2016 even hotter than 2015 and 2014

Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you've never proved me wrong.

you said you were part of "smokestacks209".

an image search of google for that phrase brings up a group of fatass tubby folks sitting around.
Click to expand...
Your trolling is pethatic. You are not as stupid as you try to make yourself out to be. All it does, is interfere with the chat @Padawanbater2 and I were having.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i'd like to think that invoking your unhealthy lifestyle adds a certain 'je ne sais quoi' to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Indeed, a certain 'I know not what' seems to be highly appropriate when discussing settled science and other factual matters with those who can't spell 'foundational grasp of reality', let alone get one.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
For sure. but it's not the stupid part that bothers me. I'm used to that, living in retardville. 209
It's his constant repetition, posting the same exact thing over and over.
Click to expand...
I most dislike his predictability and his dishonest nature.

He doesn't care about being right or wrong, or the truth. He only cares about making his opponent look bad by building straw men and other logical fallacies.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
I most dislike his predictability and his dishonest nature.

He doesn't care about being right or wrong, or the truth. He only cares about making his opponent look bad by building straw men and other logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
Chatting about the man in the mirror with another sycophant?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
CO2 does escape the atmosphere. Also, ppm levels are nowhere near levels to create conditions you are talking about.
Click to expand...
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a large warming effect on global temperatures through the greenhouse effect. Although individual CO2 molecules have a short residence time in the atmosphere, it takes an extremely long time for carbon dioxide levels to sink after sudden rises, due to e.g. volcanic eruptions or human activity and among the many long-lasting greenhouse gases, it is the most important because it makes up the largest fraction of the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from about 280 ppm to almost 400 ppm. Although the amount of CO2 introduced makes up only a small portion of the global carbon cycle, carbon dioxide's long residence time makes these emissions relevant for the total carbon balance. The increased carbon dioxide concentration strengthens the greenhouse effect, causing changes to the global climate. Of the increased amounts of carbon dioxide that are introduced to the atmosphere each year, approximately 80% are from the combustion of fossil fuels and cement production. The other ~20% originate from land use change and deforestation. Because gaseous carbon dioxide does not react quickly with other chemicals, the main processes that change the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere involve exchanges with the earth's other carbon reservoirs"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle
Not GOP said:
Man made global warming -science not in.
Click to expand...
Science is true whether you believe in it or not
Not GOP said:
The establishment pushes this agenda to grow government, create new carbon taxes, and seize more power over private property
Click to expand...
"The establishment" makes up both democrats and republicans, so why are only the democrats the ones pressing for climate change legislation?

More importantly, how would you be able to determine action taken by the US government on climate change is to "grow government, create new carbon taxes, and seize more power over private property"? If I didn't want to simply take your word for it, how would I go about proving that?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
2ANONYMOUS said:
No such thing as settled science cause science keeps being corrected .
Is science a theory or Fact ???

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

n everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions
Click to expand...
I'll post the attribution for you: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Oh boy. You've exceeded your previous record for wild ass conspiracy theories. Now, the space itself is out to get us.

2ANONYMOUS said:
We all tend to think Humans are to blame for global warming how lame can that be although we do pollute land fills and other things there is a shit load of natural events that also dictate global warming
this is a cash cow for some one and the IMF is using it to the max
people tend to think that cause storms and disasters are more frequent that we are the cause
but yet we forget the our solar system and how its moving its not only Earth that is changing and were to blame like they want us to think we have moved into a higher energy area in space
Click to expand...

I googled this from that cartoon you posted: "Scientists have come to the conclusion that we have moved into an area of space that is different and has a much higher energy level."

I found this:

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar2/changes.htm

So today, the Spirit of Ma'at is in the process of contacting the Russian National Academies of Science in both Siberia and Moscow, not only to fully verify what is being said here, but hopefully in order to report to you in more depth about these amazing changes that are happening to our Sun, our Solar System, and our Earth.

I have no idea what they learned. But, if you want to learn about plasma beings, you can find out more at that archive site.

Your claim: NASA along with every other climate science agency in the world are wrong or lying to us and some Russian guy named Dmitriev who claims global warming is due to "energy from space" is the guy you pick to listen to? Why not the Pope? At least he worships a deity whose name we know how to pronounce.

Oh and the main author of the article is some ooga booga spiritualist named Drunvalo. Who talks a lot like you do, 2A.

All I can do is laugh.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'm comparing settled science with settled science

I didn't say the science is in on how elements react with each other. I said the science is settled on things like the atomic number. The number of protons in an element is what gives it its atomic number. So if you have an element with 1 proton, it will always be Hydrogen. 2 Protons, Helium, etc.

If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it will heat it up. That's a fact from 4th grade science class
Click to expand...
The trip to never never land @2ANONYMOUS put me into a headspin. To correct the damage, I think I'll post something that I find interesting about how real scientists are linking the growth in CO2 in the atmosphere to industrially burned fossil fuel.

First: isotope signature of carbon dioxide indicates the recent increased level of CO2 is from a plant-based source, e.g, fossil fuels:

Carbon has three isotopes: Carbon-12 (C12), with 12 protons & 6 neutrons, C13 , with 12 protons and 7 neutrons, and C14 (12 protons and and 8 neutron. C14 is not stable and only traces of it exist in the atmosphere. About 99% of inorganic sourced carbon dioxide is C12 and 1% C13

Plants preferentially use C12 and so contain in proportionally smaller amounts of C13 in their tissue than found in the atmosphere or from other sources such as volcanoes.

I pulled the following figures from this source: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html


Figure 1: Since the Industrial Revolution, 13C/12C has been decreasing (Zhao et al., 2006)


Fig. 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr-1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as d13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4).

Figures 1 & 2 show that our atmosphere is richer in C12 over time, which is exactly what one would expect from a plant-based source of Carbon, such as fossil fuels. Figure 1 shows that C12 enrichment accelerated, beginning with the advent of the industrial age (~1830). Figure 2 shows the rate of atmospheric enrichment tracks with industrial activity.

Second: Atmospheric depletion of oxygen is consistent with the burning of fossil fuels:
The figure below is from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html


Figure 3: CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (black) and and Baring Head, New Zealand (blue). In bottom right corner is atmospheric oxygen (O2) measurements from Alert, Canada (pink) and Cape Grim, Australia (cyan) (IPCC AR4 2.3.1 adapted fromManning 2006)

Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analysing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.

Figure 3 shows that oxygen is decreasing commensurate with increasing carbon dioxide content. This pretty much proves that the CO2 is coming from the conversion of carbon into carbon dioxide. For every carbon dioxide molecule generated, one oxygen molecule is consumed.

To summarize:
-Isotope signature of carbon dioxide indicates the recent increased level of CO2 is from a plant-based source, e.g., fossil fuels.
-Atmospheric depletion of oxygen is consistent with the burning of fossil fuels.

Taken together, the evidence pretty much proves the AGW theory that the carbon dioxide spike in the past century is due to industrial fossil fuel use.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Did any big tobacco execs ever serve time for misleading the public? Genuinely curious
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure but didn't think so. A quick google search shows lawsuits are still going on but nobody has ever been personally held responsible. I see where you are going with this, and agree. Oil companies may be charged and settlements reached but nobody that did the crime are going to do time.

Maybe my expectations are too small. All I want right now is for industry to call off its denial doctors and for them to support real effort towards taking emissions to sustainable levels.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Did any big tobacco execs ever serve time for misleading the public? Genuinely curious
Click to expand...
Fogdog said:
I wasn't sure but didn't think so. A quick google search shows lawsuits are still going on but nobody has ever been personally held responsible. I see where you are going with this, and agree. Oil companies may be charged and settlements reached but nobody that did the crime are going to do time.

Maybe my expectations are too small. All I want right now is for industry to call off its denial doctors and for them to support real effort towards taking emissions to sustainable levels.
Click to expand...
Personal accountability. It's an idea whose time has come for institutions in America and all those who own or work in them, large and small, public and private, no matter who they contribute campaign funding to.

OR WE DON'T HAVE A FREE COUNTRY.

It's one or the other. There really isn't a third option, it's kinda like 'a little bit pregnant'.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I wasn't sure but didn't think so. A quick google search shows lawsuits are still going on but nobody has ever been personally held responsible. I see where you are going with this, and agree. Oil companies may be charged and settlements reached but nobody that did the crime are going to do time.

Maybe my expectations are too small. All I want right now is for industry to call off its denial doctors and for them to support real effort towards taking emissions to sustainable levels.
Click to expand...
Let's keep it going with the tobacco industry comparisons, this might be useful

What did it take for big tobacco to finally admit their products cause lung cancer? I would imagine it was something undeniable, right? Do you think we can reach a similar point in the anthropogenic climate change pseudo-debate? To us, we're well past that point, but to those that still question the validity of the science, can that point even be reached? They've invested in conspiracy theories and unfalsifiable pseudoscience, I don't think there's anything that could be shown to them in the way of scientific evidence that would make them question their conclusion. It would be like having people today still denying the link between tobacco and lung cancer despite the evidence and making claims about how the government just wants more power and control over people's lives.

Now consider that instead of a few people denying the link, we had a large segment of one of the main political parties outright denying it. Do you think it would have been possible to progress to the point we're at today in terms of wide public acceptance of the science even if the official party stance was complete denial? Personally, I don't think it would have been. If scientific evidence cannot convince these people, nothing will.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Personal accountability. It's an idea whose time has come for institutions in America and all those who own or work in them, large and small, public and private, no matter who they contribute campaign funding to.

OR WE DON'T HAVE A FREE COUNTRY.

It's one or the other. There really isn't a third option, it's kinda like 'a little bit pregnant'.
Click to expand...
Or like when Rampage Jackson witnessed a devastating knockout on The Ultimate Fighter, he said "Yeah, he broke his jaw a little bit"

lmfao

I wholeheartedly agree with the personal accountability sentiment
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Let's keep it going with the tobacco industry comparisons, this might be useful

What did it take for big tobacco to finally admit their products cause lung cancer? I would imagine it was something undeniable, right? Do you think we can reach a similar point in the anthropogenic climate change pseudo-debate? To us, we're well past that point, but to those that still question the validity of the science, can that point even be reached? They've invested in conspiracy theories and unfalsifiable pseudoscience, I don't think there's anything that could be shown to them in the way of scientific evidence that would make them question their conclusion. It would be like having people today still denying the link between tobacco and lung cancer despite the evidence and making claims about how the government just wants more power and control over people's lives.

Now consider that instead of a few people denying the link, we had a large segment of one of the main political parties outright denying it. Do you think it would have been possible to progress to the point we're at today in terms of wide public acceptance of the science even if the official party stance was complete denial? Personally, I don't think it would have been. If scientific evidence cannot convince these people, nothing will.
Click to expand...
As I recall, Big Tobacco only came around after they lost some big cases in court and it became clear that the act of denial cost more than facing the issues of health problems caused by their poisonous product. Prosecutors started winning under RICO laws, which opened the books from the companies themselves and the whole thing snowballed to where we are today, where tobacco is at least somewhat required to pay for state costs due to their malfeasance.

This is why I am intrigued by this first ever request by the DOJ for the FBI to investigate for signs of wrong doing by Exxon. Clearly, Exxon management and probably their BOD knew that their product was causing global climate change about the same time climate scientists recognized the problem in the 1980's. Big Tobacco is small change compared to Big Oil. It's going to take some balls on the government's part to take on big oil but it seems to me that there is precedent from tobacco that may shorten the time needed to bring them in line.

Assuming anybody takes action. Which I'm guessing is your point. Fortunately, the DOJ acts under the auspices of the executive branch. Assuming a Democrat continues to control this branch next year and that she is motivated to take action/put political capital on doing something about climate change, then we might just see some action. Republicans would quash this effort in a heartbeat if they take control of the White house. Facts won't get in the way of their decisions.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Personal accountability. It's an idea whose time has come for institutions in America and all those who own or work in them, large and small, public and private, no matter who they contribute campaign funding to.

OR WE DON'T HAVE A FREE COUNTRY.

It's one or the other. There really isn't a third option, it's kinda like 'a little bit pregnant'.
Click to expand...
like I said, I'm probably expecting too little. You are right, change won't really take place unless personal accountability is more than something a leader says but never experiences. I've personally seen how, when a manager was clearly told by his lawyer that not only would his planned actions cause fines to the company, he would also face big time fines, that manager changed course. As long as he thought only the company would be fined, he didn't care.

So, yes, personal accountability up to and including jail time would cause changes in behavior at the top.

I just don't see it happening. Not for at least another eight years.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
like I said, I'm probably expecting too little. You are right, change won't really take place unless personal accountability is more than something a leader says but never experiences. I've personally seen how, when a manager was clearly told by his lawyer that not only would his planned actions cause fines to the company, he would also face big time fines, that manager changed course. As long as he thought only the company would be fined, he didn't care.

So, yes, personal accountability up to and including jail time would cause changes in behavior at the top.

I just don't see it happening. Not for at least another eight years.
Click to expand...
Top AND bottom. Example; NYPD beat cops face no discipline when the city pays out lawsuits on their bad behavior. NOT ACCEPTABLE.

As police, they must be held to the same or higher standard than the public. Anything less is to wink and nod at corruption, PERIOD.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Top AND bottom. Example; NYPD beat cops face no discipline when the city pays out lawsuits on their bad behavior. NOT ACCEPTABLE.

As police, they must be held to the same or higher standard than the public. Anything less is to wink and nod at corruption, PERIOD.
Click to expand...
I can't work myself up to a helpless rage. But I completely concur with what you just said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top