Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
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: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineamilibertine
It’s good to be back!
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/10/09
Posts: 3,241
Loc: Northern South Midwest
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: psyconaught]
    #19855993 - 04/16/14 07:04 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

psyconaught said:
Quote:

Humans can't change the climate of the planet in any significant way



i agree with everything in your post up until this point. I think humans very well could alter the climate of the planet significantly, i just don't believe we're at that point.




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.


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




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: psyconaught]
    #19859033 - 04/17/14 09:06 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: Phred]
    #19859053 - 04/17/14 09:17 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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:

zappaisgod said:
What I am saying is that it is such a miniscule portion of the atmosphere that the predictions of dire consequences if it rises and that we must stop using the most important engine of human prosperity the planet has ever seen is fucking stupid.  Really fucking stupid and neither India, China nor anybody else outside of Europe would even consider cutting their own balls off like that.

I have also yet to be convinced that it is a bad thing if it gets warmer.  Little Ice Age = huge wars and rampant famine.  Big Ice Age = near extinction.





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:

It's all about money, with the goal of forcing the people to pay for a "carbon tax" and companies to purchase "carbon credits".





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:


Water vapor is the greatest contributor to the earth's greenhouse effect.  Its all explained here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html





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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineamilibertine
It’s good to be back!
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/10/09
Posts: 3,241
Loc: Northern South Midwest
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: EddYerb]
    #19859704 - 04/17/14 12:33 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

EddYerb said:
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:

zappaisgod said:
What I am saying is that it is such a miniscule portion of the atmosphere that the predictions of dire consequences if it rises and that we must stop using the most important engine of human prosperity the planet has ever seen is fucking stupid.  Really fucking stupid and neither India, China nor anybody else outside of Europe would even consider cutting their own balls off like that.

I have also yet to be convinced that it is a bad thing if it gets warmer.  Little Ice Age = huge wars and rampant famine.  Big Ice Age = near extinction.





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:

It's all about money, with the goal of forcing the people to pay for a "carbon tax" and companies to purchase "carbon credits".





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:


Water vapor is the greatest contributor to the earth's greenhouse effect.  Its all explained here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html





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.






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.


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




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: amilibertine]
    #19859729 - 04/17/14 12:40 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinespecialpeopleclub
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 5,584
Loc: Mitten
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: EddYerb]
    #19860096 - 04/17/14 02:01 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: EddYerb]
    #19860216 - 04/17/14 02:29 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: specialpeopleclub]
    #19860218 - 04/17/14 02:30 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

specialpeopleclub said:
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



It was not.  It was roughly the same as the last 17 years.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinespecialpeopleclub
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 5,584
Loc: Mitten
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19860594 - 04/17/14 03:47 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
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?


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: specialpeopleclub]
    #19860736 - 04/17/14 04:12 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

specialpeopleclub said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
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?


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



Not one statement was made by me.  Only questions asked.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineamilibertine
It’s good to be back!
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/10/09
Posts: 3,241
Loc: Northern South Midwest
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19862328 - 04/17/14 09:02 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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)


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




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJuicin
Stranger
Male
Registered: 10/27/13
Posts: 897
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: amilibertine]
    #19862378 - 04/17/14 09:11 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

amilibertine said:
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)




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19863919 - 04/18/14 04:28 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: amilibertine]
    #19863953 - 04/18/14 05:03 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: EddYerb]
    #19865214 - 04/18/14 12:05 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

EddYerb said:


1. No, it is not a gas..  (also, I wonder what particles principally construct bitumen -Merp its carbon-)




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:


2. No, water vapour is. Because then it is in gas form.




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:

Well, the greenhouse gasses are what allows the planet to store that energy that is being radiated by the Sun.




That is just incorrect.  Even of we had no atmosphere at all the mass of the planet would store energy.
Quote:


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.




No,  The rise in temperature has completely stopped over the last 17 years.  Your link doesn't say it hasn't. 

http://junkscience.com/2013/08/25/monckton-responds-to-mann-global-warming-has-stopped-get-over-it/
Quote:

 
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.




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:


5. I've said this loads mate.




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:


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"




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:


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.




Link 1

Quote:

Using the figures above, China will spend 0.71% GDP per year on renewables




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/41326-2013-carbon-emissions-record-levels.html

Quote:

The researchers found that China was the biggest contributor to emissions in 2012, followed by the United States, the European Union and India. But China and India, developing nations with rapidly growing economies, showed the biggest increase in their carbon emissions.




Quote:



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




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/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-climate-science-and-fudge/


Quote:

Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

That was vindication for a man who was termed “a civil heretic” in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.





Computer modeling is NOT science.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19865579 - 04/18/14 01:25 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:


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.




"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:

2. No, water vapour is. Because then it is in gas form.




The water in the ocean stores an incredible amount of heat.

Yep, the ocean retains heat. It has risen in temperature.

Quote:

Ok, I should have said infrared radiation.

Here's a quote from NASA-

"Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C)"




Quote:


No,  The rise in temperature has completely stopped over the last 17 years.  Your link doesn't say it hasn't.




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:


4.
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.




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:


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.




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:

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.




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:


What caused the Permian extinction and temperature rise?  Hint; it wasn't CO2.





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:


Link 1

Quote:

Using the figures above, China will spend 0.71% GDP per year on renewables








More than the UK is, which was my point. (in terms of GDP)
Quote:


Link 2  The Maldives?  What possible effect could they have in reducing CO2 emissions





Just an example of a country (and most island nations obvs) that wants to tackle global warming.

Quote:


Link 3  Where do you think China gets the energy to charge the electric cars?

http://www.livescience.com/41326-2013-carbon-emissions-record-levels.html





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:


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/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-climate-science-and-fudge/





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:

Computer modeling is NOT science.




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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: EddYerb]
    #19865624 - 04/18/14 01:37 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: EddYerb]
    #19865974 - 04/18/14 02:47 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19866006 - 04/18/14 02:55 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEddYerb
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/13
Posts: 157
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Obama Finally Got Priorities Straight...... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19866021 - 04/18/14 02:58 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Finally
( 1 2 3 4 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,500 60 08/15/03 01:26 PM
by shakta
* Global Warming: The Final Proof?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
GazzBut 8,783 91 03/12/05 01:27 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* Measure would make pot busts lowest police priority wingnutx 651 1 08/30/03 04:52 AM
by monoamine
* WMD: The Final Judgement
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Xlea321 6,680 73 10/13/04 01:15 AM
by Xlea321
* Priorities are what governings all about. Gasoline BEFORE hospitals, water. carbonhoots 453 1 09/15/05 05:04 PM
by LeftyBurnz
* Obama offers universal health care plan lonestar2004 1,494 18 05/30/07 10:20 AM
by lonestar2004
* Obama launches 2008 White House bid zorbman 2,326 16 01/17/07 06:14 PM
by zappaisgod
* Keyes Says Christ Would Not Vote For Obama DigitalDuality 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 ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.