RE: climate change denier comes to his senses

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JeffBC -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/9/2012 7:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper And trust in this... If the wealthy find a way to survive, you aren't invited. "Survival" was never an issue to my understanding. The rich were never going to be impacted. Who's going to get burned (big surprise) are largely the poorer and lower-elevation nations. I strongly suspect that's why we "don't know if there's a problem" yet. The more interesting meta-conversation in all this is the decline of science in favor of superstition.

vincentML -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/10/2012 11:31:26 AM)
quote: 1/10th of a degree average temperature across the continental US? You think that is a small difference? You do realize that that 1/10th is how much July 2012 exceeded the previously hottest month on record? The difference of only one/tenth degree vs 1936 reinforces the observation that we have been here before, that these are recurring events, and that the current event is nothing special or out of the ordinary, and certainly does not provide attribution to CO2 forcing. I will remind you that you admonished me for using three data points from the interglacials, but here you are trumpeting ONE data point (2012) and dismissing another (1936) That seems pretty damn inconsistent unless cherrypicking data rises to consistency.

vincentML -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/10/2012 11:49:38 AM)
quote: Her point is not science and not mathematics. Weather may be unpredictable due to too many variables, as predicted by chaos theory, but climate, which is averages over large areas and works on a decadal time scale, averages out the small variables and is amenable to prediction and modeling. That's why when we see a La Nina or El Nino forming in the Pacific in January we can predict the climate trends for July in North America. That's also why we can see a steady rise in global atmospheric CO2 levels and predict a warmer and therefore more chaotic climate into the future. Her theory of inconveniently observable climate shifts becomes 'weather' because it suits your bias. She is in fact talking about La Nina and El Nino oscellations. And for you to say previously that her theory only predicts backwards is another silly construct by you. The IPCC theory gathers data from the past and tries to extrapolate it forward. The data in climatology is from the recent and distant past of necessity. Dr Currey's position seems to be that the data is being analyzed through a linear fashion unjustified by the reality of the chaotic dynamics of climate. And yet there is such a cascade of persuasion that the nations of the world are prepared to institute action upon this faulty analysis as if it were handed down from a burning bush. Newton's theory of gravity was modified by General Relativity and GR may be modified by future analysis. There is no theory that is sancrosanct in Science. The world would be better preparing for the possibility of future warming, which is questionable, than wasting resources in a futile attempt to hold Nature back. In the meantime if we are able to reduce pollution of ground water and the seas by petroleum and natural gas then all the better by me.

DomKen -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/10/2012 1:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Her point is not science and not mathematics. Weather may be unpredictable due to too many variables, as predicted by chaos theory, but climate, which is averages over large areas and works on a decadal time scale, averages out the small variables and is amenable to prediction and modeling. That's why when we see a La Nina or El Nino forming in the Pacific in January we can predict the climate trends for July in North America. That's also why we can see a steady rise in global atmospheric CO2 levels and predict a warmer and therefore more chaotic climate into the future. Her theory of inconveniently observable climate shifts becomes 'weather' because it suits your bias. She is in fact talking about La Nina and El Nino oscellations. And for you to say previously that her theory only predicts backwards is another silly construct by you. The IPCC theory gathers data from the past and tries to extrapolate it forward. The data in climatology is from the recent and distant past of necessity. Dr Currey's position seems to be that the data is being analyzed through a linear fashion unjustified by the reality of the chaotic dynamics of climate. And yet there is such a cascade of persuasion that the nations of the world are prepared to institute action upon this faulty analysis as if it were handed down from a burning bush. Newton's theory of gravity was modified by General Relativity and GR may be modified by future analysis. There is no theory that is sancrosanct in Science. The world would be better preparing for the possibility of future warming, which is questionable, than wasting resources in a futile attempt to hold Nature back. In the meantime if we are able to reduce pollution of ground water and the seas by petroleum and natural gas then all the better by me. Then her theory should predict the next 'shift' which it doesn't. Or what the climate will be like after the next shift? Science is by definition predictive. Her hypothesis, at this time at least, is not predictive and is therefore not science.

DomKen -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/10/2012 1:56:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: 1/10th of a degree average temperature across the continental US? You think that is a small difference? You do realize that that 1/10th is how much July 2012 exceeded the previously hottest month on record? The difference of only one/tenth degree vs 1936 reinforces the observation that we have been here before, that these are recurring events, and that the current event is nothing special or out of the ordinary, and certainly does not provide attribution to CO2 forcing. I will remind you that you admonished me for using three data points from the interglacials, but here you are trumpeting ONE data point (2012) and dismissing another (1936) That seems pretty damn inconsistent unless cherrypicking data rises to consistency. Actually I'm pointing out that a red herring you tried to use just days ago was rendered invalid by the record being surplanted. The data points I'm paying attention to are the string of top 10 hottest years on record we're in the middle of, the unprecedented simultaneous opening of the NW and NE passages, the rate of shrinkage of terrestrial glaciers worldwide, Kiribati's shrinking elevation above sea level and many others that show conclusively that the climate is warming and warming very fast.

Yachtie -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/10/2012 2:16:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually I'm pointing out that a red herring you tried to use just days ago was rendered invalid by the record being surplanted. The data points I'm paying attention to are the string of top 10 hottest years on record we're in the middle of, the unprecedented simultaneous opening of the NW and NE passages, the rate of shrinkage of terrestrial glaciers worldwide, Kiribati's shrinking elevation above sea level and many others that show conclusively that the climate is warming and warming very fast. I see something missing here yet also see something inferred. Missing is any reference to man as causative (being a central theme of all GW discussion) and inferred is that what we are experiencing is something new. And it's conclusive. 10 hottest years ON RECORD. What about off record? Unprecedented? Only if it is really is new. Is it? And you state it all shows conclusively. You don't have a red herring here. You have a strawman.

DomKen -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/10/2012 3:14:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually I'm pointing out that a red herring you tried to use just days ago was rendered invalid by the record being surplanted. The data points I'm paying attention to are the string of top 10 hottest years on record we're in the middle of, the unprecedented simultaneous opening of the NW and NE passages, the rate of shrinkage of terrestrial glaciers worldwide, Kiribati's shrinking elevation above sea level and many others that show conclusively that the climate is warming and warming very fast. I see something missing here yet also see something inferred. Missing is any reference to man as causative (being a central theme of all GW discussion) and inferred is that what we are experiencing is something new. And it's conclusive. 10 hottest years ON RECORD. What about off record? Unprecedented? Only if it is really is new. Is it? And you state it all shows conclusively. You don't have a red herring here. You have a strawman. We're done with that nonsense about whether the warming is caused by man. Until a better agent comes along its pretty conclusively CO2. First the temp records only go back about 150 years but statistics tells us that the odds against random chance resulting in the 10 hottest years on record all occuring in the last 15 years is too low to be chance. We've been aware of the NE and NW passages for a couple of hundred years and they've never both been open before and from what we can find out about sea ice in the Arctic it may have been millions of years since both were open, certainly not since the interglacial 2 mya. At some point he sheer number of different data streams that all say, IT's GETTING HOTTER!, becomes convincing to the open minded. It could be the poleward shift of plant and animal species occuring worldwide or it could be the rapid shrinking of the terrestrial glaciers or it could be the rising global sea level that is inundating island nations right now or it could be the seemingly endless stream of once in a lifetime weather events or it could be that gardeners are having to deal with a change in their climatic zones or it could be noticing that your local weather has changed in the last few years, for instance Chicago used to have regular stretches of sub zero high temps but haven't had any such in around 10 years. BTW the denialists have mostly given up denying that the warming is happening. The evidence really is overwhelming. The schtick now is to claim it will be much slower than predicted.

MrBukani -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/10/2012 3:37:25 PM)
We just have to wait for a big volcanic eruption and it will cool off again.

Real0ne -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/10/2012 5:11:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen BTW the denialists have mostly given up denying that the warming is happening. The evidence really is overwhelming. The schtick now is to claim it will be much slower than predicted. awe come on ken we all know you are just pissed off because you had to run your air more this year. you have to think GLOBAL NOT LOCAL. Anyway you can sleep well now that you know that the CO2 has nearly doubled and the average GLOBAL temperature is decreasing as we get ready for another ice age. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/911/global%20warming/carbon_dioxide.jpg[/image] This is the same chart AL GORE used! Nice huh! Of course history will show that this cycle repeats, probably due to dinosaur flatulance. So grab a beer take a few meds and sleep well ken.

Rule -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 1:09:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We're done with that nonsense about whether the warming is caused by man. Until a better agent comes along its pretty conclusively CO2. ... It could be the poleward shift of plant and animal species occuring worldwide I solved it, I solved it! [sm=mrpuffy.gif] The temperatures are rising globally because black bears are shifting north! When they get on the ice fields, sunlight is no longer reflected into space by the ice, but instead it is being absorbed by the black bears. This causes the air around the black bears to heat up, which in turn melts the nearby ice. It is all so clear to me now! [8D] [sm=rofl.gif] Farfetched? Actually I have favoured for more than a dozen years another explanation for the warming up that DomKen will consider even more farfetched: the heat is coming from inside our planet.

DomKen -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 6:47:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Actually I have favoured for more than a dozen years another explanation for the warming up that DomKen will consider even more farfetched: the heat is coming from inside our planet. Evidence?

Rule -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 7:02:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Actually I have favoured for more than a dozen years another explanation for the warming up that DomKen will consider even more farfetched: the heat is coming from inside our planet. Evidence? What in your opinion would constitute evidence?

DomKen -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 7:11:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Actually I have favoured for more than a dozen years another explanation for the warming up that DomKen will consider even more farfetched: the heat is coming from inside our planet. Evidence? What in your opinion would constitute evidence? Evidence that the mantle or core are heating.

Rule -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 8:21:18 AM)
I can argue conclusively that they are heating. By three different mechanisms, but I will limit myself to one: The Earth is a conductor, yes? The Sun's magnetic field is on a 22 year cycle, yes? An electric current generates heat, yes? Well, when a conductor moves through a changing magnetic field, a current and therefore heat is being generated. And there are graphs showing periods in the activity of global volcanism.

Hillwilliam -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 8:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I can argue conclusively that they are heating. By three different mechanisms, but I will limit myself to one: The Earth is a conductor, yes? The Sun's magnetic field is on a 22 year cycle, yes? An electric current generates heat, yes? Well, when a conductor moves through a changing magnetic field, a current and therefore heat is being generated. And there are graphs showing periods in the activity of global volcanism. At 93 Million miles, the sun's magnetic field is inconsequential compared to the field that the earth generates itself. Sorry but your scientific illiteracy is on display again.

DomKen -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 8:41:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I can argue conclusively that they are heating. By three different mechanisms, but I will limit myself to one: The Earth is a conductor, yes? The Sun's magnetic field is on a 22 year cycle, yes? An electric current generates heat, yes? Well, when a conductor moves through a changing magnetic field, a current and therefore heat is being generated. And there are graphs showing periods in the activity of global volcanism. As Hill pointed out the field strength is inconsequential. Furthermore that is a process that has been happening for the entire lifetime of the planet and it is by the laws of thermodynamics decreasing in strength on the geometric scale so it is not a possible source for global warming.

Real0ne -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 9:02:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I can argue conclusively that they are heating. By three different mechanisms, but I will limit myself to one: The Earth is a conductor, yes? The Sun's magnetic field is on a 22 year cycle, yes? An electric current generates heat, yes? Well, when a conductor moves through a changing magnetic field, a current and therefore heat is being generated. And there are graphs showing periods in the activity of global volcanism. At 93 Million miles, the sun's magnetic field is inconsequential compared to the field that the earth generates itself. Sorry but your scientific illiteracy is on display again. likewise the co2. I posted al gores chart in which anyone who can read a chart can readily conclude increased co2 is not the cause. If it were the temp would be rising but its not. In fact its cooling even though the levels of co2 doubled. Hence co2 follows an event not causes it.

Rule -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 9:23:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam At 93 Million miles, the sun's magnetic field is inconsequential compared to the field that the earth generates itself. Sorry but your scientific illiteracy is on display again. I was talking about a changing magnetic field strength, HW. I am sorry that I did not make that sufficiently clear.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 9:31:15 AM)
We all know the planet is warming up but so is the entire solar system. http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html What I find amusing is that this country is only 6% of the world's population but we use 26% of the world's energy, yet the liberals want to keep allowing Immigration and make the problem worse. Another interesting twist of irony is that building nuclear power plants is the only sure way of providing enough electricity for future generations while quickly minimizing our impact on global warming, which liberals oppose.

SternSkipper -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 9:31:27 AM)
quote: "Survival" was never an issue to my understanding. The rich were never going to be impacted I didn't actually think it was... However his invitation to the party is. On the other issue... I would agree that science has problems... mostly stemming from how it gets funded.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02