Searz wrote:
The same could be said about you.
That's not how science works. For something to be true or a fact of existence you would have to prove its existence. I'm still waiting for proof that global warming is man made, haven't heard any yet
Pheyniex wrote:
want to place a tracker on a Co2 molecule? gl on that.
oh, right, you completely ignored my extended post... well i did expect that. unfortunate, though. I thought you could be a reasonable person.
no I read it, I just didn't dignify it with a response, whats the point of arguing with an idiot?
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
Darcurse wrote:
Need years to believe that global warming exists.
Even then, still need prove that noone else besides humans can be the source.
(I know that most here may not be american and still talk such BS, but scenario was to good to pass on)
yes obviously longer time spans of data would provide more evidence of the acceleration of natural warming and cooling cycles but that takes time; however, a great deal of things are used to this date that have very little long term study....take artificial sweeteners and their effects or most pharmaceuticals...how long are studies done to look at the long term health effects before they are released?
why does it need to only be humans as the source to be global warming?
I am curious as to what you are suggesting about americans with this meme. that we don't tend to our hair?
cause that is all I see with that image. I think you are honestly saying that only american scientists have suggested that we are contributing in a large part to global warming...that is beyond stupid. There is a United Nations funded scientific organization called IPCC. Not to mention there are scientific articles coming out of universities around the world. And yes I read scientific journals and text...and yes there are global contributions to climate articles not just american.
Here are two nice little articles:
Appetizer
Salad
Mooninites wrote:
Still waiting on proof, are you going to put your money where your mouth is or continue rambling on without providing anything intelligent to the conversation?
data was already provided in the first two videos. let me provide a little discussion though.
first consider
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that when energy is transferred, there will be less energy available at the end of the transfer process than at the beginning. Due to entropy, which is the measure of disorder in a closed system, all of the available energy will not be useful. Entropy increases as energy is transferred."
in other words no system is 100% efficient and energy is always lost. most commonly it is lost in the form of heat. also consider that the amount of energy required to form complex chemicals is far greater than the reverse reaction requires...again this illustrates inefficiency of all systems including those systems in the molecular world. so what organism produces the most chemical reactions on earth? **** how is this computer even running? that's right...us. so we produce a **** ton of heat. Now this heat can be used in other instances and greatly contributes to ocean and atmospheric currents but we are talking about mass production of heat that is continually increased as consumption increases...and guess what we consume more and more everyday. the second paper I linked touches on it but there are tipping points in every system so where is the tipping point for atmospheric and ocean currents? when can they no longer flex to the amount of heat production?
consider a simple illustration/metaphor: cotton is meant to breath...just like our atmosphere...it is also meant to retain heat. there is a balance that keeps the wearer comfortable. now increase the amount of heat produced by the individual...say going for a run. what happens to the airflow of the shirt? does the balance remain or is more heat retained because the rate at which it can expel the heat is limited?
hope that helps. again as I said previously it is difficult to deny global warming in its simplest sense...natural cycles of heating and cooling have occurred throughout earth's existence. the issue that climate scientists bring up is that we are accelerating the cycles. the issue I continually bring up is that this topic is blown out of proportion to suggest that we will all perish next year...and that the weather is out of control...etc...extreme extreme extreme. this dilutes the simplicity of the argument that natural cycles are showing acceleration due to A NUMBER OF FACTORS. just like the extreme sides people take in evolutionary theory. it dilutes the simple argument of the theory and people just say no...understandable but not the right way to look at it.
Mooninites wrote:
That's not how science works. For something to be true or a fact of existence you would have to prove its existence. I'm still waiting for proof that global warming is man made, haven't heard any yet
I wrote nothing about how science works.
You seem confused.
"Blizzard spoke thus; Thou shalt not BM. And the players replied Nay, I shall Play my hand with Lethal already on the board. And so Blizzard sent unto them this Brawl of Yogg, As a lesson for their sins of Pride and Greed, for he is the Prophet of Madness and RNG. On that day, the tavern descended into an era of chaos and darkness, until the weekend passed and everyone forgot all about it. Amen. Book of SMOrc, Verse 20, Chapter 4." - Feam T
Mooninites wrote:
That's not how science works. For something to be true or a fact of existence you would have to prove its existence. I'm still waiting for proof that global warming is man made, haven't heard any yet
how about observation? how about deduction? how about understanding what is being told to you?
Mooninites wrote:
no I read it, I just didn't dignify it with a response, whats the point of arguing with an idiot?
i.e., ignored. you are arguing nothing. you are simply being stubbornly sceptical, with no actual counterproposals.
Quoted:
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that when energy is transferred, there will be less energy available at the end of the transfer process than at the beginning. Due to entropy, which is the measure of disorder in a closed system, all of the available energy will not be useful. Entropy increases as energy is transferred."
second law states that a thermodynamic cycle must reject heat. what you explained is a consequence.
Quoted:
the issue that climate scientists bring up is that we are accelerating the cycles.
moon,
i have no idea how much you are ignoring or you want to ignore. however it bothers me that a matter that has been studied for the past 40 years still deserves no kind of acceptance by you.
measurements are compared against the Milankovitch cycles, geological layers, carbon dating, meteorological knowledge, all with very high precision, and the most you can do is bring up an interesting, although rather sad, "40 years ago, people were worried about global cooling".
the most you are denying is some studies that say "1 per million measurements do not correspond to what we expected". so, you simply deny everything.
Best regards, but I humbly expect you to feel disappointment in your children, otherwise, may the people have mercy on them.
Pheyniex wrote:
second law states that a thermodynamic cycle must reject heat. what you explained is a consequence.
problem?
Pheyniex wrote:
you can't state that. the data has not shown an oscillatory behavior, regarding this issue. all that you can state is that there is an abnormal increase in the last 100 years, and what moon fails to understand is that we are the main reason why.
correct it is a conclusion based on previous oscillation of temperature that has occurred since the creation of earth. actually I can state that. but it would take however long for the cycle to repeat itself to provide data. this is the fundamental reason why most people reject global warming
"well...that is just 100 years...I need to see 1000 years" - good luck with that.
SkidmarkD wrote:
Bad analogy is bad.
Wrong type of heat transfer.
And I'd say CFC's are worse than CO2.
please provide a better analogy than if mine was that bad.
Thanks to Hogopogo for my signature!
Pheyniex wrote:
moon,
i have no idea how much you are ignoring or you want to ignore. however it bothers me that a matter that has been studied for the past 40 years still deserves no kind of acceptance by you.
measurements are compared against the Milankovitch cycles, geological layers, carbon dating, meteorological knowledge, all with very high precision, and the most you can do is bring up an interesting, although rather sad, "40 years ago, people were worried about global cooling".
the most you are denying is some studies that say "1 per million measurements do not correspond to what we expected". so, you simply deny everything.
Best regards, but I humbly expect you to feel disappointment in your children, otherwise, may the people have mercy on them.
You have a short memory don't you. The past 40 years? People were afraid of global cooling in the 70's and 90's, they weren't concerned with Global Warming. It wasn't until the mid-90's that we have the Kyoto Protocol addressing the issue. I don't remember the date but I think it was 1997. That was the first time Global Warming was ever addressed.
My argument isn't entirely based on the fact that in the 1970's they were worried about Global Cooling, my point is that when you say something like "this has been studied for the past 40 years" it's not true. You are factually wrong, this isn't a matter of data or the number of scientists. You are factually wrong, this stuff hasn't been studied and the first real discussion was in 1997 which wasn't too long ago. I'm not even refuting the fact that the earth's climate is rising. I'm refuting the fact that it is a result of mankind, and you have still yet to say anything intelligent on the matter. You have yet to provide any evidence that says otherwise.
the problem is, you're too stupid to go out and do any research on your own and instead, you copy and paste from the wikipedia page you pulled up. All your rambling, most of this isn't even a coherent argument. It doesn't even make logical sense. Will you please, at least learn the information you're trying to argue for? Because from what I gather your argument so far is "scientists study this for past 40 years, Milankovitch cycles, carbon dating, man made".
I'll tell you what, someday when I have children, perhaps I will be disappointed in them, but I'll address that when the time comes. As far as you, let's hope you never have children, the gene pool is already dumbing down enough
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
So: "A problem only exists if we acknowledge it." ???
What a way to ignore stuff... not to sound prejeduiced and all, but you CLEARLY are an american.
"Idiocity" must be your favorite movie, since you should like the stuff they show on TV there...
If you say yourself that we start talking about global warming by the time the Kyoto Protocol was established in '97, how can you even believe that ppl didn't research this topic beforehand?
It's not like 40 years are right either, but what do you expect????
That some scientist only mentions that it's getting a bit hotter and 1-2 years later they want every bigger industrial country to cut there CO2 emissions by a totally ridiculous amount?
And YOU trying to tell ppl not to have children?
Idiocity is rly upon us that way...
What a way to ignore stuff... not to sound prejeduiced and all, but you CLEARLY are an american.
"Idiocity" must be your favorite movie, since you should like the stuff they show on TV there...
If you say yourself that we start talking about global warming by the time the Kyoto Protocol was established in '97, how can you even believe that ppl didn't research this topic beforehand?
It's not like 40 years are right either, but what do you expect????
That some scientist only mentions that it's getting a bit hotter and 1-2 years later they want every bigger industrial country to cut there CO2 emissions by a totally ridiculous amount?
And YOU trying to tell ppl not to have children?
Idiocity is rly upon us that way...
Relevant, albeit not entirely pertinent to the discussion, more about CO2. But I love green things, so it was pretty interesting.
As for things being studied for the past 40 years? We have careful temperature records stretching back at least 50 years, and obviously plenty of research into previous temperatures using icecores, tree rings, blah de blah de blah. While global warming might only be a relatively recent issue, global temperatures studies have been going for a while. Also, it would not surprise me if research into global warming was in the woodwork even a decade before it became a global issue. I would be surprised if there was not a significant period of time between people researching into global warming and politics grabbing a hold of it. But I've not done they research. Hey, that's an idea, how about some citations before we start going around calling each other idiots and like insults?
As for things being studied for the past 40 years? We have careful temperature records stretching back at least 50 years, and obviously plenty of research into previous temperatures using icecores, tree rings, blah de blah de blah. While global warming might only be a relatively recent issue, global temperatures studies have been going for a while. Also, it would not surprise me if research into global warming was in the woodwork even a decade before it became a global issue. I would be surprised if there was not a significant period of time between people researching into global warming and politics grabbing a hold of it. But I've not done they research. Hey, that's an idea, how about some citations before we start going around calling each other idiots and like insults?
Mooninites wrote:
You have a short memory don't you. The past 40 years? People were afraid of global cooling in the 70's and 90's, they weren't concerned with Global Warming.
Source needed, otherwise it's just another empty blanket statement.
Quoted:
My argument isn't entirely based on the fact that in the 1970's they were worried about Global Cooling, my point is that when you say something like "this has been studied for the past 40 years" it's not true. You are factually wrong, this isn't a matter of data or the number of scientists. You are factually wrong, this stuff hasn't been studied and the first real discussion was in 1997 which wasn't too long ago.
Oh really now?
Perhaps it's you who should refrain from getting children, because one of the videos IN THIS VERY THREAD proves that you are factually wrong.
And stop throwing insults like that. It's pathetic.
Quoted:
I'm not even refuting the fact that the earth's climate is rising. I'm refuting the fact that it is a result of mankind, and you have still yet to say anything intelligent on the matter. You have yet to provide any evidence that says otherwise.
You're blatantly ignoring a lot of comments(not just from Phey). Address those before making statements like these.
I'm a strong independent black mage who don't need no mana.
You need to log in before commenting.
Still waiting on proof, are you going to put your money where your mouth is or continue rambling on without providing anything intelligent to the conversation?
want to place a tracker on a Co2 molecule? gl on that.
oh, right, you completely ignored my extended post... well i did expect that. unfortunate, though. I thought you could be a reasonable person.