Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

I Was Wrong On Anthropogenic Global Warming

Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For those who don't know, I was one of the staunchest opponents of the idea that mankind was the main cause behind the recent global warming. I did no less than seven debates arguing that point. However, at around the start of this year, I began to significantly question that belief. I did an additional two debates - one on the pro side and one on the con side. After making both arguments and thinking for a long time about them, I finally reached the conclusion that mankind is the main cause behind the recent global warming.

In this thread, I intend to refute my previous arguments. These refutations correspond to rounds 2 and 3 in this debate: http://www.debate.org.... I also included my new argument supporting anthropogenic global warming, from this debate: http://www.debate.org.... I've been meaning to make this thread for a good two months now, but I only now have time to make it. I hope this helps anyone who's questioning their belief on this topic.

ROUND 2

The Sun

It does make sense that the sun causes global warming. It is the only major source of energy the Earth has access to. However, there are a number of feedback mechanisms, some positive and some negative. CO2 is an example of a positive feedback - as the Sun's activity increases, the Earth warms, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere (for example, warmer oceans emit more CO2), warming the Earth further.

What is the evidence that CO2 is a positive feedback? Many studies have shown that this is the case. Enter the notion of climate sensitivity - if a certain compound in the atmosphere has a climate sensitivity of X degrees, then a doubling of that compound in the atmosphere will result in a rise in temperature of X. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. In other words, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature around 3 degrees C.[1]

Neither the Sun nor CO2 can fully explain the way temperatures vary. Comparing the temperature record to only one does not lead to a strong correlation. For example, the abrupt rise in global temperatures in the period 1975-1995 corresponds to a decrease in solar activity (solar activity has been decreasing since around 1975, and continues to) and an increase in CO2 concentrations. But the fall in global temperatures in the period 1940-1975 corresponds to an increase in solar activity and an increase in CO2 concentrations. However, when the two forcings are tracked together, there's a remarkable correlation between that and temperatures.[2]

But about about sunspot cycle length? The second graph from round 2 seems to show that sunspot cycle length continues to correspond to temperature even after 1975. However, it turns out that the data after 1975 was invalid. It turns out that the data before 1975 was filtered in a different way from the data after 1975, some weren't even filtered at all. "The first 20 points are 1,2,2,2,1-filtered SCLs, i.e. running averages over five consecutive maximum"maximum or minimum"minimum cycle lengths with weight factors: 1/8, 2/8, 2/8, 2/8, 1/8. Each of these points therefore represents a time period of about 55 years. Hence, the first 20 points form a curve, which is the result of a strong smoothing (or "filtering") of the observed data. In contrast to this smoothed curve the non-filtered solar cycle lengths, i.e., the directly observed physical data, perform violent oscillations above and below the smoothed curve. Points 3 and 4 in Fig. 3a represent such non-filtered SCLs, while points 1 and 2 mark data, which are partially filtered. The apparent agreement with the recent global warming is obtained artificially by combining the 20 points of the smoothed curve with the most recent of several 'upward swings' of the oscillating non-filtered data, i.e., by combining two incongruous sets of physical data. Inclusion of one of the 'downward swings' of the observed SCLs would, instead, have produced an agreement with a dramatic global cooling, if such one had occurred." In other words, the study was performed incorrectly.[3; see page 5 for graph]

I presented three points after this in support of the solar argument. The first point was that cosmic rays act as an amplifier to solar irradiance. Higher solar activity would lead to lower amounts of cosmic rays, which would lead to fewer clouds, which would lead to more warming. The experiments that showed this to be the case, while valid, were performed in carefully controlled labs. It turns out that, in the real chaotic atmosphere and magnetosphere, this is not the case. While there are refutations of all of those connections, the basic point is this - as with solar acitivity, cosmic rays diverge from temperatures around 1975. "Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming." Beyond this, studies have shown that comparing the cosmic ray record to the temperature record gives the conclusion that cosmic rays are a rather weak amplifier.[4][5]

The second was that the oceans are causing global warming as well. This point fails simply because it has been shown that the oceans are warming, not cooling, as can be seen from the fourth graph in round 2. For the oceans to be heating the atmosphere, they'd need to be releasing heat, the opposite of what is observed. "...model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations... [suggesting that] ...the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system."[6]

The third was that other bodies in the solar system are warming, implying there is a common cause to the warming, which must be the sun. Well, for one thing, as I pointed out earlier, solar activity is decreasing, meaning that this point is already null. However, almost all of the cases I pointed out were indirect evidence, meaning that it was not confirmed that those bodies were warming. Some were misleading, while others were just downright wrong. A full list of refutations to the important ones are given in source 7.

The 1500-Year Cycle

This really started my global warming debate run. I read the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. Their case was that the Earth has a 1500-year climate cycle, arising from the superposition of 87 and 210 year solar cycles. The recent global warming corresponded to a rise in the cycle, coming out of the Little Ice Age. They had a very large amount of evidence to back their point up. Well, for one thing, even if this cycle existed, that doesn't mean that humans are not amplifying the rise in temperatures caused by the cycle. But beyond this, the way the authors reached their conclusion is fishy. They looked at specific locations on the Earth indicating the 1500-year cycle existed, and then generalized it to the whole Earth. Holistic studies indicate that the 1500-year cycle does not apply to the whole Earth. Considering the Earth is warming while solar activity is decreasing and other studies have shown that the 1500-year cycle is non-global, this argument should be discarded.[8]
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:49:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ROUND 3

CO2 Lags Temperature

While this is true, this comes back to my point about solar activity and CO2. As solar activity rises, temperature rises, which causes CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase, which causes further temperature rises. If steps 2 and 3 are looked at alone, it may appear that CO2 lags temperature. However, CO2 only lags the initial temperature increase, which is caused by the sun. CO2 precedes the more massive rise in global warming afterwards. This is exactly how we'd except a climate positive feedback to work. "If you actually read the papers, which claim there to be a lag, they almost all note how CO2 acts as an amplifier and how the results do not contradict AGW. There is new research (Shakun et al.), which argued that CO2 preceded the end of the last ice age, and may have (in part) led to the warm interglacial in which we live today. The following graph from the study demonstrates how CO2 may have been an important factor in the most recent deglaciation:" [9]

Lower Troposphere Temperatures

If mankind is the main cause of global warming, we'd see that the lower troposphere was warming slightly, that the upper troposphere would be warming more strongly, and the lower stratosphere would be cooling. My point here was that observations showed that the lower troposphere was actually cooling. However, the study's data collection method were flawed, owing to the fact that the equipment used at the time of the study (1992) was not well adept at accurately measuring lower tropospheric temperature. A later study provided a counter-conclusion, finding that "Satellite measurements do show warming in the Tropsphere when a cooling bias from the Stratosphere is removed. Warming trends agree well with surface temperatures and model predictions except near the Poles. Differences between various analyses are largely due to analysis techniques and compensations for satellite data issues."[10][11]

The Poles Are Cooling

If mankind is the main cause of global warming, we'd see that the poles were warming first, and then the rest of Earth. However, I showed that the amount of Antarctic sea ice was rising, indicating that the Antarctic was cooling. The problem with this point is that it fails to differentiate between land ice and sea ice. Antarctic sea ice is indeed increasing, but Antarctic land ice is decreasing. The increase in Antarctic sea ice is caused partially by the hole in the ozone layer and by changing ocean circulation. In other words, other things controlled, Antarctic sea ice is actually decreasing.[12][13]

Beyond this, however, even if Antarctic sea ice were increasing, that doesn't mean Antarctica is cooling. In fact, Antarctica is warming. "Since records began, 50 years ago, mean annual temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have risen rapidly. A total increase in mean annual air temperatures, of around 2.8 "C makes this the most rapidly warming region in the Southern Hemisphere " comparable to rapidly warming regions of the Arctic."[14]

The Spectrum of Greenhouse Gases Is Saturated

My point here was that each incremental increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has a smaller effect on the temperature than the previous one. However, this is not what models show. "In this study they demonstrated how CO2 saturation is false by modeling the atmosphere with twice as large of a concentration of CO2 as is present now. What was found was that CO2 increases the temperature in the troposphere. With a larger increase in the troposphere than anticipated because of a radiative-convective equilibrium model. It was also found that there would be an even more dramatic increase at the higher latitudes because of the recession of the snow boundary." In other words, the opposite of what I hypothesized turns out to be true. This incorrect point arises from a misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. It doesn't absorb more energy from the Sun - it prevents energy given from the Sun to the Earth begin radiated back into space.[15]

There is No Hotspot

If mankind is the main cause of global warming, we'd see a "hotspot" around 10 miles into the atmosphere above the tropics. I claimed that this hotspot was not there. However, for one thing, the hotspot is not what it appears to be. Hotspots are expected for other causes of global warming (like the sun). The real "fingerprint" of anthropogenic global warming is a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere, which I already addressed and proved. Further, it turns out that the study in which my point was made was invalid. "Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors." Using better data collection methods, the hotspot turned out to really exist.[16][17]

Other Points

I then proceeded to make a few small points afterwards. The first was a long-term historical plot of temperature and CO2, extending back 600 million years (chart 7, round 3). It purported to show that CO2 did not correlate with temperature. However, as can be seen, the uncertainty in the CO2 measurements is extremely large. With this uncertainty, Robert Berner (the author of the study and graph), said himself, "Exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." That correlation graph should not be taken seriously. The better one is the first graph above, that shows that CO2 has a big effect on the climate. Berner also said in the same study, "...over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature..."[18]

The second was the point that humidity is decreasing. The problem with this is, as I'm seeing is becoming a constant in my previous global warming arguments, is that the data collection methods were flawed. It didn't detect changes during El Ninos (like it's supposed to), for example. Newer studies have shown the exact opposite - that humidity is, in fact, increasing.[19]

The third point was that water vapor feedback and cloud feedback were weak. I already debunked the humidity point. However, water vapor is a positive feedback as well. As temperature rises, the oceans evaporate more, releasing more water vapor into the atmosphere. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, meaning that this causes the Earth to warm even further. The point about clouds is wrong too. Cloud feedback is also positive. This proves that water vapor feedback is positive as well.[20]

The fourth and final point was that the warming is not happening that quickly. This doesn't mean that mankind is not the main cause of global warming.

The Consensus

I never liked the consensus to begin with, and even now as a believer in anthropogenic global warming, I still don't like it. Science is not decided by consensus, even in this day in age with scientists having strong backgrounds in the basics, peer reviewed studies, and other modern scientific advances.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:49:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
MY NEW ARGUMENT

Human-Emitted Greenhouse Gases

It is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million." CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer.[21]

This excess CO2 traps heat. Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "...direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect." In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases.[22]

"If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that '...this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.'"[23][24]

CO2 correlates with temperature. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era." The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic."[25]

In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. "...there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr."[26]

Indeed, it would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2.

One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the "human influence" fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere."[27][28]

Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days."[23][29]

Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature.

Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks

Climate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds.

"Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value."[30]

Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle.

So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees.[31]

The mean is around 3 degrees C.

The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations.[32]

In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
DISCUSSION

I only just realized how much of my case was built on faulty data. It's scary how far even these faulty studies can go. I think it arises from the overly political nature of global warming. Even initially fishy studies are propelled into the spotlight as proof of some specific point.

I've spent thousands of hours looking through these faulty studies, memorizing their conclusion, and spouting them out in debates. I admit I was wrong for not looking at how the studies were designed. I was so focused on looking for evidence for my own preconceived conclusions that I was blinded when I read studies. I blasted contrary studies just because they were contrary. I held up bad studies just because I agreed with their conclusions. It was all about achieving that win over "alarmists".

This massive shift in my opinion not only affected my belief on anthropogenic global warming, it also made me reconsider how I judge studies.I will no longer skim them looking for what I need. I will read through the whole study, critically analyzing everything, and then look at reviews of the study before I cite it.

To this end, I encourage everyone to do the same. Remember to not judge studies by how much they agree with your own beliefs.

SOURCES

[1]: http://www.jamstec.go.jp...
[2]: http://openearthsystems.org...
[3]: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...
[4]: http://link.springer.com...
[5]: http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[6]: http://www.sciencemag.org...
[7]: https://www.skepticalscience.com...
[8]: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
[9]: http://www.nature.com...
[10]: http://www.sciencemag.org...
[11]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[12]: http://www.sciencemag.org...
[13]: http://psc.apl.washington.edu...
[14]: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk...
[15]: http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu...
[16]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[17]: http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk...
[18]: http://earth.geology.yale.edu...
[19]: http://geotest.tamu.edu...
[20]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[21]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[22]: http://www.nature.com...
[23]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[24]: https://ams.confex.com...
[25]: http://www.columbia.edu...
[26]: http://cdiac.ornl.gov...
[27]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[28]: http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org...
[29]: http://www.knmi.nl...
[30]: http://www.giss.nasa.gov...
[31]: http://www.jamstec.go.jp...
[32]: https://www2.ucar.edu...

Beyond the Skeptical Science links I cited, there were a number of other Skeptical Science articles consulted, some of which contributed some of the studies cited.

I also received information from Tyler's arguments in the debate I already cited at the top, from Magic8000's (now n7) arguments my debate with him (http://www.debate.org...), and from Mikal's (with a lot of input from 16kadams) team debate , which I participated in (http://www.debate.org...).

People I'd like to thank for helping me get to this position are:

Numidious " My debate with you started it all.

RoyLatham " I took a lot of information from your debates in my debates. You probably aren't that happy about my change, but I still hope you continue debating global warming.

TylerGraham95 " The decisive debater that switched my opinion. I changed my opinion because of my debate with you. You systematically beat almost all of my points, and you were a huge inspiration in writing this.

16kadams " We've had many discussions, a lot of which concerned global warming. At first, we both disagreed with anthropogenic global warming, but you changed your mind first, and your arguments also helped me decide in favor as well. Your debate with Roy was definitely one of the best global warming debates on this site.

Lannan13 " The fact that I managed to change your opinion greatly increased what I thought of my rudimentary first arguments in favor of global warming. You made me feel like I understood the science well.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 4:13:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 3:49:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
I've spent thousands of hours looking through these faulty studies, memorizing their conclusion, and spouting them out in debates. I admit I was wrong for not looking at how the studies were designed. I was so focused on looking for evidence for my own preconceived conclusions that I was blinded when I read studies. I blasted contrary studies just because they were contrary. I held up bad studies just because I agreed with their conclusions. It was all about achieving that win over "alarmists".

This paragraph highlights probably the single most prevalent problem with debating opinions, and exactly why a mechanism which filters out this self-fulfilling bias needs to be built into anyone's thinking. You can find sophisticated stuff to support virtually any conceivable position, and present it in a manner in which it would look professional and well-informed to most people. It's simply not enough to look at conclusions, as you say, but to understand exactly how those conclusions are reached.

Anyway, very interesting to read your thoughts on global warming - personally I find the very concept of "global warning is anthropogenic" to be distracting, since the substantive issue is "anthropogenic activity is causing significant global warming" - regardless of whether or not the Earth is warming via. other mechanisms too. Too often are red herrings thrown around because goalposts are shifted.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 10:48:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Welcome to the -not- dark side. How long does it take to win all the other skeptics so we can have a unified response to what do we do about it?

On that note, I am one of the worst as I believe CO2 production has the potential to cause agonizing upheaval for billions of people, but it really has not caused me to change any behaviors.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 4:05:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 3:48:06 PM, Subutai wrote:
For those who don't know, I was one of the staunchest opponents of the idea that mankind was the main cause behind the recent global warming. I did no less than seven debates arguing that point. However, at around the start of this year, I began to significantly question that belief. I did an additional two debates - one on the pro side and one on the con side. After making both arguments and thinking for a long time about them, I finally reached the conclusion that mankind is the main cause behind the recent global warming.

Anyone willing to reflect and question and not simply argue is worthy of respect, Subutai. Thank you for putting together your thoughts and analyses. Such reasoning may be of significant benefit to members. I look forward to reading them in detail.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Man made global warming is bunk.

Would it interest you to know that, climatologically speaking, we are actually in an ICE AGE right now?

.YES! Ya see.... We are technically still in an ice-age due to the existence of ice upon the planet. Nested within the ice-age cycles are the glacials and right now we"re in an interglacial, and have been for about 10,000 years.

Both the ice-ages and the glacial maxima are tied to the movement of our planet within space.

The glacial periods occur when there is a decrease in the amount of incoming solar radiation coupled with a decrease in solar radiation absorption due to a lower angle of incidence of sunlight and a greater reflectance from Earth.

This is occasioned due to changes in the shape of Earth"s orbit around the Sun. The shape tends to, then from, circularity, such that we have an orbit that stretches elliptically then rebounds back to circularity.

The full cycle lasts some 100,000 years during which time there are 90,000 years of gradual cooling followed by 10,000 years of comparatively rapid warming. Having recently (geologically speaking) encountered the warming phase we are now in an interglacial period and are moving toward the next glacial maximum, albeit some 80,000 years from now.

During a full cycle the temperature swings by an average of 7"C. Other orbital variations that the planet goes through can amplify or attenuate the effects of obliquity such that the normal temperature range falls between 6"C and 8"C.

Much more impressive are the full ice-age cycles, these are tied to the orbit of the entire solar system around the galactic centre and have a periodicity of about 125 million years.

During a full cycle the average temperature of Earth will range from 4"C at the coolest to 35"C at it"s warmest.

During the cold phase all but the Equatorial Region of the planet will be frozen solid. By contrast, the hot phase sees tropical plants growing in the polar regions.

In the grand scheme of things our planet is presently a little cooler than average having, as it does, an average global temperature of 15"C.

As with the glacials, we"re also on the downward slope toward the next ice-age maximum. We"ve been generally cooling for the last 50 million years and have another 10 to 20 million years before we start warming up again. It"s going to be about 50 million years from now before Earth will be completely free of ice and can be truly said to be out of an ice-age.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:21:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 3:49:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's scary how far even these faulty studies can go. I think it arises from the overly political nature of global warming.

It's hard to get to the bottom of any issue that has become politicized.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 9:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.

Would it interest you to know that, climatologically speaking, we are actually in an ICE AGE right now?

.YES! Ya see.... We are technically still in an ice-age due to the existence of ice upon the planet. Nested within the ice-age cycles are the glacials and right now we"re in an interglacial, and have been for about 10,000 years.

Both the ice-ages and the glacial maxima are tied to the movement of our planet within space.

The glacial periods occur when there is a decrease in the amount of incoming solar radiation coupled with a decrease in solar radiation absorption due to a lower angle of incidence of sunlight and a greater reflectance from Earth.

This is occasioned due to changes in the shape of Earth"s orbit around the Sun. The shape tends to, then from, circularity, such that we have an orbit that stretches elliptically then rebounds back to circularity.

The full cycle lasts some 100,000 years during which time there are 90,000 years of gradual cooling followed by 10,000 years of comparatively rapid warming. Having recently (geologically speaking) encountered the warming phase we are now in an interglacial period and are moving toward the next glacial maximum, albeit some 80,000 years from now.

During a full cycle the temperature swings by an average of 7"C. Other orbital variations that the planet goes through can amplify or attenuate the effects of obliquity such that the normal temperature range falls between 6"C and 8"C.

Much more impressive are the full ice-age cycles, these are tied to the orbit of the entire solar system around the galactic centre and have a periodicity of about 125 million years.

During a full cycle the average temperature of Earth will range from 4"C at the coolest to 35"C at it"s warmest.

During the cold phase all but the Equatorial Region of the planet will be frozen solid. By contrast, the hot phase sees tropical plants growing in the polar regions.

In the grand scheme of things our planet is presently a little cooler than average having, as it does, an average global temperature of 15"C.

As with the glacials, we"re also on the downward slope toward the next ice-age maximum. We"ve been generally cooling for the last 50 million years and have another 10 to 20 million years before we start warming up again. It"s going to be about 50 million years from now before Earth will be completely free of ice and can be truly said to be out of an ice-age.

This in no way disproves mankind's effect on climate. There are natural factors that could explain the warming, but these factors indicate that the Earth should be cooling. It obviously isn't, and the only explanation for that is mankind's emission of greenhouse gases.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 5:32:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:21:38 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/16/2015 3:49:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's scary how far even these faulty studies can go. I think it arises from the overly political nature of global warming.

It's hard to get to the bottom of any issue that has become politicized.

This.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 6:41:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Everyone, including 100% of the skeptics, agree that CO2 causes global warming. The simple physics, with no amplification, predicts that doubling CO2 should produce about one degree of global warming. What the scientific debate is about is whether the world is facing a climate crisis of disastrous proportions due to positive feedback initiated by CO2. Crisis theory says that increasing temperature increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. So, the theory says, instead of getting one degree of warming, we'll get three degrees or five degrees or eight degrees or twelve degrees.

Increasing the amount of water vapor is also likely to increase the amount of clouds. A 3% increase in cloud cover would cancel all the warming. Also, the amount of precipitation increases, and that's observed. Rainfall worldwide has increased by about 2% in the last century. That can increase the amount of snowfall and ice, which reflects solar energy and causes cooling. Glaciers in the temperate zones are melting, but that's minor in terms of surface area. Temperatures in the arctic and antarctic never get close to freezing, and sea ice in Antarctica is now at record high extent. Total ice cover has been about constant despite global warming.

According to the IPCC, global temperatures have risen 1.53 C since 1880. CO2 effects are logarithmic and CO2 output is roughly exponential, so if CO2 is dominating climate, temperature should increase linearly. That would make it about 1 degree per hundred years, and we should expect another degree in the next hundred years. The theory of huge amplification of CO2 effects was invented to explain the sharp rise in temperatures from 1983 to 1996. It was the basis of predictions that we would be fried by 2010. In fact, there has been no statistically significant temperature increase in over 19 years. The people running the CO2 math models have conjectures about why the models have failed, but no proof, and no modified models that even describe what has happened in the past.

The very cold temperatures of the Middle Ages, the following Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age are not described by any climate model. They correlate strongly with sunspot activity, but the math models do not include sunspot activity nor ocean cycles, The "Hockey Stick" tried to make past climate change disappear, but that failed. Climate changed dramatically worldwide due to something not in any current climate model.

CO2 theory makes the solid prediction that doom awaits use, but not only is the theory not confirmed, it cannot even describe what has happened in the past. In fact, no possible disproof of the theory seems to be even theoretically possible. Other scientific theories are verified by comparing predictions to events, but not CO2 theory. No failure impairs the theory in any way, a fascinating property.

The fundamental logical error is believing that because CO2 causes warming, and everyone agrees to that, that a crisis is looming. Based on the evidence, we'll get another degree or so of warming in the next hundred years, which would be a good thing because it extends the growing season in very large land areas. What's also apparent is that there are large departures from the straight-line temperature increase CO2 predicts. These are unexplained, and they need to be explained to make reliable predictions of future climate.

So how could CO2 theory ever be proved wrong? Under current thinking it is impossible to prove wrong. That means it is of the nature of a religious belief, not a scientific theory.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 7:20:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If temperatures increase by 3 degrees C, why would that be a bad thing? Precipitation should increase by about 2%, growing seasons would be extended, and plants grow faster with more CO2. (Plants die if there is less than 150 ppm.) There is about 10 degrees C, difference between Orlando FL and Washington, DC. Has life ceased in one place or the other? We're only talking a third of that. The way is works, the tropics would change temperature very little, and in the coldest arctic regions, everything stays frozen. The biggest changes would be in the northern temperate regions. That increases the growing season in the north central US, Canada, northern Europe, and northern Asia. Oceans would rise about 9 inches.
Romanii
Posts: 4,852
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 10:00:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:21:38 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/16/2015 3:49:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's scary how far even these faulty studies can go. I think it arises from the overly political nature of global warming.

It's hard to get to the bottom of any issue that has become politicized.

THIS ^

It's so true. All politically important issues have so much "evidence" on both sides of them (thanks to the funding of ardent proponents/opponents), that the average person would find it impossible to do anything but just pick and choose the evidence which they already agree with.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:55:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.

No sir..it is most decidedly not.

But I posted the article because it debunked YOUR 97% claim. Which was the primary point of the post you made that I addressed in my OP. Your OP did not ask for a PR'd article debunking the idea of AGW. Or CAGW. But you, rather, made that blanket 97% claim.

Which my link rebutted.

As does this one...........

http://www.populartechnology.net...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 1:05:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:55:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.



No sir..it is most decidedly not.

But I posted the article because it debunked YOUR 97% claim. Which was the primary point of the post you made that I addressed in my OP. Your OP did not ask for a PR'd article debunking the idea of AGW. Or CAGW. But you, rather, made that blanket 97% claim.

Considering I never made that claim, it is obviously irrelevant.

Which my link rebutted.

As does this one...........

http://www.populartechnology.net...

LOL. If someday, you actually learn something about science, then we can talk, but until such time, you're just wallowing in idiocy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 3:10:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 1:05:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:55:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.



No sir..it is most decidedly not.

But I posted the article because it debunked YOUR 97% claim. Which was the primary point of the post you made that I addressed in my OP. Your OP did not ask for a PR'd article debunking the idea of AGW. Or CAGW. But you, rather, made that blanket 97% claim.

Considering I never made that claim, it is obviously irrelevant.

Which my link rebutted.

As does this one...........

http://www.populartechnology.net...

LOL. If someday, you actually learn something about science, then we can talk, but until such time, you're just wallowing in idiocy.

I have forgotten more science than you will ever know, bro.

But let us for a moment stop posting links and simply indulge in some common sense. Shall we? I am going to toss a few Earth Science facts at you and would like for you to simply tell me--in your own words, if you can--if you still believe, honestly, in AGW.

OK....so, the volume of the Earth's atmosphere--if we go up to an altitude of about 20 miles, can be determined with the following basic equation, using simple multiplication.....

Volume = roughly (surface area of the earth) times (depth).

Area of a sphere = (4) (pi) (square of the radius)

Earth's equatorial radius = 3,963 miles.

Volume of air = (4) (pi) (3,963)2 (20) =

(80 pi) (15,705,369) = 3,947,000,000 = 3.947 billion cubic miles (rounded)


So let us settle on 4 billion miles. (If it helps you remember this number, just use the menmomic that it the same rough number as is our Universe's age in years.

Four Billion with a B CUBIC miles.

A quick anecdote for you: We could take the entire population of the Earth and fit everybody in a cube that is only about 1.3 miles on each of its six sides.

We could then take that cube and drop it into the middle of ANY Ocean on the planet.

The respective seal levels on the coasts of that ocean would not rise even one inch!

That's how insignificant Man is in comparison to the size of the Earth. (If you want to talk about our insignificance in the known Universe. or even our own Milky Way Galaxy, let me know and I will give you some numbers on distances that will knock your fat butt of that chair you sit in 14 hours a day. LOL

So....with that Four Billion CM atmo, and our admittedly ant-size populace, do you REALLY think that we can alter that atmosphere? Really? Even with all the factories we make and the cars we drive?

And you might know that almost all things in Nature are Cyclical.

The water cycle.

Stars > Nebulas>stars. We are made of stardust! Did you know that?

The seasons. Our orbit. Our rotation of the Earth.

The Carbon Cycle.

Plant and flower germination.

Cycles, amigo.

So why not the Weather? Hell, when I was in junior high about 25 years ago they were speaking of an Ice Age!

How long have we been accurately measuring and documenting the weather? Maybe 100 years?

LOL--how old again is the Earth? About 4 Billion years? How long since the Evolutuion of our NHA? (ya know what that is?) Maybe about 200,000 years?

So....100 years of weather measuring divided into a 3 billion y.o. life-on-Earth span?

I think that is like a guy coming out of his house in his front yard at a couple seconds before midnight and feeling a warm temp and then saying that there is a manmade warming trend over the course of the previous 24 hour day--going back to the last midnight.

In other words...we are very very small. We have been in an Industrial Age for a very very very short time when compared to the Grand Scheme of things. Nature works in cycles. ALL Climatologists agree that weather also does.

Ergo...with all these facts I personally do not believe in Anthro GW. I believe the recent warming trend--which nobody doubts--is purely Cyclical.

MHO.

Now....can you desist with ad hominem attacks and you habit of not posting personally-worded opinions but rather only denigrating those of others, and explain to me in your own words (Gee..what a concept!) what you don't like about MY opinion. And what yours is?

Give er a try!

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 3:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 3:10:06 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:05:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:55:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.



No sir..it is most decidedly not.

But I posted the article because it debunked YOUR 97% claim. Which was the primary point of the post you made that I addressed in my OP. Your OP did not ask for a PR'd article debunking the idea of AGW. Or CAGW. But you, rather, made that blanket 97% claim.

Considering I never made that claim, it is obviously irrelevant.

Which my link rebutted.

As does this one...........

http://www.populartechnology.net...

LOL. If someday, you actually learn something about science, then we can talk, but until such time, you're just wallowing in idiocy.

I have forgotten more science than you will ever know, bro.

But let us for a moment stop posting links and simply indulge in some common sense. Shall we? I am going to toss a few Earth Science facts at you and would like for you to simply tell me--in your own words, if you can--if you still believe, honestly, in AGW.

OK....so, the volume of the Earth's atmosphere--if we go up to an altitude of about 20 miles, can be determined with the following basic equation, using simple multiplication.....

Volume = roughly (surface area of the earth) times (depth).

Area of a sphere = (4) (pi) (square of the radius)

Earth's equatorial radius = 3,963 miles.

Volume of air = (4) (pi) (3,963)2 (20) =

(80 pi) (15,705,369) = 3,947,000,000 = 3.947 billion cubic miles (rounded)



So let us settle on 4 billion miles. (If it helps you remember this number, just use the menmomic that it the same rough number as is our Universe's age in years.

Four Billion with a B CUBIC miles.

A quick anecdote for you: We could take the entire population of the Earth and fit everybody in a cube that is only about 1.3 miles on each of its six sides.

We could then take that cube and drop it into the middle of ANY Ocean on the planet.

The respective seal levels on the coasts of that ocean would not rise even one inch!

That's how insignificant Man is in comparison to the size of the Earth. (If you want to talk about our insignificance in the known Universe. or even our own Milky Way Galaxy, let me know and I will give you some numbers on distances that will knock your fat butt of that chair you sit in 14 hours a day. LOL

So....with that Four Billion CM atmo, and our admittedly ant-size populace, do you REALLY think that we can alter that atmosphere? Really? Even with all the factories we make and the cars we drive?

And you might know that almost all things in Nature are Cyclical.

The water cycle.

Stars > Nebulas>stars. We are made of stardust! Did you know that?

The seasons. Our orbit. Our rotation of the Earth.

The Carbon Cycle.

Plant and flower germination.

Cycles, amigo.

So why not the Weather? Hell, when I was in junior high about 25 years ago they were speaking of an Ice Age!

How long have we been accurately measuring and documenting the weather? Maybe 100 years?

LOL--how old again is the Earth? About 4 Billion years? How long since the Evolutuion of our NHA? (ya know what that is?) Maybe about 200,000 years?

So....100 years of weather measuring divided into a 3 billion y.o. life-on-Earth span?

I think that is like a guy coming out of his house in his front yard at a couple seconds before midnight and feeling a warm temp and then saying that there is a manmade warming trend over the course of the previous 24 hour day--going back to the last midnight.

In other words...we are very very small. We have been in an Industrial Age for a very very very short time when compared to the Grand Scheme of things. Nature works in cycles. ALL Climatologists agree that weather also does.

Ergo...with all these facts I personally do not believe in Anthro GW. I believe the recent warming trend--which nobody doubts--is purely Cyclical.

MHO.

Now....can you desist with ad hominem attacks and you habit of not posting personally-worded opinions but rather only denigrating those of others, and explain to me in your own words (Gee..what a concept!) what you don't like about MY opinion. And what yours is?

Give er a try!

Thanks.

Yes, thanks, your irrelevant hand waving has been noted.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 3:36:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 3:10:06 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:05:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:55:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.



No sir..it is most decidedly not.

But I posted the article because it debunked YOUR 97% claim. Which was the primary point of the post you made that I addressed in my OP. Your OP did not ask for a PR'd article debunking the idea of AGW. Or CAGW. But you, rather, made that blanket 97% claim.

Considering I never made that claim, it is obviously irrelevant.

Which my link rebutted.

As does this one...........

http://www.populartechnology.net...

LOL. If someday, you actually learn something about science, then we can talk, but until such time, you're just wallowing in idiocy.

I have forgotten more science than you will ever know, bro.

But let us for a moment stop posting links and simply indulge in some common sense. Shall we? I am going to toss a few Earth Science facts at you and would like for you to simply tell me--in your own words, if you can--if you still believe, honestly, in AGW.

OK....so, the volume of the Earth's atmosphere--if we go up to an altitude of about 20 miles, can be determined with the following basic equation, using simple multiplication.....

Volume = roughly (surface area of the earth) times (depth).

Area of a sphere = (4) (pi) (square of the radius)

Earth's equatorial radius = 3,963 miles.

Volume of air = (4) (pi) (3,963)2 (20) =

(80 pi) (15,705,369) = 3,947,000,000 = 3.947 billion cubic miles (rounded)



So let us settle on 4 billion miles. (If it helps you remember this number, just use the menmomic that it the same rough number as is our Universe's age in years.

Four Billion with a B CUBIC miles.

A quick anecdote for you: We could take the entire population of the Earth and fit everybody in a cube that is only about 1.3 miles on each of its six sides.

We could then take that cube and drop it into the middle of ANY Ocean on the planet.

The respective seal levels on the coasts of that ocean would not rise even one inch!

That's how insignificant Man is in comparison to the size of the Earth. (If you want to talk about our insignificance in the known Universe. or even our own Milky Way Galaxy, let me know and I will give you some numbers on distances that will knock your fat butt of that chair you sit in 14 hours a day. LOL

So....with that Four Billion CM atmo, and our admittedly ant-size populace, do you REALLY think that we can alter that atmosphere? Really? Even with all the factories we make and the cars we drive?

And you might know that almost all things in Nature are Cyclical.

The water cycle.

Stars > Nebulas>stars. We are made of stardust! Did you know that?

The seasons. Our orbit. Our rotation of the Earth.

The Carbon Cycle.

Plant and flower germination.

Cycles, amigo.

So why not the Weather? Hell, when I was in junior high about 25 years ago they were speaking of an Ice Age!

How long have we been accurately measuring and documenting the weather? Maybe 100 years?

LOL--how old again is the Earth? About 4 Billion years? How long since the Evolutuion of our NHA? (ya know what that is?) Maybe about 200,000 years?

So....100 years of weather measuring divided into a 3 billion y.o. life-on-Earth span?

I think that is like a guy coming out of his house in his front yard at a couple seconds before midnight and feeling a warm temp and then saying that there is a manmade warming trend over the course of the previous 24 hour day--going back to the last midnight.

In other words...we are very very small. We have been in an Industrial Age for a very very very short time when compared to the Grand Scheme of things. Nature works in cycles. ALL Climatologists agree that weather also does.

Ergo...with all these facts I personally do not believe in Anthro GW. I believe the recent warming trend--which nobody doubts--is purely Cyclical.

MHO.

Now....can you desist with ad hominem attacks and you habit of not posting personally-worded opinions but rather only denigrating those of others, and explain to me in your own words (Gee..what a concept!) what you don't like about MY opinion. And what yours is?

Give er a try!

Thanks.

Umm, so you did calculate the volume of atmosphere from ground level to 20 miles out roughly correctly, but I can't find a logical connection between the rest of your argument and your conclusion. You seem to, in a very vague way, say that "stuff has cycles, so maybe weather has cycles, so maybe this global warming stuff is just part of that weather cycle that maybe exists". ...What?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 3:36:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 3:28:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 3:10:06 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:05:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:55:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.



No sir..it is most decidedly not.

But I posted the article because it debunked YOUR 97% claim. Which was the primary point of the post you made that I addressed in my OP. Your OP did not ask for a PR'd article debunking the idea of AGW. Or CAGW. But you, rather, made that blanket 97% claim.

Considering I never made that claim, it is obviously irrelevant.

Which my link rebutted.

As does this one...........

http://www.populartechnology.net...

LOL. If someday, you actually learn something about science, then we can talk, but until such time, you're just wallowing in idiocy.

I have forgotten more science than you will ever know, bro.

But let us for a moment stop posting links and simply indulge in some common sense. Shall we? I am going to toss a few Earth Science facts at you and would like for you to simply tell me--in your own words, if you can--if you still believe, honestly, in AGW.

OK....so, the volume of the Earth's atmosphere--if we go up to an altitude of about 20 miles, can be determined with the following basic equation, using simple multiplication.....

Volume = roughly (surface area of the earth) times (depth).

Area of a sphere = (4) (pi) (square of the radius)

Earth's equatorial radius = 3,963 miles.

Volume of air = (4) (pi) (3,963)2 (20) =

(80 pi) (15,705,369) = 3,947,000,000 = 3.947 billion cubic miles (rounded)



So let us settle on 4 billion miles. (If it helps you remember this number, just use the menmomic that it the same rough number as is our Universe's age in years.

Four Billion with a B CUBIC miles.

A quick anecdote for you: We could take the entire population of the Earth and fit everybody in a cube that is only about 1.3 miles on each of its six sides.

We could then take that cube and drop it into the middle of ANY Ocean on the planet.

The respective seal levels on the coasts of that ocean would not rise even one inch!

That's how insignificant Man is in comparison to the size of the Earth. (If you want to talk about our insignificance in the known Universe. or even our own Milky Way Galaxy, let me know and I will give you some numbers on distances that will knock your fat butt of that chair you sit in 14 hours a day. LOL

So....with that Four Billion CM atmo, and our admittedly ant-size populace, do you REALLY think that we can alter that atmosphere? Really? Even with all the factories we make and the cars we drive?

And you might know that almost all things in Nature are Cyclical.

The water cycle.

Stars > Nebulas>stars. We are made of stardust! Did you know that?

The seasons. Our orbit. Our rotation of the Earth.

The Carbon Cycle.

Plant and flower germination.

Cycles, amigo.

So why not the Weather? Hell, when I was in junior high about 25 years ago they were speaking of an Ice Age!

How long have we been accurately measuring and documenting the weather? Maybe 100 years?

LOL--how old again is the Earth? About 4 Billion years? How long since the Evolutuion of our NHA? (ya know what that is?) Maybe about 200,000 years?

So....100 years of weather measuring divided into a 3 billion y.o. life-on-Earth span?

I think that is like a guy coming out of his house in his front yard at a couple seconds before midnight and feeling a warm temp and then saying that there is a manmade warming trend over the course of the previous 24 hour day--going back to the last midnight.

In other words...we are very very small. We have been in an Industrial Age for a very very very short time when compared to the Grand Scheme of things. Nature works in cycles. ALL Climatologists agree that weather also does.

Ergo...with all these facts I personally do not believe in Anthro GW. I believe the recent warming trend--which nobody doubts--is purely Cyclical.

MHO.

Now....can you desist with ad hominem attacks and you habit of not posting personally-worded opinions but rather only denigrating those of others, and explain to me in your own words (Gee..what a concept!) what you don't like about MY opinion. And what yours is?

Give er a try!

Thanks.

Yes, thanks, your irrelevant hand waving has been noted.

Wow.

Really? You cannot even form a few complete and coherent sentences of your own opinion on a subject? I thought even you could do that. Just once.

"Irrelevant?"

All my facts in my previous post were true. I was on topic and made my own personal argument against AGW.

Have you ever on DDO done that? I have not seen it.

I am beginning to give you less and less credibility, amigo. I think you just read-and-parrot re science. And take knee-jerk atheist stances on ANY topic regarding theology or ID or TE. Or metaphysics. Even if you do not fully comprehend the opposing posts or opinions.

It is ironic that an avowed atheist such as yourself is so fond of utilizing the same type of rhetoric and debate tactics as do the fundies. And that is one of circular reasoning and total avoidance of investigating opposing viewpoints.

A pity, that.

I am done with you. You are just no fun. Boring. Embittered and reactionary atheism is about as enriching or entertaining as watching paint dry. Anybody can do it. It is the easiest of ALL stances.

I would rather argue with passionate religious guys.

You are officially placed on my "block" list.

Have fun!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 3:46:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 3:36:41 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/15/2015 3:10:06 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:05:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:55:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.



No sir..it is most decidedly not.

But I posted the article because it debunked YOUR 97% claim. Which was the primary point of the post you made that I addressed in my OP. Your OP did not ask for a PR'd article debunking the idea of AGW. Or CAGW. But you, rather, made that blanket 97% claim.

Considering I never made that claim, it is obviously irrelevant.

Which my link rebutted.

As does this one...........

http://www.populartechnology.net...

LOL. If someday, you actually learn something about science, then we can talk, but until such time, you're just wallowing in idiocy.

I have forgotten more science than you will ever know, bro.

But let us for a moment stop posting links and simply indulge in some common sense. Shall we? I am going to toss a few Earth Science facts at you and would like for you to simply tell me--in your own words, if you can--if you still believe, honestly, in AGW.

OK....so, the volume of the Earth's atmosphere--if we go up to an altitude of about 20 miles, can be determined with the following basic equation, using simple multiplication.....

Volume = roughly (surface area of the earth) times (depth).

Area of a sphere = (4) (pi) (square of the radius)

Earth's equatorial radius = 3,963 miles.

Volume of air = (4) (pi) (3,963)2 (20) =

(80 pi) (15,705,369) = 3,947,000,000 = 3.947 billion cubic miles (rounded)



So let us settle on 4 billion miles. (If it helps you remember this number, just use the menmomic that it the same rough number as is our Universe's age in years.

Four Billion with a B CUBIC miles.

A quick anecdote for you: We could take the entire population of the Earth and fit everybody in a cube that is only about 1.3 miles on each of its six sides.

We could then take that cube and drop it into the middle of ANY Ocean on the planet.

The respective seal levels on the coasts of that ocean would not rise even one inch!

That's how insignificant Man is in comparison to the size of the Earth. (If you want to talk about our insignificance in the known Universe. or even our own Milky Way Galaxy, let me know and I will give you some numbers on distances that will knock your fat butt of that chair you sit in 14 hours a day. LOL

So....with that Four Billion CM atmo, and our admittedly ant-size populace, do you REALLY think that we can alter that atmosphere? Really? Even with all the factories we make and the cars we drive?

And you might know that almost all things in Nature are Cyclical.

The water cycle.

Stars > Nebulas>stars. We are made of stardust! Did you know that?

The seasons. Our orbit. Our rotation of the Earth.

The Carbon Cycle.

Plant and flower germination.

Cycles, amigo.

So why not the Weather? Hell, when I was in junior high about 25 years ago they were speaking of an Ice Age!

How long have we been accurately measuring and documenting the weather? Maybe 100 years?

LOL--how old again is the Earth? About 4 Billion years? How long since the Evolutuion of our NHA? (ya know what that is?) Maybe about 200,000 years?

So....100 years of weather measuring divided into a 3 billion y.o. life-on-Earth span?

I think that is like a guy coming out of his house in his front yard at a couple seconds before midnight and feeling a warm temp and then saying that there is a manmade warming trend over the course of the previous 24 hour day--going back to the last midnight.

In other words...we are very very small. We have been in an Industrial Age for a very very very short time when compared to the Grand Scheme of things. Nature works in cycles. ALL Climatologists agree that weather also does.

Ergo...with all these facts I personally do not believe in Anthro GW. I believe the recent warming trend--which nobody doubts--is purely Cyclical.

MHO.

Now....can you desist with ad hominem attacks and you habit of not posting personally-worded opinions but rather only denigrating those of others, and explain to me in your own words (Gee..what a concept!) what you don't like about MY opinion. And what yours is?

Give er a try!

Thanks.

Umm, so you did calculate the volume of atmosphere from ground level to 20 miles out roughly correctly, but I can't find a logical connection between the rest of your argument and your conclusion. You seem to, in a very vague way, say that "stuff has cycles, so maybe weather has cycles, so maybe this global warming stuff is just part of that weather cycle that maybe exists". ...What?

Yeah..something like that.

You should slow down and read my Op a little better, maybe?

I was stating the immense size of the Earth's atmosphere as a way of opining that I find it hard to believe an entity--I would say a closed system but it is not--that large could be affected by the emissions of a human populace so small and seemingly insignificant as to be fit in that cube I spoke of.

I then opined that, since almost everything in Nature works in a cyclical manner--even Climate and weather related things--like the Seasons for example, or the water cycle, then what could not the Recent Warming trend also be, not ACGW, but merely cyclical?

I then mentioned what a short time it has been--given our three-billion year window since the LUCA--since we have been measuring weather. And I did an analogy of this.

What don't you get?

Again, my opinion. I did not post any links or paste anything. I asked Je "Ruse" to respond in HIS OWN opinion without resorting to ad hominem attacks, but alas, he was unable.

Perhaps you could. You seem learned in some aspects of science. What is your opinion in your own words on ACGW?

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 3:54:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 3:36:58 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 3:28:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 3:10:06 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 1:05:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:55:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:47:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/15/2015 11:41:46 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 10:58:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:59:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Man made global warming is bunk.


There are well over 8000 peer reviewed articles written that say man made global warming is a reality and only 2 papers that disagreed.

Yeah..yeah...that old "97%" figure the libtard treehuggers trotted out for years.

Uh no, those papers only came out recently and they're not fiction, they are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, which I know from your posts here is something quite foreign to you.

Too bad it's fiction.

After you look THIS up..check out how we are really at the tail end of an ICE AGE right now.

http://www.wsj.com...

Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed organization.



No sir..it is most decidedly not.

But I posted the article because it debunked YOUR 97% claim. Which was the primary point of the post you made that I addressed in my OP. Your OP did not ask for a PR'd article debunking the idea of AGW. Or CAGW. But you, rather, made that blanket 97% claim.

Considering I never made that claim, it is obviously irrelevant.

Which my link rebutted.

As does this one...........

http://www.populartechnology.net...

LOL. If someday, you actually learn something about science, then we can talk, but until such time, you're just wallowing in idiocy.

I have forgotten more science than you will ever know, bro.

But let us for a moment stop posting links and simply indulge in some common sense. Shall we? I am going to toss a few Earth Science facts at you and would like for you to simply tell me--in your own words, if you can--if you still believe, honestly, in AGW.

OK....so, the volume of the Earth's atmosphere--if we go up to an altitude of about 20 miles, can be determined with the following basic equation, using simple multiplication.....

Volume = roughly (surface area of the earth) times (depth).

Area of a sphere = (4) (pi) (square of the radius)

Earth's equatorial radius = 3,963 miles.

Volume of air = (4) (pi) (3,963)2 (20) =

(80 pi) (15,705,369) = 3,947,000,000 = 3.947 billion cubic miles (rounded)



So let us settle on 4 billion miles. (If it helps you remember this number, just use the menmomic that it the same rough number as is our Universe's age in years.

Four Billion with a B CUBIC miles.

A quick anecdote for you: We could take the entire population of the Earth and fit everybody in a cube that is only about 1.3 miles on each of its six sides.

We could then take that cube and drop it into the middle of ANY Ocean on the planet.

The respective seal levels on the coasts of that ocean would not rise even one inch!

That's how insignificant Man is in comparison to the size of the Earth. (If you want to talk about our insignificance in the known Universe. or even our own Milky Way Galaxy, let me know and I will give you some numbers on distances that will knock your fat butt of that chair you sit in 14 hours a day. LOL

So....with that Four Billion CM atmo, and our admittedly ant-size populace, do you REALLY think that we can alter that atmosphere? Really? Even with all the factories we make and the cars we drive?

And you might know that almost all things in Nature are Cyclical.

The water cycle.

Stars > Nebulas>stars. We are made of stardust! Did you know that?

The seasons. Our orbit. Our rotation of the Earth.

The Carbon Cycle.

Plant and flower germination.

Cycles, amigo.

So why not the Weather? Hell, when I was in junior high about 25 years ago they were speaking of an Ice Age!

How long have we been accurately measuring and documenting the weather? Maybe 100 years?

LOL--how old again is the Earth? About 4 Billion years? How long since the Evolutuion of our NHA? (ya know what that is?) Maybe about 200,000 years?

So....100 years of weather measuring divided into a 3 billion y.o. life-on-Earth span?

I think that is like a guy coming out of his house in his front yard at a couple seconds before midnight and feeling a warm temp and then saying that there is a manmade warming trend over the course of the previous 24 hour day--going back to the last midnight.

In other words...we are very very small. We have been in an Industrial Age for a very very very short time when compared to the Grand Scheme of things. Nature works in cycles. ALL Climatologists agree that weather also does.

Ergo...with all these facts I personally do not believe in Anthro GW. I believe the recent warming trend--which nobody doubts--is purely Cyclical.

MHO.

Now....can you desist with ad hominem attacks and you habit of not posting personally-worded opinions but rather only denigrating those of others, and explain to me in your own words (Gee..what a concept!) what you don't like about MY opinion. And what yours is?

Give er a try!

Thanks.

Yes, thanks, your irrelevant hand waving has been noted.

Wow.

Really? You cannot even form a few complete and coherent sentences of your own opinion on a subject? I thought even you could do that. Just once.

To your irrelevant hand waving? Why would I bother? It's irrelevant.

"Irrelevant?"

All my facts in my previous post were true. I was on topic and made my own personal argument against AGW.

LOL. Is that what you think it is?

Have you ever on DDO done that? I have not seen it.

I am beginning to give you less and less credibility, amigo.

You lost all of your credibility some time ago.

I think you just read-and-parrot re science. And take knee-jerk atheist stances on ANY topic regarding theology or ID or TE. Or metaphysics. Even if you do not fully comprehend the opposing posts or opinions.

It is ironic that an avowed atheist such as yourself is so fond of utilizing the same type of rhetoric and debate tactics as do the fundies.

It's ironic that you say you are an atheist, yet you believe in things exactly like a theist.

And that is one of circular reasoning and total avoidance of investigating opposing viewpoints.

A pity, that.

I am done with you. You are just no fun. Boring. Embittered and reactionary atheism is about as enriching or entertaining as watching paint dry. Anybody can do it. It is the easiest of ALL stances.

Yes, so you sit around here making up crap, instead, which I am assuming is far more fun for you.

I would rather argue with passionate religious guys.

You are officially placed on my "block" list.

And, I care about that, why?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 4:29:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 3:46:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 3:36:41 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/15/2015 3:10:06 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


I have forgotten more science than you will ever know, bro.

But let us for a moment stop posting links and simply indulge in some common sense. Shall we? I am going to toss a few Earth Science facts at you and would like for you to simply tell me--in your own words, if you can--if you still believe, honestly, in AGW.

OK....so, the volume of the Earth's atmosphere--if we go up to an altitude of about 20 miles, can be determined with the following basic equation, using simple multiplication.....

Volume = roughly (surface area of the earth) times (depth).

Area of a sphere = (4) (pi) (square of the radius)

Earth's equatorial radius = 3,963 miles.

Volume of air = (4) (pi) (3,963)2 (20) =

(80 pi) (15,705,369) = 3,947,000,000 = 3.947 billion cubic miles (rounded)



So let us settle on 4 billion miles. (If it helps you remember this number, just use the menmomic that it the same rough number as is our Universe's age in years.

Four Billion with a B CUBIC miles.

A quick anecdote for you: We could take the entire population of the Earth and fit everybody in a cube that is only about 1.3 miles on each of its six sides.

We could then take that cube and drop it into the middle of ANY Ocean on the planet.

The respective seal levels on the coasts of that ocean would not rise even one inch!

That's how insignificant Man is in comparison to the size of the Earth. (If you want to talk about our insignificance in the known Universe. or even our own Milky Way Galaxy, let me know and I will give you some numbers on distances that will knock your fat butt of that chair you sit in 14 hours a day. LOL

So....with that Four Billion CM atmo, and our admittedly ant-size populace, do you REALLY think that we can alter that atmosphere? Really? Even with all the factories we make and the cars we drive?

And you might know that almost all things in Nature are Cyclical.

The water cycle.

Stars > Nebulas>stars. We are made of stardust! Did you know that?

The seasons. Our orbit. Our rotation of the Earth.

The Carbon Cycle.

Plant and flower germination.

Cycles, amigo.

So why not the Weather? Hell, when I was in junior high about 25 years ago they were speaking of an Ice Age!

How long have we been accurately measuring and documenting the weather? Maybe 100 years?

LOL--how old again is the Earth? About 4 Billion years? How long since the Evolutuion of our NHA? (ya know what that is?) Maybe about 200,000 years?

So....100 years of weather measuring divided into a 3 billion y.o. life-on-Earth span?

I think that is like a guy coming out of his house in his front yard at a couple seconds before midnight and feeling a warm temp and then saying that there is a manmade warming trend over the course of the previous 24 hour day--going back to the last midnight.

In other words...we are very very small. We have been in an Industrial Age for a very very very short time when compared to the Grand Scheme of things. Nature works in cycles. ALL Climatologists agree that weather also does.

Ergo...with all these facts I personally do not believe in Anthro GW. I believe the recent warming trend--which nobody doubts--is purely Cyclical.

MHO.

Now....can you desist with ad hominem attacks and you habit of not posting personally-worded opinions but rather only denigrating those of others, and explain to me in your own words (Gee..what a concept!) what you don't like about MY opinion. And what yours is?

Give er a try!

Thanks.

Umm, so you did calculate the volume of atmosphere from ground level to 20 miles out roughly correctly, but I can't find a logical connection between the rest of your argument and your conclusion. You seem to, in a very vague way, say that "stuff has cycles, so maybe weather has cycles, so maybe this global warming stuff is just part of that weather cycle that maybe exists". ...What?

Yeah..something like that.

You should slow down and read my Op a little better, maybe?

I was stating the immense size of the Earth's atmosphere as a way of opining that I find it hard to believe an entity--I would say a closed system but it is not--that large could be affected by the emissions of a human populace so small and seemingly insignificant as to be fit in that cube I spoke of.

I then opined that, since almost everything in Nature works in a cyclical manner--even Climate and weather related things--like the Seasons for example, or the water cycle, then what could not the Recent Warming trend also be, not ACGW, but merely cyclical?

I then mentioned what a short time it has been--given our three-billion year window since the LUCA--since we have been measuring weather. And I did an analogy of this.

What don't you get?

Actually I understood the post I responded to, and I was only respond to this post. Is your OP a different post, and is it important to read that to understand the post I responded to?

I guess I would ask to what extent the sum of the volumes of humans on the earth is related to total emissions of atmosphere-effecting substances and especially to the sensitivity of Earth's atmosphere to those substances.

I would also ask how that chain of opinions fits with current evidence regarding the change in the proportion of elements in the atmosphere and its connection to human activity.

Finally, I would also ask you to outline a coherent logical chain that connects the volumes you pointed out to your opinions about climate change. I think I can see what the links are, but they seem rather disjointed.

Again, my opinion. I did not post any links or paste anything. I asked Je "Ruse" to respond in HIS OWN opinion without resorting to ad hominem attacks, but alas, he was unable.

Perhaps you could. You seem learned in some aspects of science. What is your opinion in your own words on ACGW?

Thanks!

I don't have an opinion on it. I was asking you to make your logic more clear.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 5:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't have a position on AGW now though I believed in it before. One thing that hasn't changed though is that I don't think it the threat can be eliminated if it exists. Man depends too much on power and increasingly so and renewables can't possibly satisfy all power needs.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.