Page 11 of 161 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314152161111 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 4001
  1. #251
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    I am simply outlining my own reasons for being rather skeptical of the people who tell me "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate".
    I haven't seen too many instances of people saying "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate". For the most part the discussion goes...
    "Human beings are responsible for climate changes"
    "Prove it"
    "You're a denier!"
    "Ok but can you prove human beings are responsible"
    "Look at these pictures of ice melting"
    "Prove human beings caused that"
    "You're a denier!"
    SnakeBoy is offline

  2. #252
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I'm not going to keep looking stuff up. You can probably find the data as easily as I can. I actually got the emissivity wrong for ice and snow. it is actually very high, which makes sense. This means it loses energy fast, and doesn't heat readily. that along with it's high albedo, ice can persist for a long time.
    You need to reread the wiki, dimwit. It does not make sense prima facia.

    Water acts almost like a perfect black body and behaves differently than most every other molecule. Reflective white things typically have a low emissivity.

    If you knew what you were talking about you would talk about specific heat. You said 'it loses energy fast, and doesn't heat readily,' which is wrong but that is to be expected from you. You know nothing more about chemistry than you do physics.

    You do not even have the ability to quickly process what you read on wikipedia.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  3. #253
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Its not difficult. Its no more difficult than any number of tasks I don't do on a daily basis because there is no reason to. Its unrewarding and fruitless to debate with someone who will simply dismiss data because he doesn't like it.

    If someone such as ElNono wanted to discuss this in detail, I would. My fist instinct in this thread was not to actively participate because I know how you are and how easily you dismiss any information that does not bode well for your predermination due to your insane confirmation bias. Its your repeated formula.

    I feel no inner desire to convert those who's minds are already made up - especially when it is readily apparent to most that they don't know what they're talking about. I gave you a chance earlier in this thread but the moment you started saying things such as "I believe" and "I don't trust" without providing actual proof of why this was the case or how the methodology was incorrect I remembered my initial hesitation.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  4. #254
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    I haven't seen too many instances of people saying "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate". For the most part the discussion goes...
    "Human beings are responsible for climate changes"
    "Prove it"
    "You're a denier!"
    "Ok but can you prove human beings are responsible"
    "Look at these pictures of ice melting"
    "Prove human beings caused that"
    "You're a denier!"
    What thread is it that you've been reading?

    In any event

    The case for AGW in the simplest of ways is as follows:

    CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions from humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to grow by about 30% which has led to the observed increase in temperature globally and will lead to further increases.

    The increase in CO2 is well do ented and is attributed to humans with a great deal of confidence.

    What part of this hasn't been proven?
    Last edited by MannyIsGod; 10-12-2010 at 05:39 PM.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  5. #255
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    The case for AGW in the simplest of ways is as follows:

    CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions from humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to grow by about 30% which has led to the observed increase in temperature globally and will lead to further increases.

    The increase in CO2 is well do ented and is attributed to humans with a great deal of confidence.
    What part of this hasn't been proven?
    That part and that part.
    coyotes_geek is offline

  6. #256
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    So CO2 is not a known greenhouse gas?
    CO2 is not 30% higher in todays atmosphere?
    Man has not caused the CO2 rise?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  7. #257
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    So CO2 is not a known greenhouse gas?
    CO2 is not 30% higher in todays atmosphere?
    Man has not caused the CO2 rise?
    Making observations is one thing. Proving cause and effect between them is another.

    Someone could just as easily make the observations that 10,000 years ago man was not causing CO2 to rise and that 10,000 years ago it got warmer. Does that prove that AGW is BS?
    coyotes_geek is offline

  8. #258
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    So which of those are false?

    Or you feel they're true but it doesn't matter?

    If so then what has caused the observable warming?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  9. #259
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Making observations is one thing. Proving cause and effect between them is another.

    Someone could just as easily make the observations that 10,000 years ago man was not causing CO2 to rise and that 10,000 years ago it got warmer. Does that prove that AGW is BS?
    If everything was equal 10,000 years ago and it got warmer without CO2 then you might have a case. Now, was everything equal 10,000 years ago?

    Does AGW theory seek to address every warming period in the earth's history or just the current one? Can there be different causes for different periods of warming? Is it possible that the warming before was caused differently than the warming today?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  10. #260
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    So which of those are false?
    None. But that's not the point I was trying to make. Like I said, proving observations is one thing, proving a link between them is another. You asked what part of your simplified version hasn't been proven. That's my answer.

    Or you feel they're true but it doesn't matter?
    I feel that it doesn't matter if they're true or not.

    If so then what has caused the observable warming?
    No way to know. Maybe it's us, maybe it's whatever cause the earth to warm 10,000 years ago, maybe it's something else entirely. I will say that I believe whatever it is it's beyond our ability to control it.
    coyotes_geek is offline

  11. #261
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    If everything was equal 10,000 years ago and it got warmer without CO2 then you might have a case. Now, was everything equal 10,000 years ago?
    Obviously the cavemen weren't cruising around in SUV's back then so no, not everything is equal. Still, that alone doesn't invalidate my point.

    Does AGW theory seek to address every warming period in the earth's history or just the current one?
    Just the current one. But it's a theory that can never be proven until you can eliminate the causes for prior warming periods.

    Can there be different causes for different periods of warming?
    Of course.

    Is it possible that the warming before was caused differently than the warming today?
    Of course. Conversly, isn't it possible that the warming today is caused by the same thing that caused warming before?
    coyotes_geek is offline

  12. #262
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399


    That was too good to pass up.
    LnGrrrR is offline

  13. #263
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    I found this, and James Hansen surprises me. I have stated before, that left alone, he will spin what he finds, but here, he must have had others checking his work. I give you A BRIGHTER FUTURE
    A Response to Don Wuebbles (Climatic Change, vol. 52, no. 4, 2002)
    JAMES E. HANSEN
    NASA Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY, U.S.A.
    In other words, Hansen is obviously spinning facts and writing non-peer-reviewed articles when he disagrees with me, but is logical and rational when he writes something I agree with.
    LnGrrrR is offline

  14. #264
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    None. But that's not the point I was trying to make. Like I said, proving observations is one thing, proving a link between them is another. You asked what part of your simplified version hasn't been proven. That's my answer.
    So, we know that CO2 causes warming through being a greenhouse gas and we know that the concentration has gone up but we can't attribute the warming to CO2 in the absence of any other explanation.

    Um, thats some intensely weird logic. Its pretty safe to say that if A causes effect B that when you see effect B you can attribute it to A unless there is another plausible explanation.


    I feel that it doesn't matter if they're true or not.
    So it doesn't matter if A causes B in order to figure out what is causing B. Sound logic, once again.

    No way to know. Maybe it's us, maybe it's whatever cause the earth to warm 10,000 years ago, maybe it's something else entirely. I will say that I believe whatever it is it's beyond our ability to control it.
    Of course there's a way to know. You observe what is happening and you look for a cause through known behavior or unknown behavior. Saying there is no way to know is utterly and completely false. How exactly do you think we've figured out everything humans know about the universe to this point?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  15. #265
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Obviously the cavemen weren't cruising around in SUV's back then so no, not everything is equal. Still, that alone doesn't invalidate my point.
    It makes your point irrelevant. What causes an event is only analogous to what causes a similar event if the conditions are the same. If conditions ae different then the causes are not the same.

    Just the current one. But it's a theory that can never be proven until you can eliminate the causes for prior warming periods.
    Guess what - this has been done. AGW stands because what has caused previous warming or cooling - IE changes in solar output - has been ruled out.

    Of course. Conversly, isn't it possible that the warming today is caused by the same thing that caused warming before?
    Yes, and scientists have considered this in their calculations. Do you guys really think that scientists didn't try to explain this warming through those methods? The view that scientists haven't considered the causes of previous climate changes is incredible to me.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  16. #266
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Its not difficult. Its no more difficult than any number of tasks I don't do on a daily basis because there is no reason to. Its unrewarding and fruitless to debate with someone who will simply dismiss data because he doesn't like it.

    If someone such as ElNono wanted to discuss this in detail, I would. My fist instinct in this thread was not to actively participate because I know how you are and how easily you dismiss any information that does not bode well for your predermination due to your insane confirmation bias. Its your repeated formula.

    I feel no inner desire to convert those who's minds are already made up - especially when it is readily apparent to most that they don't know what they're talking about. I gave you a chance earlier in this thread but the moment you started saying things such as "I believe" and "I don't trust" without providing actual proof of why this was the case or how the methodology was incorrect I remembered my initial hesitation.
    Bull .

    You just know you lack the intelligence on this subject matter.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  17. #267
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Bull .

    You just know you lack the intelligence on this subject matter.
    K, I lack intelligence.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  18. #268
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    What thread is it that you've been reading?

    In any event

    The case for AGW in the simplest of ways is as follows:

    CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions from humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to grow by about 30% which has led to the observed increase in temperature globally and will lead to further increases.
    Can you prove that?

    Yes, we have contributed to the sourcing of CO2. nature naturally changes the level of sinking and sourcing. When sinking and sourcing are equal, the atmospheric level stays the same. When sinking exceeds sourcing, CO2 levels drop. When sourcing exceeds sinking, CO2 levels rise.

    To ignore the fact that other things control sinking and sourcing is not understanding the problem. It is you, who are making things up from lack of understanding.
    The increase in CO2 is well do ented and is attributed to humans with a great deal of confidence.
    Nobody disputes that CO2 has increased. Nobody disputs that we probably contribute about 8 GtC annually. However, what if we never did add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the levels increased any way? Is it possible that Henry's law, and the fact that the ocean contains more than 50 times more carbon of the carbon cycle than the atmosphere possible the cause? How have you ruled out that CO2 does not lag temperature? Did you know that the solubility of gasses in water decreases as temperature increases?

    You see, the problem is, this is a complex system. Nothing stands alone. If temperature is increasing outside of the influence of CO2, then CO2 will increase simply by the increasing temperature. If the oceans maintained the same equilibrium as we emitted it, they would sink about 98% of what we emit. That would mean that we only contribute 0.16 GtC annually, or increase CO2 levels by only about 0.08 ppm annually. It would take 12 years to increasing the atmospheric content by 1 ppm *if* the ocean was able to maintain that 50+:1 ratio. It's not that simple either.
    What part of this hasn't been proven?
    What you outlined is not proof. I can show you a chart that correlates the number of pirates with global temperature. Isn't that the same thing you're talking about? Observed effect drawing a conclusion to possible unrelated facts?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  19. #269
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Does AGW theory seek to address every warming period in the earth's history or just the current one? Can there be different causes for different periods of warming? Is it possible that the warming before was caused differently than the warming today?
    There lies the problem with your Dogma. You acknowledge that natural climate changes occurred in the past, but refuse to accept that what is happening today may also be natural.

    Ever see the solar cycles calculated? Here's an interesting one:



    Now what dopes that do when we consider eccentricity of the earths orbit too? can you even tell me why eccentricity has a global warming effect? Hint... Kepler's laws...

    Wild Cobra is offline

  20. #270
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117


    That was too good to pass up.
    And I agree. With anything in science, you are a skeptic first, else a fool.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  21. #271
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    So, we know that CO2 causes warming through being a greenhouse gas and we know that the concentration has gone up but we can't attribute the warming to CO2 in the absence of any other explanation.
    No. We know that it causes some warming. The problem is that the AGW crowd wants to attribute more than can reasonably be attributed to it. That is why I wish to see their math on it.

    Correlation does not equal causation, yet that is what it amounts to with their proof.

    wiki: Correlation does not imply causation

    "Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for causation and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation).
    Wild Cobra is offline

  22. #272
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    DarrinS is offline

  23. #273
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Please note everyone that the green (CO2) level goes up and down, with a general upward trend. Why does it go up and down one might ask? Well, it's simple. It goes down when the ocean cools and up when it warms. Notice it's an annual trend, following the seasonal temperature change.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-12-2010 at 08:42 PM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  24. #274
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Please note everyone that the green (CO2) level goes up and down, with a general upward trend. Why does it go up and down one might ask? Well, it's simple. It goes down when the ocean cools and up when it warms. Notice it's an annual trend, following the seasonal temperature change.

    Yep. The same CO2 trend was occuring from 1940 to 1970 while the temperature dropped. A THIRTY YEAR PERIOD.

    The dashed line is most likely a smoothed average of CO2.


    DarrinS is offline

  25. #275
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    The global temp anomaly from 1940 to 1970 is why the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the 1970's was that we needed to be worried about global COOLING.

    DarrinS is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •