Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
279 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 276 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,721 Year: 21,757/19,786 Month: 320/1,834 Week: 320/315 Day: 76/77 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming is a Scam
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 164 (677842)
11-01-2012 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Theodoric
11-01-2012 7:11 PM


First of all I did not say die, so quit misrepresenting what I say. Billions will not thrive.

Actually your statement was ambiguous. Here is the an excerpt from Message 139.

foreveryoung writes:

Not only will we survive it; we will thrive in it.

Theodoric writes:

Except for some billions of people.

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)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2012 7:11 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 152 of 164 (677843)
11-01-2012 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:46 PM


Humans need water more than anything to survive, so Waterworld is what we should strive for. Let's flood the earth so we have more water.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:46 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 153 of 164 (677844)
11-01-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:49 PM


Re: Thrive???????
All plants need CO2 to live. That is my evidence.

By that logic:

Global warming > melting polar ice caps > more water > all people need water to live > thriving people.

I don't particularly want to debate you on whether climate change is due to human influence, simply because I think that at this point that fact is moot - it doesn't matter whether humans are causing it, we have to deal with it at this point whether we're the cause or not.

The problem of climate change is that the climate of the Earth is not simple...and therefore simple predictions like "more CO2 > more plants > more food" just don't matter.

The various species (all forms of life) that inhabit the Earth's biosphere are specifically adapted to their climate. Changes in local environments lead to mass migrations and die-offs...but when we take the scale global, we see all hell break loose. The biosphere is a complex set of interrelated and interdependent balanced ecosystems.

Let's provide a single example:

In the Gulf of Mexico today, there are "dead zones." These "dead zones" were not caused by the recent oil spills - they are older than that.

They are the result of algae blooms - increased plant growth due to excess fertilizer runoff, basically - not terribly different from what one would imagine if increased atmospheric CO2 actually leads directly to increased plant growth.

The problem is that plants, including algae, produce oxygen.

THis is a problem because oxygen (beyond a certain level) is toxic... as well as the fact that the process is unrestrained and the algae consume all of the CO2 in the "dead zones" until all other plants die off.

The result is that the ecosystem in these regions is completely disrupted from the ground up, killing everything in hundred-mile areas of the ocean. All from an unintended and unforseen consequence of using fertilizer to grow more crops for humans.

What will the results of increased CO2 in the atmosphere be, leaving aside the greenhouse effect? I don't know, and neither do you, except that we know that it will disrupt the delicate balance of a complex series of interdependent ecologies upon which human life depends.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:49 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 154 of 164 (677847)
11-01-2012 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:48 PM


Irony meter needle hits the peg...
No, I don't. It temporarily absorbs long wave radiation then re -releases it.

That's a darn good description of the green house effect. Nice one.


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

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:48 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6878
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 155 of 164 (677878)
11-02-2012 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 12:30 PM


Lindzen
quote:
Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited." Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.” .

Source
Lindzen Illusions
Misrepresentation from Lindzen

As for Spencer his claims have all been debunked.. He is an IDer that is letting his religious views affect his science. An easy web search will show counters by many scientists against his views. Try reading a few. You are not being scientific. You have come to a conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it.

Read both sides with an open mind. Look at the science not the spin.

Spencer is a crank that has been shown to be wrong by numerous people. His conclusions do not stand up to the evidence.

Edited by Theodoric, : wrong name on last paragraph


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 128 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 12:30 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 156 of 164 (677889)
11-02-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:38 PM


Not only will we survive it; we will thrive in it. There will be greater food production and a greater diversity of new species.

We are already seeing vast areas of coral dying because of rising ocean temps. We are also seeing massive droughts in the American heartland which accounts for a very large chunk of the world's agriculture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:38 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 157 of 164 (677891)
11-02-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:45 PM


Re: "Circumstantial"
What I mean is that nobody can point to the evidence and show that every warming period was preceded by an increase in carbon dioxide.

Of course that is not the case. Past warming trends were not caused by the burning of massive amounts of stored fossil fuels.

Can you show anywhere in the ice cores where CO2 has been higher? The answer to that is a resounding "NO". Current atmospheric CO2 is well above any level seen in any paleoclimate record. Why do you think that is?

They also cannot show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the result of warmer ocean temperatures.

I have no doubt that CO2 released by warmer oceans is adding to global warming. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!! We put 1 unit of CO2 in the atmosphere that causes a set amount of warming. That heats the oceans and releases even MORE CO2. This additional CO2 warms the oceans and atmosphere even more leading to less ice. Less ice reflects less heat back into the atmosphere and warms the oceans even more adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. This warming again starts to heat up the permafrost near the poles and releases massive amounts of methane which is an even stronger greenhouse gas. Methane also oxidizes over time into CO2. Are you starting to see a trend here?

This is why CO2 is considered to be a forcer, a gas that changes atmospheric temperatures and has a long residence time in the atmosphere.

Until someone can show there are no periods of increased carbon dioxide that are not accompanied by an increase in temperatures, all evidence is merely circumstantial.

Until you can show that the laws of physics suspend themselves to where CO2 no longer acts as a greenhouse gas then the evidence is quite solid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:45 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-02-2012 11:51 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 158 of 164 (677892)
11-02-2012 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:48 PM


No, I don't. It temporarily absorbs long wave radiation then re -releases it.

Quite right. A portion of that re-released radiation will be directed back at the Earth. Therefore, CO2 causes the Earth to heat up by bouncing heat back at the Earth, heat that would have otherwise radiated out into space. That is why CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is simply physics. The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere the more heat that is trapped. There is no getting around it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:48 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


(2)
Message 159 of 164 (677896)
11-02-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Taq
11-02-2012 11:15 AM


Re: "Circumstantial"
Another consequence of CO2 build up in the atmosphere seems to be an increased concentration in the oceans, which leads to acidification of the oceans. Increased acidification inhibits the production of CaCO3 by marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.

I am constantly amazed that the deniers think we can endlessly dump the byproducts of human activity into the biosphere without consequences.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 11-02-2012 11:15 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 160 of 164 (677899)
11-02-2012 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by foreveryoung
10-31-2012 8:22 PM


These people are so convinced that carbon dioxide is the culprit for recent warming and for all past warming that it is impossible for them to consider otherwise.

There you go again with your of hand dismissal of perspectives that don't conform with your own.

The other sources of heat come from within the earth and from the sun. If you were to pull enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to where it was just 270 ppm, what would the temperature of the earth be. Once you give me that figure, can you tell me how you arrived at it?

Why don't you do the work yourself? Clearly anyone else has already be indoctrinated to a preconceived world view.

It doesn't because doctors who have gone to medical school are not pushing an agenda.

How can you be so naive? Half the doctors are in the pocket of Big Pharma, the other half have directorships in elective surgery clinics (that they refere patients to) and the remaining half are too busy feathering their own nests to keep up with the state of the art.

You are very trusting, mate.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by foreveryoung, posted 10-31-2012 8:22 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 161 of 164 (677905)
11-02-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2012 7:02 PM


Re: "Circumstantial"
If we wish to prove that Fred Brown killed John Smith by stabbing him with a knife, it is not necessary to prove that every death was preceded by Fred Brown stabbing someone with a knife.

This point needs to be stressed more. A common refrain from AGW opponents is that the Earth has gone through cooling and warming periods in the past. It is also true that the initiation of these cycles was probably not CO2, although it could have played a secondary role. All of the evidence points to Malinkovich cycles being the main forcer in previous warming periods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

All of this is very, very true. However, this doesn't change the fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase global temps. What may have muddied the waters is people claiming that CO2 initiated those past warming cycles when in fact CO2 probably just made the warming cycle peak at a higher temp. That is, the increase in energy reaching the oceans due to the changes in Earth's orbit and wobble was magnified by the release of CO2 from the warming oceans.

Now we have the opposite effect. Increasing CO2 is heating the oceans causing the release of even more CO2. Human produced CO2 has simply replaced the previous initiation process.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2012 7:02 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6878
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(4)
Message 162 of 164 (677915)
11-02-2012 2:41 PM


Bump for Foreveryoung
You made some outrageous claims inMessage 128 that I questioned in Message 133

Me writes:

Foreveryoung writes:

Climate scientists who have graduated college, do have an agenda or already had their mind made up before they went to college, otherwise any paper they published that severely contradicted current CO2 dogma would be denied.

And what is this agenda? Please provide some sort of evidence for this assertion?
Is there a conspiracy? If so why? Who is leading it?

Please address this with some sort of evidence. You merely claiming this does not suffice.
Or do you not have any evidence but again just something you are parroting?


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.


  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3123
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 163 of 164 (678708)
11-09-2012 11:41 PM



  
Lurkey
Junior Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 11-03-2012


Message 164 of 164 (678887)
11-11-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
01-06-2012 12:28 AM


Re: And Other Reasons there's no Snow in January
David Attenborough says its true

Edited by Lurkey, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 01-06-2012 12:28 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019