Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 7:18 AM
391 online now:
Faith, PaulK, RAZD, ThinAirDesigns, vimesey (5 members, 386 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,691 Year: 10,297/21,208 Month: 3,384/2,674 Week: 800/961 Day: 3/109 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
24252627Next
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15793
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 331 of 396 (796713)
01-03-2017 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
01-03-2017 11:28 AM


The problem with this topic as always is that the science just isn't clear enough to prove anything. The guy in the video is very convinced that he's arrived at a scientific conclusion from his studies that proves there is global warming (he's using that term instead of the more equivocal "climate change" which is interesting in itself), and that human activity is the cause of it, and he sketches out the theories his study eliminated which leaves this conclusion. But while I'm sure he's sincere it's basically all just his own assertion, his own conclusions, and there's just no way for a person to assess whether his study really did cover all the possibilities, really did include all the relevant information, really did prove what he says. There are others who sound just as sincere and just as aware of all the variables, who disagree with him about such scientific basics.

Well, you could look at the information yourself. You don't just have to listen to people saying "Yes it is", "No it isn't".

So there's global warming. Isn't Planet Earth subject to long-term cycles of warming and cooling according to current theory?

It is, but what of it? As an argument, that's kind of like a Holocaust denier saying "But don't Jews die of natural causes according to current theory".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 11:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 332 of 396 (796714)
01-03-2017 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
01-03-2017 11:28 AM


Faith writes:

The problem with this topic as always is that the science just isn't clear enough to prove anything.

Which part of the science isn't clear enough?

1. CO2 is 30% above natural levels.
2. Burning fossil fuels is the primary reason for the 30% increase.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
4. The greenhouse effect is real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 11:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 333 of 396 (796718)
01-03-2017 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
01-03-2017 11:28 AM


Hi Faith,

The problem with this topic as always is that the science just isn't clear enough to prove anything. ...

Let me copy Message 303 here for you, the information there is fairly straightforward. Clicking on the link provided provides you with the activated screen for each of these graphs and their overlay for the final total of the data.

quote:
This article goes through ALL the purported causes of climate change to show which ones cause how much change.

http://www.bloomberg.com/...ics/2015-whats-warming-the-world

I know this is a bare link, but all I can do is take screenshots:










When you add them all together you get a very very very strong match between the model and the observed data, and the only element that significantly adds to the warming is the greenhouse gases. And it would have been worse if we had not banned aerosols.


Should be pretty self-explanatory.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 11:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9452
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 334 of 396 (796751)
01-03-2017 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
01-03-2017 11:28 AM


The problem with this topic as always is that the science just isn't clear enough to prove anything.

I think you are on to something. The science will never be clear enough to convince enough folks in the United States to take action so that the need to take even small steps stops being a political question rather than a scientific one.

Maybe when metro-Atlanta gets a beach...

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 11:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 335 of 396 (799609)
02-11-2017 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Taq
11-21-2016 5:28 PM


taq writes:

How are we "imagining" the greenhouse effect? Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will trap more heat. Period.

Period??? Oh really? Trap means to never let it go. You cannot be serious that when co2 absorbs radiation, it keeps it forever?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Taq, posted 11-21-2016 5:28 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 9:33 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 336 of 396 (799610)
02-11-2017 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 9:13 PM


Trap means to never let it go.

No, it does not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 9:13 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 9:38 PM Modulous has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 337 of 396 (799611)
02-11-2017 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Modulous
02-11-2017 9:33 PM


what does trap mean to you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 9:33 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 10:24 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 339 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 10:49 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 338 of 396 (799615)
02-11-2017 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 9:38 PM


A little basic science might help.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/...science/question7461.htm
This argument of yours is a loser.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 9:38 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:02 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 339 of 396 (799616)
02-11-2017 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 9:38 PM


what does trap mean to you?

The phrase 'trap more heat' means to hold a greater quantity of heat energy at any given moment.

The energy will still be able to escape, so it is not 'never let go', but there is more of it within the containment area of interest.

Take a house, as an example. If I put the heater on, the heat energy in the house will go up. Heat energy will still leave through the walls, windows and roof etc. If I open a window, heat energy will escape more quickly. If I install insulation, more heat will be trapped. Heat will still escape the trap, but at a slower rate than before. Since the heater is still generating the same amount of heat energy, the overall heat energy in the house will go up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 9:38 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 10:59 PM Modulous has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 340 of 396 (799618)
02-11-2017 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Modulous
02-11-2017 10:49 PM


You are talking about restricting convection of heat with your example.

With co2, it absorbs heat energy and then releases it. What evidence do you have to suggest the temporary entrapment of heat by co2 slows the release of heat into space?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 10:49 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 11:22 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 345 by NoNukes, posted 02-11-2017 11:26 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 341 of 396 (799619)
02-11-2017 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Theodoric
02-11-2017 10:24 PM


I'm aware of everything already in that article. Some of it is incorrect however.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 10:24 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 11:12 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 342 of 396 (799620)
02-11-2017 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 11:02 PM


Please enlighten us on what is incorrect.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:02 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:18 PM Theodoric has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 343 of 396 (799621)
02-11-2017 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Theodoric
02-11-2017 11:12 PM


Some of that released radiation makes it into space, and the rest of it ends up getting reflected back down to Earth when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor -- the car windows.

Not all of it is reflected back down to earth. Some of it is absorbed again by nitrogen and oxygen via conduction. IOW, carbon dioxide molecules hit other molecules in the air before any radiation is emitted from them.

You want more examples?

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2017 11:12 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 8:05 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 357 by Theodoric, posted 02-12-2017 3:19 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 383 by Theodoric, posted 02-15-2017 11:09 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 389 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2017 9:11 AM foreveryoung has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 344 of 396 (799622)
02-11-2017 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 10:59 PM


You are talking about restricting convection of heat with your example.

Except with the window, it's actually mostly conduction.

With co2, it absorbs heat energy and then releases it.

And with more carbon dioxide there is more heat energy absorbed.

What evidence do you have to suggest the temporary entrapment of heat by co2 slows the release of heat into space?

That wasn't the claim I made. I simply stated that 'trapping heat' does not mean 'trapped forever'. I'm fairly sure the evidence you are asking for here has already been presented, and you have already rejected it. Is there much point in presenting it again? Here is something NASA wrote for all the good that it will do. The phenomena is called energy imbalance. Eventually all the heat the earth takes in, will radiate out, but it can, for periods of time, take in more heat that it radiates back out:

quote:
Energy imbalance arises because of changes of the climate forcings acting on the planet in combination with the planet's thermal inertia. For example, if the Sun becomes brighter, that is a positive forcing that will cause warming. If Earth were like Mercury, a body composed of low conductivity material and without oceans, its surface temperature would rise quickly to a level at which the planet was again radiating as much heat energy to space as the absorbed solar energy.

Earth's temperature does not adjust as fast as Mercury's due to the ocean's thermal inertia, which is substantial because the ocean is mixed to considerable depths by winds and convection. Thus it requires centuries for Earth's surface temperature to respond fully to a climate forcing.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 10:59 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:31 PM Modulous has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9452
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 345 of 396 (799623)
02-11-2017 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 10:59 PM


Foreveryoung, do you believe that when carbon dioxide re-radiates that it does so only towards space? That is wrong. The direction is random. At least some heat is radiated towards earth effectively augmenting the incoming radiation. Yes an equilibrium is reached where outgoing equals incoming, but for all forms of heat transfer (convection, conduction, or radiation) increasing the outgoing rate requires increasing temperature of the source.

You are not thinking things through. This particular argument of yours has no legs at all.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 10:59 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
24252627Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017