ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I think you're not, based on the evidence of today's discussion.
"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
You're an idiot.
It snowed here for 1st time (over an inch) 3 days ago. 6" of snow.
Today it's ALL melted because of back to back days of 55°.
I've been around a long time. The winters were harsh here. One year out of 15 would be mild.
It's mild every year now, and too hot in the summer.
Somebody said ( @Padawanbater2 ?) that it isn't a red blue issue. And he's quite correct except the right MADE it a red blue issue by denying it.
Those who live on the wrong side of science and truth are idiots.
Even Bill Fucking O'Rielly says, 'it's common sense to cut down on pollution'.
We are past the point of no return here. But, like terminal cancer, you try to extend the patient's quality of life as long as you can. As the ice continues to melt in some places, it releases trapped methane and other gasses.
It's a crisis that is totally ignored by the mentally and morally deficient right.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Ummmm. Make those who made the mess and profited from it pay to clean it up. Yes, they'll pass the costs onto the customer- who also benefited and should help pay, too. Yep.
I bet you hated your mommy when she told you to put your toys away because people were tired of tripping over them, too?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Isn't it nice how mega corporations have taken on the job of educating the populace, now that we can't fund public schools to do it because we gave too many tax breaks to those same mega corporations?
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
He's off to the hydro store to get ripped on some fancy nutes, lol.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Gotta love those Exxon Mobil scientists.Isn't it nice how mega corporations have taken on the job of educating the populace, now that we can't fund public schools to do it because we gave too many tax breaks to those same mega corporations?
Imagine being an educated scientist and having your boss say 'find a way to disprove the truth'.
And now that boss is Sec. of State?
Incredible.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You didn't remember correctly.
Observe
Theorize
Hypothesize
Experiment
Analyze
Modify theory, search for a better, make notes of where current theory don't match observations.
Newton's theory is much simpler than Einsteins theory of gravity (or lack thereof) and predicts effects of Earth's gravity on smaller objects with enough accuracy to be useful. Models based on Newton's theory are useful in the macro world with known limitations. When the application can be solved within these limitations, why should anybody use a more complicated model?
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Newtons-theory-of-gravity.html
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every mass attracts every other mass in the universe, and the gravitational force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Measurements of planetary rotation around the sun showed Newton's theory of gravity does not accurately match those observations. Einsteins theory of relativity was validated when he was able to use computations from his theory to match. Even so, there are problems with applying the theory of relativity to sub atomic observations. Either theory can be used to create computational models that are useful. However, it is important to understand their limitations. All computational models are wrong, some are useful. Hence, knowlege is power when it comes to using these models.
What does this have to do with AGW? The general public has the belief that science provides exactness and certainty of outcomes - in part due to the success that science has had to do just that. This belief is unfortunate because whenever a prediction doesn't exactly match the outcome all of the science is doubted. The theory behind climate change -- CO2-greenhouse effect is based on physical theory that is two hundred years old. . The debate at the scientist level whether human emissions of CO2 can affect climate began about then and pretty much ended about 20 years ago when the preponderance of observations supporting this theory became overwhelming. The current computational model takes into account that the rate of warming can't be accurately predicted. And so, they provide prediction intervals in their statements that confuse lay-people. That said, IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2 to 10ºF (1.4 to 5.8ºC) by the year 2100. The error range does not drop into negative territory.
If you really dig science, then here is a short history of the debate within the science community. http://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm
The source is a web page that is part of a history of physics in the American Institute of Physics website. Believe what you want but the science of AGW is settled. If you want to argue the observed rate of warming is natural and has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions then you have a belief that is not backed up by observations.
Last edited:
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
I didnt google search the steps my man, just going off memory from 2001 in college. close enough for government work, as they say, or an RIU forum.
I'll scope that history link, thanks for that.
The science is not settled, or we wouldnt be having this argument and neither would the scientific community. Read what I wrote in #744
I'm in the middle of this whole argument and in politics. I question everyone and everything, endlessly usually. Dont take it personal
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Me too, so how about that original account, lol.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Bullshit! The science IS settled!
It's the fucking politics surrounding it and what to do about it that's not settled.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The science is settled. Been so for about 20 years. There is no argument within the scientific community. Read the link.
Without using the theory that burning fossil fuels are causing global warming, what explanation do you have for the rapid rise in global surface temperatures beginning about a hundred or more years ago?
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
my understanding of the fossil fuel argument is it causes co2 emissions. co2 causes global warming. therefore, co2 emissions/elevated levels is bad. right?
its a nutshell version, yes, but lets keep it simple so we can volley some ideas back and forth. lets try to agree on a starting point of discussion
we're getting somewhere here
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Your quote at the top is "post 744". I don't see any justification for your belief. Belief can be just that, an unfounded feeling of what's correct or belief can be based upon observations, facts and reason. All I see in your assertion that "the science of global warming is not settled" is an unfounded statement of your belief.
Burning fossil fuels in massive amounts increases CO2 in the atmosphere. After that, it gets complicated but yes, the end effect is rise in global surface temperatures. The effects of rapid global warming is rapid extinction events, flooding, extreme weather events including drought, more frequent and more severe storms including hurricanes and tornadoes, also coral reef die off, displaced human populations, spreading of diseases into areas formerly free of them, famine and others. You worry about the cost of the response to reducing carbon emissions and completely miss the cost of effects of global warming.my understanding of the fossil fuel argument is it causes co2 emissions. co2 causes global warming. therefore, co2 emissions/elevated levels is bad. right?
its a nutshell version, yes, but lets keep it simple so we can volley some ideas back and forth. lets try to agree on a starting point of discussion
we're getting somewhere here
In order to believably deny AGW theory, you need to come up with a reasonable explanation of observed events attributed to AGW. That being:
Increased extreme weather events over the past decade
Sea level rise
Ocean acidification
Glacier ice melt
Migration of animals and plants upward and northward, or below the equator, southward.
These observations are independent of the physical model for AGW but are consistent with that theory. In order to discard the theory of AGW, you need to pose an alternative and plausible reason to why all them are now happening.
Last edited:
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
Great, we agree on that. Here is my problem with the rest of your argument though, based on previous era's in earths' life. Is that scientific enough? It happened, we measured it, and reported it. The evidence is still sitting there in fact.
Currently, co2 ppm globally is about 400ppmv. In the jurassic and cretaceous era's, co2 ppm was 2000-4000 ppmv. Life did not die, it thrived. the oceans did not bury the mountains. people werent around then, fortunately.
so, how can everything you say happen now, that didnt happen before, caused by the same elevated element? co2 cant have different properties then as it does now, just like any other element.
Last edited:
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
yes bill nye, ppmv is the correct term because its a measurement of a volume. ppm is not. you know the point im making, address that and not semantics maybe? or should i go back and proof read your posts for grammatical errors so i can just dismiss you? dont be silly man. its just a grow forum filled with stoners talking about nonsense. no need to get worked up.
im curious what you have to say in response to my question in 744
im curious what you have to say in response to my question in 744
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Massive extinction events occurred during the transition between the Triassic and Jurassic period. There is evidence that climate change triggered these events or at least contributed to the die-off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic–Jurassic_extinction_event
The Triassic–Jurassic extinction event marks the boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic periods, 201.3 million years ago,[1]and is one of the major extinction events of the Phanerozoic eon, profoundly affecting life on land and in the oceans. In the seas, a whole class (conodonts)[2] and 34% of marine genera disappeared.[3] On land, all pseudosuchians (non-ornithodiranarchosaurs) other than crocodylomorphs (Sphenosuchia and Crocodyliformes), some remaining therapsids, and many of the large amphibians became extinct.
I'm not going to spoon feed you what you can read elsewhere.
Go to this site for an answer why CO2 is a greenhouse gas: http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
In case that link too hard for you to read, here is a spoon of pablum: gas molecules in the Earth's atmosphere with three or more atoms are called "greenhouse gases" because they can capture outgoing infrared energy from the Earth, thereby warming the planet. The greenhouse gases include water vapor with three atoms (H2O), ozone (O3), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4).
Last edited:
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
You know they're not the same thing at all, right?
Because one takes molecular weight into account and the other doesn't?
And whats one of the heaviest molecules in air?