|
Quote:
You talk about scientific facts, but you do not defend your position with any. You say it is all too complex and complicated to explain when the problem is you do not understand it. You just believe it. You throw out doom and gloom predictions like some bible nut preaching to heathens about the coming Apocalypse and God's wrath. Stop pretending to be a scientist. You are a weather zealot. In 20 years there will be still be oil, coal and natural gas. In 50 years there will still be oil, coal and natural gas. The planet may get warmer. The planet may get cooler. Regardless, your End of Days predictions will not happen like you predict. I hope you won't be disappointed. |
Quote:
I dont recall talking about scientific facts either. I probably have a different definition of fact than you, but the closest thing to a fact that I have written here is the NSIDC measurements that say that a third of the arctic sea ice has melted since 2000. I try to explain how the science works, and sometimes talk about climate in general, such as when I answered your first question, which you claimed was serious, altho you are not now acting seriously. I have never pretended to be a scientist, over and over I have said I am a curious layperson. You pick a specific point and I will happily discuss it to the best of my ability. The science is very complex, because the climate is very complex. You screaming wont make it less complex. |
i already said on page 1 that discussing with some people on here is useless. you only get belittled but never presented a real argument
|
Quote:
You may be right in stating that 6000 years ago it was 4 degrees warmer, while I know a fair amount about civilization at that time I do not know what the temperature was then. I do know that cities appeared and dissappeared regularly as humans migrated from place to place. This time it will be different, because we have only had a fossil carbon industrial civilization for 400 years and an oil civilization for 100 years, and we have never had a population as dense as this. Nothing like our current civilization has ever happened before. With a few diffeence sin technology the agricultural civilization of 6000 years ago was not substantially different from the roman empire or medeival feudalism, So, yes, this will be different. Different better, maybe. If you belive that those equatorial billions will invent new tech to adapt to heat, and not migrate, then maybe it wont be a problem. |
Guys... turn of the fucking TV and stop parroting what you see/hear. Mass brainwashing is real, this thread is proof.
|
Quote:
|
Although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is a poor one. Methane is 23 times more potent as a potential warming agent.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Cow methane does not come from fossil or stored carbon. Cows eat biomass and convert some of it to methane - but that biomass was already part of the current carbon cycle, so it doesn't add anything to the total of greenhouse gasses. If the cows were eating oil or coal, then farting methane, that would be a problem, but they are just eating plants, and therefore have a small effect on the gas balance of the atmosphere. It's only when fossil or stored methane is released that there can be a net increase in the greenhouse gases. The big methane problem is the stored methane in the northern permafrost bogs - hundreds of thousands of years of methane can be released all at once as the north warms up. There are trillions of tons of carbon stored in rain forests and mud and biological formations of all kinds - but those typically represent a few thousand years of stored carbon, enough to be trouble, but not on the scale of the hundreds of thousands and hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in the permafrost, clathrates, and of course the fossil carbon. The even bigger methane problem is the clathrates. But lets hope that doesn't get released, because the consequences of that would mean an end of days scenario. So lets not even mention it. Lets hope the ocean floors remain cold enough to keep the clathrates stable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And I have no power to tell european countries anything, they would tell me to mind my own fucking business and that I should be talking to my politicians about our own carbon. which I dont bother to do, because as I have said, I understand the human mind, and we will not do anything realistic to conserve fossil carbon. We humans are not conservative. So called political conservatism is the exact opposite of real conservation, and the neoliberals are even worse. |
Quote:
http://tinyurl.com/3579x2c http://www.artsz.org/wp-content/uplo.../Freud-art.jpg |
Quote:
What do you say about these very informative videos? What do you say about the phony formulas used to produce the "hockey stick" graph? What do you say about the data being manipulated? What do you say, Sir? |
Quote:
You have grasped the difference between editorial opinion and the actual science, yes? So, what is the phony formula used to produce the hockey stick graph? You present your side's view and we can discuss it and look at the current scientific critiques. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ven-wrong.html I'm not a hockey stick graph expert, because it's just one small part of the measurements and because it's a dendrochronological picture of historic trends it by definition is less important than current measurements. But, let's take a look at it. http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima....400-2_752.jpg |
Quote:
|
Alaska is melting. What once was ice covered is now gone, turned into lakes, and with running waterfalls. Polar bears are now mating with regular bears because the polar bears have moved inland because of the weather change. They have Iditarod races where the dogs are getting injured because they're racing now on actual land instead of the sheets of ice they use to before.
Glaciers are breaking apart the size of states and MOVING towards land. And just weeks ago I read somewhere something about glaciers on the ocean FLOOR are breaking apart. |
Quote:
And as I also just said, I dont take youtube seriously as a source of either science or news. Just like I don't take history channel or discovery channel seriously as sources on science. News is for entertainent and profit - science has an entirely more rigorous set of standards, protocols, and ethics. Are you personally incapable of articulating your own arguments? Pick a topic, articulate it, and lets discuss it. I understand it's difficult to speak about these complex issues on your own, but I'd be curious to see you try. |
Quote:
That way, all you have to do is repeat the argument. Not so hard. No actual reading of science sources required. I'm always happy to discuss specific issues. It should be fun. |
no global worming is happening. they created it to collect new tax. Why you even discuss this so long. it is all a part of mind manipulation. Relax and live YOUR lives
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc