the name. If your question about me reading the other side earlier was talking about those blogs, then yes. I have. I have also written that I have. I have also written that they are junk. Please, watch that video. There is a difference between reading a political blog about a scientific issue, and understanding and learning about the processes that affect our climate.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Why are you bitching about Wattsupwiththat? All they did was quote Freeman Dyson.
If you think computer modeling is science we clearly do not speak the same language. Ever heard of this acronym? GIGO Science is just as Dyson said, experiment. Computer models that do not make correct predictions are most certainly not science. Science demands that they be ignored and abandoned.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Why am I bitching about Whatsupwithtthat? Because it's a shoddy site spilling misinformation, perpetuating the 'debate' over climate change (as witnessed on this thread and all over the internet, often by Americans, always with poor referencing) when there really is none, and it poses as a site of reputable science.
Like I said, that seems to be your main source. You seem to have no grounding in scientific reality, as was evidenced by your claim about carbon earlier on. Its clear that you will not change your position, or offer me any reasonable data contending that climate change is manmade. Maybe we should just agree to disagree. Saying computer models are not science is crazy, they have helped us in many ways. One key one being ending the CFC 'debate' to some extent (haters gonna hate, oil companies and vested interests gonna perepetuate debate) (same shit different decade, less internets for idiots to selective read what they want, become experts and tell all the professionals that they are wrong.) Before I stop responding though, please answer this question - If you believe that it is a hoax, please tell me what you think the scientists, who make little money and who are often very passionate about science, have got to do with it. Are they being lied to? Are they wrong? Tell me what you think. Because they know a fuck of a lot more about climate change than most of the outspoken climate deniers. Edited by EddYerb (04/18/14 03:13 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/11/13 Posts: 157 Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Mate, computer models are just advanced mathematical models. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all.
There have been many times when models have proved incredibly useful in science.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Finally ( |
2,500 | 60 | 08/15/03 01:26 PM by shakta | ||
![]() |
Global Warming: The Final Proof? ( |
8,783 | 91 | 03/12/05 01:27 PM by Psychoactive1984 | ||
![]() |
Measure would make pot busts lowest police priority | 651 | 1 | 08/30/03 04:52 AM by monoamine | ||
![]() |
WMD: The Final Judgement ( |
6,680 | 73 | 10/13/04 01:15 AM by Xlea321 | ||
![]() |
Priorities are what governings all about. Gasoline BEFORE hospitals, water. | 453 | 1 | 09/15/05 05:04 PM by LeftyBurnz | ||
![]() |
Obama offers universal health care plan | 1,494 | 18 | 05/30/07 10:20 AM by lonestar2004 | ||
![]() |
Obama launches 2008 White House bid | 2,326 | 16 | 01/17/07 06:14 PM by zappaisgod | ||
![]() |
Keyes Says Christ Would Not Vote For Obama | 837 | 8 | 09/23/04 11:15 PM by afoaf |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 6,984 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||




