| Choose Life06-10-2017 07:53 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
If you understand the science behind Global Warming, or just take the scientists' who study Climate Change's word for it, then you know that it is going to keep getting warmer as time goes on. The problem is that even if we do cut our CO2 producing power generators off, we still have all that CO2 that is still in the air, and it is not going anywhere in the near future.
The enormity of our situation is so bizarre that people really can't even get their heads around it. But it is so bad, that it doesn't matter one bit if you believe in it or not. It will just keep getting hotter until you do believe in it. And then, it will just keep getting hotter.
If you work through it in your head, just play it out till the end, you will see that there is going to be a long, long drawn out march to death for humanity. And it doesn't matter what we do.
It is when I realized that, that I confirmed [to myself anyway] that Global Warming is what the prophecies of the Bible, and elsewhere were about. The Maya prophecies of the Flooding, when IxChel dances by the sea is also about Climate Change. Even their God, KuKulKan gets flooded.
Of course, he wins in the end, just like the Abrahamic Messiah, who also gets his ass kicked with a flood.
The floods are supposed to be what wakes us up to the dangers that are unfolding. From here, we are just observers, really. There is nothing we can do about it.
It is no wonder that there are so many people in denial about the situation we are in. The reality of it overwhelms the strongest of minds. It seems impossible that the entire human race is threatened. But that is exactly what this situation we are in will lead to, if nothing short of a miracle occurs.
Fortunately for the human race, there are instructions that were given to us, to be used when it was realized that it was time for those instructions to be revealed. They have been there all along, hidden in plain sight, so to speak.
If you know what the name of the original Bible means, then you know what the instructions are that I am talking about. Torah means, Messianic Instructions, or more commonly, The Law. It's a little difficult to figure out why the Torah means "Messianic Instructions" though, because there doesn't appear to be any instructions at all. And if you real what is considered "The Law," is doesn't help much either, with relation to solving the problem we are in.
In fact, if you research "The Law," you will find out several things, besides the fact that it doesn't say what to do about Climate Change. It does say that it will get hotter on earth, because of men worshiping false gods, that the ancient people didn't worship. And believe it or not, the Law doesn't even mention the Messiah, so it really does get confusing.
The Law is a term that is also used to represent the Covenant of God, with humanity [Not just the Jews, as some people believe, and think they can prove].
Christians don't care if the Jews consider the Covenant of God theirs solely, because Christians have their own Covenant with God, called the New Covenant, or New Testament. It basically means that you don't have to concern yourself with the original Covenant, or Old Testament.
If you research the original Covenant, you will realize that most of what it is about is a warning to reject the "new God, that your fathers didn't know." That theme gets repeated several times. Something else, which could be considered the other "instruction," was that when it was time for God to punish the world by making it hotter, that we should "choose life."
It sounds like a foregone conclusion that people would choose life, for themselves and their future generations, or posterity. But let's consider the attitudes that people currently have toward Climate Change.
The argument that is going on right now is in regard to whether it is even real of not. And if it is real, isn't it natural? And isn't it cyclic? Won't it eventually cool off on its own, due to natural variation. Can humanity really influence the weather? There are so many reasons to choose from, if you want to ignore Climate Change. You can outright deny that it is going on, if you want to.
Well, for now you can deny it, because the affects of Climate Change are gradual, so far anyway. As far as some people are concerned, those forest fires that are going on, have always occurred. And the same with the storms and flooding, etc., etc. Those are the same people argue about the accuracy of temperature measurements, to determine if it is getting warmer, or not.
But, if this is real, and it is, then it will continue to get warmer until even the die-hards die off.
So let's say, for this conversation, that we fast forward just a bit, until the die- hards have accepted that it is indeed getting hotter, and that we are all going to die, because it is just going to keep getting hotter. Now everyone knows it, and everyone also knows that it's just going to keep getting hotter. There is not even a question as to whether or not we can continue using CO2 producing fuels for energy generation. Everyone knows we can not. It's that desperate. What to do?
So here we are at a critical point in humanity's journey. We are beyond the point of denial. There is just no denying it anymore. What do we do?
Moses said to choose life, and Moses did not even remotely mention a Messiah figure who would show up in the nick of time to save all those who believe in him. He gave us some other advice instead. He said to choose life, and to reject the false god that would be present in the world then. And those are the only two things he really said to do about the problem. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?
No wonder it was so easy to get so many people to accept the New Covenant. It promises that when the time comes, that people who believe that Jesus was the Messiah do not have anything to worry about, because they will be protected, and will get to inherit the new world, called the Kingdom of God.
So, even though fires will be raging across the country side, food will be in short supply, and society is crumbling around our ears, there are millions of people who will do nothing but wait on their Messiah to show up and rescue them.
Funny that we have two totally different perspectives about what to do, when the time has finally come, and the prophecies are being fulfilled. We have the one, where Moses is telling us that we should basically rely on ourselves, by choosing life, and the other telling us to not concern ourselves about the future of humanity, because Christ is going to come save us.
There is indeed a Messiah, that is mentioned in the prophecies, which come after the Torah. And it is that Messiah that Christianity hijacked, and turned into their new God. Well, some sects do consider him 1/3 of God, sharing the task with the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
That's the "new God," that Moses warned people about. If you understand that Christians think saving the world is Jesus's job, then you know that they will do nothing to save it themselves, even if it means watching as it crumbles down around them. In fact, most people who are in denial of Climate Change are Christians. That's part of why they are in denial. It creates a paradox for them, to accept that they are bringing about the destruction of the planet. They think they are the good guys, and that it's supposed to be the evil guys that piss God off, which causes the world to burn.
In reality, it was no one's fault, because we didn't know what we were doing, when we created a society that gets its strength from cheap oil. But going forward, we can't blame it on ignorance. We know now what we are doing, and we know that what we are doing will destroy humanity, eventually. So what are we going to do? Are we going to keep on going, with blinders on, and act as if it is someone else's problem? After all, the next generation will have to deal with it, because it will be their problem. We can make it till then, and continue doing what we are doing now, because that is the easiest thing to do.
I don't know about y'all, but when I figured out what was going on, I decided that it was time to find the Messiah. I didn't decide to do that, because I needed help. I decided to do that, because I know he is a real man, a normal human being, who has one hell of a lot on his plate. So I figured I would set out to find him, to see if there was anything I could do to help him. What I found out along the way, was the reason Jesus said to don't go looking for him. It won't do you any good if you found him anyway. He is not a mystical, magical man, that can make miracles. He is just an ordinary guy, that has to figure out how to get humanity headed in the right direction, to avoid certain catastrophe. Well, even with his direction, we still get to see catastrophe. It's just that those who realize it is him talking, when he is talking, and react to his words, that do the right thing.
The prophecies are clear on that point. He starts a movement consisting of people that want to live through the destruction. They have to build their own settlements though. There is no magic involved. His followers will build the New Jerusalem. It doesn't just come floating down out of Heaven.
Being in denial of this problem is normal, due to the enormity of our situation. But just like being in denial of the passing of a loved one, you have to eventually pull yourself out of it, by accepting your loved ones fate, and moving on with your life. It's time to do that now, as we face this problem head on. Because the sooner we react to the problem, the more time we have to figure out what to do about it.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 06-10-2017 14:33 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem. |
| 06-10-2017 15:49 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 06-10-2017 18:58 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
Surprise: the satellite data shows that the NASA and NOAA estimates were derived from faulty data sources and that there hasn't been any measurable warming since 1979. NASA and NOAA have done this at the behest of government officials who believe in using environmental scare tactics to gain political power and you aren't merely accepting it but throwing your freedom and money at them like the baseball pitcher's fastball.
The problem is that you nutcakes think that the recession of glaciers that formed from the little ice age is a sign of God's wrath upon the world. |
| 06-10-2017 19:22 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
So you fail to answer the challenge and then spout drivel.
How do you think it cools when the sun goes down?
The energy that the sun's heat imparted to the earth warmed the place up in the day but the temperature peaked at about 2 PM. This is the point that the incoming heat energy is in balance with the outward radiating energy from the hot earth. [All simplified of course]
The energy increase from more greehouse effect (let's just gloss over the detail there) is quantifyable. It is x amount per doubling of CO2. This is called the climate sensitivity.
If we get a doubling of CO2 the balance point would be about 3c warmer than today. That is from a doubling of the 400ppm we have now.
The range of expected warming is very large. The IPCC bases it's predictions on the top end. Given that there has not been any warming since 1998 the top end looks out of the question.
The speed with which the earth absorbs CO2 is a function of the amount in the air.
As there is more in the air the world absorbs more of it.
We will not be using fossil fuels for ever. Soon we will find better ways to make electric power.
If you cannot find anything bad about a slightly warmer world you will have to abandon your doom cult.
Edited on 06-10-2017 19:23 |
|
| 06-10-2017 20:45 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
If you understand the science behind Global Warming,
There is no science behind the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
or just take the scientists' who study Climate Change's word for it,
There is no branch of study in science for climate 'change'. Science has no theories about something that can't be defined. Your 'scientists' aren't practicing science. They have done so for years.
GreenMan wrote:
then you know that it is going to keep getting warmer as time goes on.
Such is the usual claim of the high priests of the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem is that even if we do cut our CO2 producing power generators off, we still have all that CO2 that is still in the air, and it is not going anywhere in the near future.
...deleted remaining religious argument and the Pascal's Wager fallacy...
CO2 doesn't go anywhere. Neither does it need to. It can't warm the Earth.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-10-2017 20:54 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
Surprise: the satellite data shows that the NASA and NOAA estimates were derived from faulty data sources
They weren't derived from any data sources at all. They are purely manufactured numbers.
Wake wrote:
and that there hasn't been any measurable warming since 1979.
Not possible to determine. You don't know that. Since there there hasn't been any significant change in solar output during that time, you are probably more or less right.
Wake wrote:
NASA and NOAA have done this at the behest of government officials who believe in using environmental scare tactics to gain political power and you aren't merely accepting it but throwing your freedom and money at them like the baseball pitcher's fastball.
This part is completely accurate.
Wake wrote:
The problem is that you nutcakes think that the recession of glaciers that formed from the little ice age is a sign of God's wrath upon the world.
No one is monitoring the world's glaciers. We are only monitoring a few of them. Some are receding, some are growing.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-10-2017 22:05 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
So you fail to answer the challenge and then spout drivel.
How do you think it cools when the sun goes down?
The energy that the sun's heat imparted to the earth warmed the place up in the day but the temperature peaked at about 2 PM. This is the point that the incoming heat energy is in balance with the outward radiating energy from the hot earth. [All simplified of course]
The energy increase from more greehouse effect (let's just gloss over the detail there) is quantifyable. It is x amount per doubling of CO2. This is called the climate sensitivity.
If we get a doubling of CO2 the balance point would be about 3c warmer than today. That is from a doubling of the 400ppm we have now.
The range of expected warming is very large. The IPCC bases it's predictions on the top end. Given that there has not been any warming since 1998 the top end looks out of the question.
The speed with which the earth absorbs CO2 is a function of the amount in the air.
As there is more in the air the world absorbs more of it.
We will not be using fossil fuels for ever. Soon we will find better ways to make electric power.
If you cannot find anything bad about a slightly warmer world you will have to abandon your doom cult.
Actually there are not better ways to make power. All are worse than fossil fuels. For instance - it costs more in power to manufacture a solar cell than they will make in their expected lifetime.
It is difficult to judge the latest windmills but we do know that under wind patterns they can provide very little energy at the best estimates. Since they're new we don't have a reliable lifespan for them but the older ones were broken down continuously or in wind shadows so that only 2/3rds of them would be active at any one time. The real information on their actual cost vs. output is now carefully hidden because it is so embarrassing to the government.
We cannot expand hydroelectric power because ALL of the rivers and even streams are now dammed and have become a danger to the public because most of them were done on the cheap and in case of heavy rains can collapse and kill people downstream. We saw the dangers of that last winter as San Jose had so many troubles. Millions of dollars of damage done that the government is responsible for.
Electric cars cost more in energy costs than gasoline engines but since a plug seems cheaper they don't notice it. Or lie about it. The cost to construct and dispose of the batteries is stupendous in terms of energy.
In the meantime the same people telling us to conserve energy are those that have put up christmas tree lights on all of the bridges. |
| 06-10-2017 22:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
So you fail to answer the challenge and then spout drivel.
How do you think it cools when the sun goes down?
The energy that the sun's heat imparted to the earth warmed the place up in the day but the temperature peaked at about 2 PM. This is the point that the incoming heat energy is in balance with the outward radiating energy from the hot earth. [All simplified of course]
The energy increase from more greehouse effect (let's just gloss over the detail there) is quantifyable. It is x amount per doubling of CO2. This is called the climate sensitivity.
If we get a doubling of CO2 the balance point would be about 3c warmer than today. That is from a doubling of the 400ppm we have now.
The range of expected warming is very large. The IPCC bases it's predictions on the top end. Given that there has not been any warming since 1998 the top end looks out of the question.
The speed with which the earth absorbs CO2 is a function of the amount in the air.
As there is more in the air the world absorbs more of it.
We will not be using fossil fuels for ever. Soon we will find better ways to make electric power.
If you cannot find anything bad about a slightly warmer world you will have to abandon your doom cult.
Actually there are not better ways to make power.
Basically true. Power is power.
Wake wrote:
All are worse than fossil fuels.
Fossils don't burn.
Wake wrote:
For instance - it costs more in power to manufacture a solar cell than they will make in their expected lifetime.
Not quite true. Solar cells can't manufacture themselves, because of the temperatures required. Once manufactured, the total power they produce can easily exceed the cost of the power you had to concentrate in one place to make it. The difference is rate of production vs the rate of use to manufacture it.
Wake wrote:
It is difficult to judge the latest windmills but we do know that under wind patterns they can provide very little energy at the best estimates.
They provide plenty of energy, but at a tremendous cost for what you get. They also cover large areas of land.
Wake wrote:
Since they're new we don't have a reliable lifespan for them but the older ones were broken down continuously or in wind shadows so that only 2/3rds of them would be active at any one time. The real information on their actual cost vs. output is now carefully hidden because it is so embarrassing to the government.
Windmills aren't new. They've been around for ages to do things like pump water. To use them to pump electricity is a bit new. What is really embarrassing to the government is the small amount of power you get from them for the cost.
Wake wrote:
We cannot expand hydroelectric power because ALL of the rivers and even streams are now dammed and have become a danger to the public because most of them were done on the cheap and in case of heavy rains can collapse and kill people downstream.
Most dams are safe. Too bad California builds crappy dams.
Wake wrote:
We saw the dangers of that last winter as San Jose had so many troubles.
Like I said.
Wake wrote:
Millions of dollars of damage done that the government is responsible for.
No, the engineers that designed the crappy dam are responsible for it. The government just paid them.
Wake wrote:
Electric cars cost more in energy costs than gasoline engines but since a plug seems cheaper they don't notice it. Or lie about it. The cost to construct and dispose of the batteries is stupendous in terms of energy.
Disposing the battery is easy. Just chuck it in the landfill. Lithium decomposes quite readily.
Manufacturing them is quite different. These batteries are all new, meaning you have to smelt the lithium from the ore. That takes power and lots of it. It also takes power to mine the stuff and transport it to the smelter. It takes specialized handling once smelted, or it will decompose and possibly catch fire. That costs money.
Wake wrote:
In the meantime the same people telling us to conserve energy are those that have put up christmas tree lights on all of the bridges.
LED's are great savers of power and they put out plenty of light. The have a more intense color too. I like the winter lights. I put up quite a few of my own. It's a great way to get through the winter solstice.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 06-10-2017 22:42 |
| 07-10-2017 05:34 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
So you fail to answer the challenge and then spout drivel.
How do you think it cools when the sun goes down?
The energy that the sun's heat imparted to the earth warmed the place up in the day but the temperature peaked at about 2 PM. This is the point that the incoming heat energy is in balance with the outward radiating energy from the hot earth. [All simplified of course]
The energy increase from more greehouse effect (let's just gloss over the detail there) is quantifyable. It is x amount per doubling of CO2. This is called the climate sensitivity.
If we get a doubling of CO2 the balance point would be about 3c warmer than today. That is from a doubling of the 400ppm we have now.
Where do your numbers come from? Those numbers aren't accurate at all. Warming from CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases increases by the power of 4 [^4]. So a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of 16 times what it was. So if CO2 was adding 8% to earth's warming, then it would increase to 64%.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The range of expected warming is very large. The IPCC bases it's predictions on the top end. Given that there has not been any warming since 1998 the top end looks out of the question.
It doesn't look like you have a solid understanding of what the numbers that the IPCC and other organizations publish, mean. You apparently are stuck thinking that the average temperature will go to a point and stay there.
Those numbers that they use are predictions for the year 2100, for example. And the temperature of the planet just keeps right on climbing. What they are saying is that by 2100, the average global temperature could climb to [whatever their current number is]. You appear to be thinking that it is just going to level off there, and everything is going to be fine at this new even better temperature.
But it does not work that way. It just keeps on going, until the CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases are removed from the air.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The speed with which the earth absorbs CO2 is a function of the amount in the air.
As there is more in the air the world absorbs more of it.
Not even close. It has more to do with encapsulation of vegetation, which takes thousands and thousands of years. Plants eat CO2, and produce oxygen. But they don't outrun the animals' requirements by much, which is why the oxygen level of the planet also remains close to constant. So they balance us out, if you are just considering the air we breathe. Because of that, they don't really remove that much excess CO2 directly from the air. It's through being buried underground, which traps the carbon in the ground, which actually gets rid of the CO2. If say the tree falls and lays there on the ground without being buried, then it either gets burned, which releases its carbon quickly, or it rots, which releases its carbon slowly. But it still eventually releases all of its carbon back to the air, if it is in the air.
Tim the plumber wrote:
We will not be using fossil fuels for ever. Soon we will find better ways to make electric power.
If you cannot find anything bad about a slightly warmer world you will have to abandon your doom cult.
The only thing I can find bad about a slightly warmer world is that it will continue to get slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, until we are all gone. And then it's going to keep getting warmer after that.
But you are right about us not using fossil fuels forever. We can't, because they aren't renewable, unless you consider renewable in 10 million years as being functionally renewable.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 07-10-2017 06:55 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
If you understand the science behind Global Warming,
There is no science behind the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
or just take the scientists' who study Climate Change's word for it,
There is no branch of study in science for climate 'change'. Science has no theories about something that can't be defined. Your 'scientists' aren't practicing science. They have done so for years.
GreenMan wrote:
then you know that it is going to keep getting warmer as time goes on.
Such is the usual claim of the high priests of the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem is that even if we do cut our CO2 producing power generators off, we still have all that CO2 that is still in the air, and it is not going anywhere in the near future.
...deleted remaining religious argument and the Pascal's Wager fallacy...
CO2 doesn't go anywhere. Neither does it need to. It can't warm the Earth.
Parrot, you are just wasting your time in here. Nobody believes you. Science has proven beyond a doubt that CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases do help warm the planet. Your arguments that Greenhouse Gases violate the laws of Physics are just your imagination running wild. You need to accept what those who have researched the climate mechanism of our planet, and act accordingly.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 07-10-2017 07:03 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
Surprise: the satellite data shows that the NASA and NOAA estimates were derived from faulty data sources and that there hasn't been any measurable warming since 1979. NASA and NOAA have done this at the behest of government officials who believe in using environmental scare tactics to gain political power and you aren't merely accepting it but throwing your freedom and money at them like the baseball pitcher's fastball.
The problem is that you nutcakes think that the recession of glaciers that formed from the little ice age is a sign of God's wrath upon the world.
You keep getting your denier talking point screwed up. The talking point claim is that there has been no significant warming since 1998, not 1979. There has been an easily measurable increase in temperature since 1979, when satellites began measuring temperature. [Yeah, I know, Parrot, satellites don't measure temperature].
And the reason your idle [Dr. Roy Spencer] points that out is because there was only a fraction of a degree difference between 1998 and 2016, when the warmest yearly average was set. According to statistical math, that is not really an increase, due to the margin or error.
But guess what, none of that is relevant. There has been a warming trend of about 0.15C/decade for the last 50 years. That increase will continue for the next 500 years, and it should actually increase as we lose our heat sinks' ability to sink heat.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 07-10-2017 11:50 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
So you fail to answer the challenge and then spout drivel.
How do you think it cools when the sun goes down?
The energy that the sun's heat imparted to the earth warmed the place up in the day but the temperature peaked at about 2 PM. This is the point that the incoming heat energy is in balance with the outward radiating energy from the hot earth. [All simplified of course]
The energy increase from more greehouse effect (let's just gloss over the detail there) is quantifyable. It is x amount per doubling of CO2. This is called the climate sensitivity.
If we get a doubling of CO2 the balance point would be about 3c warmer than today. That is from a doubling of the 400ppm we have now.
The range of expected warming is very large. The IPCC bases it's predictions on the top end. Given that there has not been any warming since 1998 the top end looks out of the question.
The speed with which the earth absorbs CO2 is a function of the amount in the air.
As there is more in the air the world absorbs more of it.
We will not be using fossil fuels for ever. Soon we will find better ways to make electric power.
If you cannot find anything bad about a slightly warmer world you will have to abandon your doom cult.
Actually there are not better ways to make power. All are worse than fossil fuels. For instance - it costs more in power to manufacture a solar cell than they will make in their expected lifetime.
It is difficult to judge the latest windmills but we do know that under wind patterns they can provide very little energy at the best estimates. Since they're new we don't have a reliable lifespan for them but the older ones were broken down continuously or in wind shadows so that only 2/3rds of them would be active at any one time. The real information on their actual cost vs. output is now carefully hidden because it is so embarrassing to the government.
We cannot expand hydroelectric power because ALL of the rivers and even streams are now dammed and have become a danger to the public because most of them were done on the cheap and in case of heavy rains can collapse and kill people downstream. We saw the dangers of that last winter as San Jose had so many troubles. Millions of dollars of damage done that the government is responsible for.
Electric cars cost more in energy costs than gasoline engines but since a plug seems cheaper they don't notice it. Or lie about it. The cost to construct and dispose of the batteries is stupendous in terms of energy.
In the meantime the same people telling us to conserve energy are those that have put up christmas tree lights on all of the bridges.
There are no better methods of making electric power yet.
There will be one day. |
| 07-10-2017 12:00 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
So you fail to answer the challenge and then spout drivel.
How do you think it cools when the sun goes down?
The energy that the sun's heat imparted to the earth warmed the place up in the day but the temperature peaked at about 2 PM. This is the point that the incoming heat energy is in balance with the outward radiating energy from the hot earth. [All simplified of course]
The energy increase from more greehouse effect (let's just gloss over the detail there) is quantifyable. It is x amount per doubling of CO2. This is called the climate sensitivity.
If we get a doubling of CO2 the balance point would be about 3c warmer than today. That is from a doubling of the 400ppm we have now.
Where do your numbers come from? Those numbers aren't accurate at all. Warming from CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases increases by the power of 4 [^4]. So a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of 16 times what it was. So if CO2 was adding 8% to earth's warming, then it would increase to 64%.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The range of expected warming is very large. The IPCC bases it's predictions on the top end. Given that there has not been any warming since 1998 the top end looks out of the question.
It doesn't look like you have a solid understanding of what the numbers that the IPCC and other organizations publish, mean. You apparently are stuck thinking that the average temperature will go to a point and stay there.
[color=navy]Eventually. That time is going to be very long as the oceans will take many thousands of years to do it.
Those numbers that they use are predictions for the year 2100, for example. And the temperature of the planet just keeps right on climbing. What they are saying is that by 2100, the average global temperature could climb to [whatever their current number is]. You appear to be thinking that it is just going to level off there, and everything is going to be fine at this new even better temperature.
But it does not work that way. It just keeps on going, until the CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases are removed from the air.
It will tend towards a new temperature. Eventually the warming slows to a stop.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The speed with which the earth absorbs CO2 is a function of the amount in the air.
As there is more in the air the world absorbs more of it.
Not even close. It has more to do with encapsulation of vegetation, which takes thousands and thousands of years. Plants eat CO2, and produce oxygen. But they don't outrun the animals' requirements by much, which is why the oxygen level of the planet also remains close to constant. So they balance us out, if you are just considering the air we breathe. Because of that, they don't really remove that much excess CO2 directly from the air. It's through being buried underground, which traps the carbon in the ground, which actually gets rid of the CO2. If say the tree falls and lays there on the ground without being buried, then it either gets burned, which releases its carbon quickly, or it rots, which releases its carbon slowly. But it still eventually releases all of its carbon back to the air, if it is in the air.
The long term carbon cycle, try looking it up, is that carbon coming out of volcanoes is sequestrated into limestone at the bottom of the oceans. This is due to the absorbption of carbon by plankton who's shells then fall to the sea bed. The deposition of coal etc is a very tiny amount compared to this process.
That we have caused more CO2 to be around has increased the rate of growth of plankton. The presence of additional nitrogen has also greatly fertilised the oceans. Algael blooms are the result of this. But generally the world has enough fish etc to eat the algae quickly enough.
Tim the plumber wrote:
We will not be using fossil fuels for ever. Soon we will find better ways to make electric power.
If you cannot find anything bad about a slightly warmer world you will have to abandon your doom cult.[/color]
The only thing I can find bad about a slightly warmer world is that it will continue to get slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, until we are all gone. And then it's going to keep getting warmer after that.
But you are right about us not using fossil fuels forever. We can't, because they aren't renewable, unless you consider renewable in 10 million years as being functionally renewable.
How much extra energy do you think will be added to the energy budget of the surface of the world? That is the bit we stand on or float on.
There have been periods in the past where the CO2 level was far higher than today. The earth did not cook. |
| 07-10-2017 17:51 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
Surprise: the satellite data shows that the NASA and NOAA estimates were derived from faulty data sources and that there hasn't been any measurable warming since 1979. NASA and NOAA have done this at the behest of government officials who believe in using environmental scare tactics to gain political power and you aren't merely accepting it but throwing your freedom and money at them like the baseball pitcher's fastball.
The problem is that you nutcakes think that the recession of glaciers that formed from the little ice age is a sign of God's wrath upon the world.
You keep getting your denier talking point screwed up. The talking point claim is that there has been no significant warming since 1998, not 1979. There has been an easily measurable increase in temperature since 1979, when satellites began measuring temperature. [Yeah, I know, Parrot, satellites don't measure temperature].
And the reason your idle [Dr. Roy Spencer] points that out is because there was only a fraction of a degree difference between 1998 and 2016, when the warmest yearly average was set. According to statistical math, that is not really an increase, due to the margin or error.
But guess what, none of that is relevant. There has been a warming trend of about 0.15C/decade for the last 50 years. That increase will continue for the next 500 years, and it should actually increase as we lose our heat sinks' ability to sink heat.
And you continue getting your information wrong. The 1998 numbers came from NASA land temperature measurements while the 1979 came from satellite measurements.
But you can't keep up with real information can you? |
|
| 07-10-2017 20:40 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Where do your numbers come from? Those numbers aren't accurate at all.
You??? Claiming an argument of randU??? Why are YOUR numbers better than his???
GreenMan wrote:
Warming from CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases increases by the power of 4 [^4].
So a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of 16 times what it was. So if CO2 was adding 8% to earth's warming, then it would increase to 64%.
Please show this equation and how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
It doesn't look like you have a solid understanding of what the numbers that the IPCC and other organizations publish, mean. You apparently are stuck thinking that the average temperature will go to a point and stay there.
So you believe the system is unstable. Carbon dioxide will just keep on increasing and 'burning up the earth'.
GreenMan wrote:
Those numbers that they use are predictions for the year 2100, for example.
Please show your equation and how it was derived. There is no other way to predict.
GreenMan wrote:
And the temperature of the planet just keeps right on climbing.
Back to your claim of an unstable system because of the presence of carbon dioxide.
GreenMan wrote:
What they are saying is that by 2100, the average global temperature could climb to [whatever their current number is].
Argument from randU. If you had an equation that worked, you could easily calculate the number. Please show your equation and how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
You appear to be thinking that it is just going to level off there, and everything is going to be fine at this new even better temperature.
Back to your unstable system again.
GreenMan wrote:
But it does not work that way. It just keeps on going, until the CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases are removed from the air.
CO2 has always been in the air, often at much greater concentrations then we have today. The Earth hasn't burned up.
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
GreenMan wrote:
Not even close. It has more to do with encapsulation of vegetation, which takes thousands and thousands of years.
I didn't know it took that long for grass to grow. Guess I can sell my lawnmower.
GreenMan wrote:
Plants eat CO2, and produce oxygen.
Plants use carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to make carbohydrates. That becomes part of the plant material. Oxygen is released as part of the process. The end result does not produce carbon nor carbon dioxide in any form. Plants thrive better in higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, as long as the sunlight and water are available.
GreenMan wrote:
But they don't outrun the animals' requirements by much, which is why the oxygen level of the planet also remains close to constant.
Oxygen is stored in the sea, just like carbon dioxide. The sea both absorbs and vents these gases.
GreenMan wrote:
So they balance us out, if you are just considering the air we breathe. Because of that, they don't really remove that much excess CO2 directly from the air.
There is no such thing as 'excess' carbon dioxide. Earth has certainly coped with much higher concentrations then we have now.
GreenMan wrote:
It's through being buried underground, which traps the carbon in the ground, which actually gets rid of the CO2.
WRONG. Most carbon dioxide is dissolved in seawater. If for some reason there was no CO2 in the air, the sea would vent it's CO2 into the air. The same thing happens for any CO2 in the ground.
GreenMan wrote:
If say the tree falls and lays there on the ground without being buried, then it either gets burned, which releases its carbon quickly, or it rots, which releases its carbon slowly. But it still eventually releases all of its carbon back to the air, if it is in the air.
Doesn't take long for a tree (or any other vegetation) to rot.
GreenMan wrote:
The only thing I can find bad about a slightly warmer world is that it will continue to get slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, until we are all gone. And then it's going to keep getting warmer after that.
Back to describing your unstable system. The only sticky problem, of course, is that IT SHOULD ALREADY HAVE HAPPENED. We wouldn't be here to talk about it!
GreenMan wrote:
But you are right about us not using fossil fuels forever.
Fossils don't burn.
GreenMan wrote:
We can't, because they aren't renewable, unless you consider renewable in 10 million years as being functionally renewable.
The fuels we DO use, such as oil and natural gas, ARE renewable. We can and do synthesize this stuff on an industrial scale, using conditions that are found naturally underground.
The Earth itself is constantly renewing oil and natural gas. It does not come from dinosaurs, like they taught you in school. They do not come from fossils either.
Nuclear fuel is not renewable. There is so much uranium and other radioactive sources that it will be a LONG time before we exhaust that supply. Mostly it's a matter of purifying it enough to run a power plant. Such plants produce almost no waste. Spent fuel rods can still produce power in reactors designed for them. By the time you can't get any more out of those reactors, the rods (actually the pellets in them) are safe to be discarded.
Fusion plants, if we can get one working, would not be renewable fuel. There is plenty of potential fuel (hydrogen) around for it though.
Hydroelectric is renewable, as long as it rains and snows.
We don't really know where coal comes from. We don't know if it's renewable. There is some speculation about the source of it, but that is all it is. We do know that coal is not a fossil, even if fossils are contained within it.
Wind and solar are renewable, but inefficient ways to generate electricity.
This attempt to label 'good' energy and 'bad' energy is purely political and done for political purposes.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-10-2017 20:44 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
If you understand the science behind Global Warming,
There is no science behind the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
or just take the scientists' who study Climate Change's word for it,
There is no branch of study in science for climate 'change'. Science has no theories about something that can't be defined. Your 'scientists' aren't practicing science. They have done so for years.
GreenMan wrote:
then you know that it is going to keep getting warmer as time goes on.
Such is the usual claim of the high priests of the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem is that even if we do cut our CO2 producing power generators off, we still have all that CO2 that is still in the air, and it is not going anywhere in the near future.
...deleted remaining religious argument and the Pascal's Wager fallacy...
CO2 doesn't go anywhere. Neither does it need to. It can't warm the Earth.
Parrot, you are just wasting your time in here. Nobody believes you.
This sounds like a plea.
GreenMan wrote:
Science has proven beyond a doubt
Science has no proofs.
GreenMan wrote:
that CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases do help warm the planet.
No gas is an energy source (unless you burn them). They do not have the ability to warm the planet.
GreenMan wrote:
Your arguments that Greenhouse Gases violate the laws of Physics are just your imagination running wild.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not imagination running wild.
GreenMan wrote:
You need to accept what those who have researched the climate mechanism of our planet, and act accordingly.
I would rather stick to science. I don't believe in your religion.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-10-2017 20:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
Surprise: the satellite data shows that the NASA and NOAA estimates were derived from faulty data sources and that there hasn't been any measurable warming since 1979. NASA and NOAA have done this at the behest of government officials who believe in using environmental scare tactics to gain political power and you aren't merely accepting it but throwing your freedom and money at them like the baseball pitcher's fastball.
The problem is that you nutcakes think that the recession of glaciers that formed from the little ice age is a sign of God's wrath upon the world.
You keep getting your denier talking point screwed up. The talking point claim is that there has been no significant warming since 1998, not 1979. There has been an easily measurable increase in temperature since 1979, when satellites began measuring temperature. [Yeah, I know, Parrot, satellites don't measure temperature].
Satellites can't measure absolute temperature. Why do you keep making claims of Earth's temperature by using satellites?
GreenMan wrote:
And the reason your idle [Dr. Roy Spencer] points that out is because there was only a fraction of a degree difference between 1998 and 2016, when the warmest yearly average was set. According to statistical math, that is not really an increase, due to the margin or error.
You don't know statistical mathematics, and you don't know how to calculate the margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
But guess what, none of that is relevant. There has been a warming trend of about 0.15C/decade for the last 50 years. That increase will continue for the next 500 years, and it should actually increase as we lose our heat sinks' ability to sink heat.
Is space filling up???
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-10-2017 20:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have asked before and never got a decent answer but here goes again;
Please choose 1 bad thing that will result from a slightly warmer world (the bad thing from the 3.4c warming above present temperatures by 2100 as a maximum, IPCC).
Then explain, in your own words, why this will happen. Not the warming but the bit between the bad thing and the warming. The mechanism.
Then cite some sort of supporting science for this mechanism. You will need to quote from it to show you have actually read it. Relavent parts, well explained etc.
Then we can look at it and see it any local authority in the world will need more than the budget it has for traffic lights to sort it out, as long as it has traffic lights. If all can do so then it is not exactly much of a problem.
As I said, what the planet warms to by 2100, if it is 2 or 3.4C, is irrelevant. It's not going to just warm to a better temperature [or a worse temperature] and then just stop warming. It keeps going, until something intervenes.
I can't imagine submitting to your requests for an explanation behind Global Warming. Feel free to Google it. I suggest you seek out the information that comes from refutable sources. And read for understanding.
So you fail to answer the challenge and then spout drivel.
How do you think it cools when the sun goes down?
The energy that the sun's heat imparted to the earth warmed the place up in the day but the temperature peaked at about 2 PM. This is the point that the incoming heat energy is in balance with the outward radiating energy from the hot earth. [All simplified of course]
The energy increase from more greehouse effect (let's just gloss over the detail there) is quantifyable. It is x amount per doubling of CO2. This is called the climate sensitivity.
If we get a doubling of CO2 the balance point would be about 3c warmer than today. That is from a doubling of the 400ppm we have now.
The range of expected warming is very large. The IPCC bases it's predictions on the top end. Given that there has not been any warming since 1998 the top end looks out of the question.
The speed with which the earth absorbs CO2 is a function of the amount in the air.
As there is more in the air the world absorbs more of it.
We will not be using fossil fuels for ever. Soon we will find better ways to make electric power.
If you cannot find anything bad about a slightly warmer world you will have to abandon your doom cult.
Actually there are not better ways to make power. All are worse than fossil fuels. For instance - it costs more in power to manufacture a solar cell than they will make in their expected lifetime.
It is difficult to judge the latest windmills but we do know that under wind patterns they can provide very little energy at the best estimates. Since they're new we don't have a reliable lifespan for them but the older ones were broken down continuously or in wind shadows so that only 2/3rds of them would be active at any one time. The real information on their actual cost vs. output is now carefully hidden because it is so embarrassing to the government.
We cannot expand hydroelectric power because ALL of the rivers and even streams are now dammed and have become a danger to the public because most of them were done on the cheap and in case of heavy rains can collapse and kill people downstream. We saw the dangers of that last winter as San Jose had so many troubles. Millions of dollars of damage done that the government is responsible for.
Electric cars cost more in energy costs than gasoline engines but since a plug seems cheaper they don't notice it. Or lie about it. The cost to construct and dispose of the batteries is stupendous in terms of energy.
In the meantime the same people telling us to conserve energy are those that have put up christmas tree lights on all of the bridges.
There are no better methods of making electric power yet.
There will be one day.
Sure there will. That 'better' way will simply add to the sources we already have. Personally, I'm hoping we can get fusion figured out.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-10-2017 06:22 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Where do your numbers come from? Those numbers aren't accurate at all.
You??? Claiming an argument of randU??? Why are YOUR numbers better than his???
GreenMan wrote:
Warming from CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases increases by the power of 4 [^4].
So a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of 16 times what it was. So if CO2 was adding 8% to earth's warming, then it would increase to 64%.
Please show this equation and how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
It doesn't look like you have a solid understanding of what the numbers that the IPCC and other organizations publish, mean. You apparently are stuck thinking that the average temperature will go to a point and stay there.
So you believe the system is unstable. Carbon dioxide will just keep on increasing and 'burning up the earth'.
GreenMan wrote:
Those numbers that they use are predictions for the year 2100, for example.
Please show your equation and how it was derived. There is no other way to predict.
GreenMan wrote:
And the temperature of the planet just keeps right on climbing.
Back to your claim of an unstable system because of the presence of carbon dioxide.
GreenMan wrote:
What they are saying is that by 2100, the average global temperature could climb to [whatever their current number is].
Argument from randU. If you had an equation that worked, you could easily calculate the number. Please show your equation and how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
You appear to be thinking that it is just going to level off there, and everything is going to be fine at this new even better temperature.
Back to your unstable system again.
GreenMan wrote:
But it does not work that way. It just keeps on going, until the CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases are removed from the air.
CO2 has always been in the air, often at much greater concentrations then we have today. The Earth hasn't burned up.
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
GreenMan wrote:
Not even close. It has more to do with encapsulation of vegetation, which takes thousands and thousands of years.
I didn't know it took that long for grass to grow. Guess I can sell my lawnmower.
GreenMan wrote:
Plants eat CO2, and produce oxygen.
Plants use carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to make carbohydrates. That becomes part of the plant material. Oxygen is released as part of the process. The end result does not produce carbon nor carbon dioxide in any form. Plants thrive better in higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, as long as the sunlight and water are available.
GreenMan wrote:
But they don't outrun the animals' requirements by much, which is why the oxygen level of the planet also remains close to constant.
Oxygen is stored in the sea, just like carbon dioxide. The sea both absorbs and vents these gases.
GreenMan wrote:
So they balance us out, if you are just considering the air we breathe. Because of that, they don't really remove that much excess CO2 directly from the air.
There is no such thing as 'excess' carbon dioxide. Earth has certainly coped with much higher concentrations then we have now.
GreenMan wrote:
It's through being buried underground, which traps the carbon in the ground, which actually gets rid of the CO2.
WRONG. Most carbon dioxide is dissolved in seawater. If for some reason there was no CO2 in the air, the sea would vent it's CO2 into the air. The same thing happens for any CO2 in the ground.
GreenMan wrote:
If say the tree falls and lays there on the ground without being buried, then it either gets burned, which releases its carbon quickly, or it rots, which releases its carbon slowly. But it still eventually releases all of its carbon back to the air, if it is in the air.
Doesn't take long for a tree (or any other vegetation) to rot.
GreenMan wrote:
The only thing I can find bad about a slightly warmer world is that it will continue to get slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, until we are all gone. And then it's going to keep getting warmer after that.
Back to describing your unstable system. The only sticky problem, of course, is that IT SHOULD ALREADY HAVE HAPPENED. We wouldn't be here to talk about it!
GreenMan wrote:
But you are right about us not using fossil fuels forever.
Fossils don't burn.
GreenMan wrote:
We can't, because they aren't renewable, unless you consider renewable in 10 million years as being functionally renewable.
The fuels we DO use, such as oil and natural gas, ARE renewable. We can and do synthesize this stuff on an industrial scale, using conditions that are found naturally underground.
The Earth itself is constantly renewing oil and natural gas. It does not come from dinosaurs, like they taught you in school. They do not come from fossils either.
Nuclear fuel is not renewable. There is so much uranium and other radioactive sources that it will be a LONG time before we exhaust that supply. Mostly it's a matter of purifying it enough to run a power plant. Such plants produce almost no waste. Spent fuel rods can still produce power in reactors designed for them. By the time you can't get any more out of those reactors, the rods (actually the pellets in them) are safe to be discarded.
Fusion plants, if we can get one working, would not be renewable fuel. There is plenty of potential fuel (hydrogen) around for it though.
Hydroelectric is renewable, as long as it rains and snows.
We don't really know where coal comes from. We don't know if it's renewable. There is some speculation about the source of it, but that is all it is. We do know that coal is not a fossil, even if fossils are contained within it.
Wind and solar are renewable, but inefficient ways to generate electricity.
This attempt to label 'good' energy and 'bad' energy is purely political and done for political purposes.
We have discussed the algorithm my climate model uses. The warming affect of Greenhouse Gases increases at the power of 4. If you would like to truly analyze it, I will post the equation again. It apparently works the exact opposite of radiation, which is emitted based on the temperature to the power of 4.
Using that mixing ratio was the only way that I could get the model's output to closely follow the recorded temperature. Any other mixing ratio won't even close close to representing the actual record.
Our climate system is unstable, naturally. You can see from the climate record that it is always changing. That's one of the Denier's favorite talking points. The assumption is that weather variations are cyclical. They are to an extent. They don't just shoot straight up, during an overall warming trend. They drop back a bit once in a while. But in the long run the temperatures just keep climbing, until their driving force [historically CO2 and CH4] is eliminated, in what I think is a major die-off of most plants and animals. I think that because you can see a sharp rise in CH4 and the beginning of a gradual decrease in CO2, as a peak temperature event occurs, before heading back into another glacial period.
It's all pretty interesting stuff, if you are interested in the history of humanity, and the earth we live on. But you would have to get over your random number fixation. Data obtained from ice cores is not random numbers.
You deniers don't seem to understand that your irrelevant information, like gases being stored in the ocean, are useless trivia. Only so much gas is stored in the ocean. It's not like the oceans are our dumping grounds or our saving grace. We are killing the oceans with all our physical pollution and our gas pollution. It can only take so much, before the fish go belly up everywhere. Most people don't get to make it past that.
There are solutions for our energy problem, but the only viable one is to design small scale power generators at multiple locations. Use nothing but renewable energy. Begin implementation immediately, if you want to be on the leading edge of what everyone is doing tomorrow.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 08-10-2017 13:59 |
Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆
(32) |
I have been doing a lot of thinking and a bit of digging. I don't have time today to respond and read everything, although I have read a bit. Ironically I am off to church (we actually call it Kingdom Hall rather than a church) this morning. I am actually a studying Jehovah Witness so it is interesting that you mention the bible. I have been studying the bible now for a year and a half. I am very interested in your points of view. I shall read more tonight. I am sorry for any negative comments from myself. |
| 08-10-2017 15:40 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Gaynor wrote:
I have been doing a lot of thinking and a bit of digging. I don't have time today to respond and read everything, although I have read a bit. Ironically I am off to church (we actually call it Kingdom Hall rather than a church) this morning. I am actually a studying Jehovah Witness so it is interesting that you mention the bible. I have been studying the bible now for a year and a half. I am very interested in your points of view. I shall read more tonight. I am sorry for any negative comments from myself.
You seem to be genuinely interested in what is going on, and are trying to get the big picture in you head. It takes a while to understand what is really going on, and then when you do finally realize it, it can make you a little crazy.
He is out there now, and no one to help him. The church that you attend is actually against him, and his existence. They base their religion on someone else being him, and it is way too late in the game for them to change their position.
The book of Isaiah is a good starting point for reading about him, and the rest of the Bible. When Isaiah says something about an event that will occur, like another event that did occur, do a search on the name he uses, and see what he was talking about. You will find that Isaiah is actually directing you to read certain parts of the Old Testament, in conjunction with the chapter in Isaiah that you are reading. It's when you do that, that the Bible begins to make absolute sense.
The way the Master will organize his followers is by drawing them out of their old religions. They, like you, are good people who have been led astray by their religious leaders. That gets to go on until the Master really shows up, and then the fun begins as he draws his followers out. It gets so bad for the church that the religious leaders begin to call those who are still attending services, traitors. Apparently, the Master will his followers to mingle with their old friends, in order to lure them out of the church, and into his fold.
That all happens as things get rolling towards the fulfillment of the prophecies. Many people have a misunderstanding of how things unfold as the prophecies begin to be fulfilled, even though the Bible is full of descriptions of the hardships that people will face. It's not like the Master is going to come screaming in from the clouds and rescue anyone. There is prophecy that says that, but it is symbolic, and not even about the Master.
It's the son of Man that gets to come screaming in from the clouds, and every eye would see it. The son of Man and the Master are two completely different people. Jesus was the son of Man, but he wasn't in the life he thought he was in. He thought it was time for the fulfillment of the prophecies, including the destruction of Jerusalem. He thought he was the man who would take a handful of ragtag bums and turn them into a force that would defeat the mighty Romans.
That didn't work out too well for Jesus. He new towards the end of his life that he had screwed up, and that is why he told people that he would be back, and he will be. He will live the life described by Ezekiel, as the son of Man, and he will lead a ragtag group of bums that take on the might nation that support the takeover of Jerusalem. Basically, whoever is in control of Jerusalem when the prophecies begin to be fulfilled is in deep trouble, because they got Jesus/Ezekiel in their stuff.
But, as I said, he isn't the Master. You will find the Master's name in the book of Isaiah, and it wasn't anything like "Jesus." His name shows up in chapters 44 and 45. One of the stranger things about those chapters is that they say he will order the building of Jerusalem, which has been around for thousands of years. That's a clue about the true identity of what we currently call Jerusalem.
Things get bad, before they begin to get a lot worse. If you think it is difficult taking more on now, just wait until the war comes here. Best thing to do is just stay out of it, because the winners lose also.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 08-10-2017 17:43 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Gaynor wrote:
I have been doing a lot of thinking and a bit of digging. I don't have time today to respond and read everything, although I have read a bit. Ironically I am off to church (we actually call it Kingdom Hall rather than a church) this morning. I am actually a studying Jehovah Witness so it is interesting that you mention the bible. I have been studying the bible now for a year and a half. I am very interested in your points of view. I shall read more tonight. I am sorry for any negative comments from myself.
You seem to be genuinely interested in what is going on, and are trying to get the big picture in you head. It takes a while to understand what is really going on, and then when you do finally realize it, it can make you a little crazy.
He is out there now, and no one to help him. The church that you attend is actually against him, and his existence. They base their religion on someone else being him, and it is way too late in the game for them to change their position.
The book of Isaiah is a good starting point for reading about him, and the rest of the Bible. When Isaiah says something about an event that will occur, like another event that did occur, do a search on the name he uses, and see what he was talking about. You will find that Isaiah is actually directing you to read certain parts of the Old Testament, in conjunction with the chapter in Isaiah that you are reading. It's when you do that, that the Bible begins to make absolute sense.
The way the Master will organize his followers is by drawing them out of their old religions. They, like you, are good people who have been led astray by their religious leaders. That gets to go on until the Master really shows up, and then the fun begins as he draws his followers out. It gets so bad for the church that the religious leaders begin to call those who are still attending services, traitors. Apparently, the Master will his followers to mingle with their old friends, in order to lure them out of the church, and into his fold.
That all happens as things get rolling towards the fulfillment of the prophecies. Many people have a misunderstanding of how things unfold as the prophecies begin to be fulfilled, even though the Bible is full of descriptions of the hardships that people will face. It's not like the Master is going to come screaming in from the clouds and rescue anyone. There is prophecy that says that, but it is symbolic, and not even about the Master.
It's the son of Man that gets to come screaming in from the clouds, and every eye would see it. The son of Man and the Master are two completely different people. Jesus was the son of Man, but he wasn't in the life he thought he was in. He thought it was time for the fulfillment of the prophecies, including the destruction of Jerusalem. He thought he was the man who would take a handful of ragtag bums and turn them into a force that would defeat the mighty Romans.
That didn't work out too well for Jesus. He new towards the end of his life that he had screwed up, and that is why he told people that he would be back, and he will be. He will live the life described by Ezekiel, as the son of Man, and he will lead a ragtag group of bums that take on the might nation that support the takeover of Jerusalem. Basically, whoever is in control of Jerusalem when the prophecies begin to be fulfilled is in deep trouble, because they got Jesus/Ezekiel in their stuff.
But, as I said, he isn't the Master. You will find the Master's name in the book of Isaiah, and it wasn't anything like "Jesus." His name shows up in chapters 44 and 45. One of the stranger things about those chapters is that they say he will order the building of Jerusalem, which has been around for thousands of years. That's a clue about the true identity of what we currently call Jerusalem.
Things get bad, before they begin to get a lot worse. If you think it is difficult taking more on now, just wait until the war comes here. Best thing to do is just stay out of it, because the winners lose also.
When he actually starts getting the picture of what's going on and it disagrees with yours will you continue to be polite to him? |
| 08-10-2017 18:24 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
GreenMan wrote:
Gaynor wrote:
I have been doing a lot of thinking and a bit of digging. I don't have time today to respond and read everything, although I have read a bit. Ironically I am off to church (we actually call it Kingdom Hall rather than a church) this morning. I am actually a studying Jehovah Witness so it is interesting that you mention the bible. I have been studying the bible now for a year and a half. I am very interested in your points of view. I shall read more tonight. I am sorry for any negative comments from myself.
You seem to be genuinely interested in what is going on, and are trying to get the big picture in you head. It takes a while to understand what is really going on, and then when you do finally realize it, it can make you a little crazy.
He is out there now, and no one to help him. The church that you attend is actually against him, and his existence. They base their religion on someone else being him, and it is way too late in the game for them to change their position.
The book of Isaiah is a good starting point for reading about him, and the rest of the Bible. When Isaiah says something about an event that will occur, like another event that did occur, do a search on the name he uses, and see what he was talking about. You will find that Isaiah is actually directing you to read certain parts of the Old Testament, in conjunction with the chapter in Isaiah that you are reading. It's when you do that, that the Bible begins to make absolute sense.
The way the Master will organize his followers is by drawing them out of their old religions. They, like you, are good people who have been led astray by their religious leaders. That gets to go on until the Master really shows up, and then the fun begins as he draws his followers out. It gets so bad for the church that the religious leaders begin to call those who are still attending services, traitors. Apparently, the Master will his followers to mingle with their old friends, in order to lure them out of the church, and into his fold.
That all happens as things get rolling towards the fulfillment of the prophecies. Many people have a misunderstanding of how things unfold as the prophecies begin to be fulfilled, even though the Bible is full of descriptions of the hardships that people will face. It's not like the Master is going to come screaming in from the clouds and rescue anyone. There is prophecy that says that, but it is symbolic, and not even about the Master.
It's the son of Man that gets to come screaming in from the clouds, and every eye would see it. The son of Man and the Master are two completely different people. Jesus was the son of Man, but he wasn't in the life he thought he was in. He thought it was time for the fulfillment of the prophecies, including the destruction of Jerusalem. He thought he was the man who would take a handful of ragtag bums and turn them into a force that would defeat the mighty Romans.
That didn't work out too well for Jesus. He new towards the end of his life that he had screwed up, and that is why he told people that he would be back, and he will be. He will live the life described by Ezekiel, as the son of Man, and he will lead a ragtag group of bums that take on the might nation that support the takeover of Jerusalem. Basically, whoever is in control of Jerusalem when the prophecies begin to be fulfilled is in deep trouble, because they got Jesus/Ezekiel in their stuff.
But, as I said, he isn't the Master. You will find the Master's name in the book of Isaiah, and it wasn't anything like "Jesus." His name shows up in chapters 44 and 45. One of the stranger things about those chapters is that they say he will order the building of Jerusalem, which has been around for thousands of years. That's a clue about the true identity of what we currently call Jerusalem.
Things get bad, before they begin to get a lot worse. If you think it is difficult taking more on now, just wait until the war comes here. Best thing to do is just stay out of it, because the winners lose also.
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate. |
| 08-10-2017 19:26 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Gaynor wrote:
I have been doing a lot of thinking and a bit of digging. I don't have time today to respond and read everything, although I have read a bit. Ironically I am off to church (we actually call it Kingdom Hall rather than a church) this morning. I am actually a studying Jehovah Witness so it is interesting that you mention the bible. I have been studying the bible now for a year and a half. I am very interested in your points of view. I shall read more tonight. I am sorry for any negative comments from myself.
You seem to be genuinely interested in what is going on, and are trying to get the big picture in you head. It takes a while to understand what is really going on, and then when you do finally realize it, it can make you a little crazy.
He is out there now, and no one to help him. The church that you attend is actually against him, and his existence. They base their religion on someone else being him, and it is way too late in the game for them to change their position.
The book of Isaiah is a good starting point for reading about him, and the rest of the Bible. When Isaiah says something about an event that will occur, like another event that did occur, do a search on the name he uses, and see what he was talking about. You will find that Isaiah is actually directing you to read certain parts of the Old Testament, in conjunction with the chapter in Isaiah that you are reading. It's when you do that, that the Bible begins to make absolute sense.
The way the Master will organize his followers is by drawing them out of their old religions. They, like you, are good people who have been led astray by their religious leaders. That gets to go on until the Master really shows up, and then the fun begins as he draws his followers out. It gets so bad for the church that the religious leaders begin to call those who are still attending services, traitors. Apparently, the Master will his followers to mingle with their old friends, in order to lure them out of the church, and into his fold.
That all happens as things get rolling towards the fulfillment of the prophecies. Many people have a misunderstanding of how things unfold as the prophecies begin to be fulfilled, even though the Bible is full of descriptions of the hardships that people will face. It's not like the Master is going to come screaming in from the clouds and rescue anyone. There is prophecy that says that, but it is symbolic, and not even about the Master.
It's the son of Man that gets to come screaming in from the clouds, and every eye would see it. The son of Man and the Master are two completely different people. Jesus was the son of Man, but he wasn't in the life he thought he was in. He thought it was time for the fulfillment of the prophecies, including the destruction of Jerusalem. He thought he was the man who would take a handful of ragtag bums and turn them into a force that would defeat the mighty Romans.
That didn't work out too well for Jesus. He new towards the end of his life that he had screwed up, and that is why he told people that he would be back, and he will be. He will live the life described by Ezekiel, as the son of Man, and he will lead a ragtag group of bums that take on the might nation that support the takeover of Jerusalem. Basically, whoever is in control of Jerusalem when the prophecies begin to be fulfilled is in deep trouble, because they got Jesus/Ezekiel in their stuff.
But, as I said, he isn't the Master. You will find the Master's name in the book of Isaiah, and it wasn't anything like "Jesus." His name shows up in chapters 44 and 45. One of the stranger things about those chapters is that they say he will order the building of Jerusalem, which has been around for thousands of years. That's a clue about the true identity of what we currently call Jerusalem.
Things get bad, before they begin to get a lot worse. If you think it is difficult taking more on now, just wait until the war comes here. Best thing to do is just stay out of it, because the winners lose also.
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
That also answers "The End Is Near" and "All Human's Must Die" attitude of this putz. |
| 08-10-2017 22:55 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Where do your numbers come from? Those numbers aren't accurate at all.
You??? Claiming an argument of randU??? Why are YOUR numbers better than his???
GreenMan wrote:
Warming from CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases increases by the power of 4 [^4].
So a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of 16 times what it was. So if CO2 was adding 8% to earth's warming, then it would increase to 64%.
Please show this equation and how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
It doesn't look like you have a solid understanding of what the numbers that the IPCC and other organizations publish, mean. You apparently are stuck thinking that the average temperature will go to a point and stay there.
So you believe the system is unstable. Carbon dioxide will just keep on increasing and 'burning up the earth'.
GreenMan wrote:
Those numbers that they use are predictions for the year 2100, for example.
Please show your equation and how it was derived. There is no other way to predict.
GreenMan wrote:
And the temperature of the planet just keeps right on climbing.
Back to your claim of an unstable system because of the presence of carbon dioxide.
GreenMan wrote:
What they are saying is that by 2100, the average global temperature could climb to [whatever their current number is].
Argument from randU. If you had an equation that worked, you could easily calculate the number. Please show your equation and how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
You appear to be thinking that it is just going to level off there, and everything is going to be fine at this new even better temperature.
Back to your unstable system again.
GreenMan wrote:
But it does not work that way. It just keeps on going, until the CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases are removed from the air.
CO2 has always been in the air, often at much greater concentrations then we have today. The Earth hasn't burned up.
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
GreenMan wrote:
Not even close. It has more to do with encapsulation of vegetation, which takes thousands and thousands of years.
I didn't know it took that long for grass to grow. Guess I can sell my lawnmower.
GreenMan wrote:
Plants eat CO2, and produce oxygen.
Plants use carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to make carbohydrates. That becomes part of the plant material. Oxygen is released as part of the process. The end result does not produce carbon nor carbon dioxide in any form. Plants thrive better in higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, as long as the sunlight and water are available.
GreenMan wrote:
But they don't outrun the animals' requirements by much, which is why the oxygen level of the planet also remains close to constant.
Oxygen is stored in the sea, just like carbon dioxide. The sea both absorbs and vents these gases.
GreenMan wrote:
So they balance us out, if you are just considering the air we breathe. Because of that, they don't really remove that much excess CO2 directly from the air.
There is no such thing as 'excess' carbon dioxide. Earth has certainly coped with much higher concentrations then we have now.
GreenMan wrote:
It's through being buried underground, which traps the carbon in the ground, which actually gets rid of the CO2.
WRONG. Most carbon dioxide is dissolved in seawater. If for some reason there was no CO2 in the air, the sea would vent it's CO2 into the air. The same thing happens for any CO2 in the ground.
GreenMan wrote:
If say the tree falls and lays there on the ground without being buried, then it either gets burned, which releases its carbon quickly, or it rots, which releases its carbon slowly. But it still eventually releases all of its carbon back to the air, if it is in the air.
Doesn't take long for a tree (or any other vegetation) to rot.
GreenMan wrote:
The only thing I can find bad about a slightly warmer world is that it will continue to get slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, and then slightly warmer, until we are all gone. And then it's going to keep getting warmer after that.
Back to describing your unstable system. The only sticky problem, of course, is that IT SHOULD ALREADY HAVE HAPPENED. We wouldn't be here to talk about it!
GreenMan wrote:
But you are right about us not using fossil fuels forever.
Fossils don't burn.
GreenMan wrote:
We can't, because they aren't renewable, unless you consider renewable in 10 million years as being functionally renewable.
The fuels we DO use, such as oil and natural gas, ARE renewable. We can and do synthesize this stuff on an industrial scale, using conditions that are found naturally underground.
The Earth itself is constantly renewing oil and natural gas. It does not come from dinosaurs, like they taught you in school. They do not come from fossils either.
Nuclear fuel is not renewable. There is so much uranium and other radioactive sources that it will be a LONG time before we exhaust that supply. Mostly it's a matter of purifying it enough to run a power plant. Such plants produce almost no waste. Spent fuel rods can still produce power in reactors designed for them. By the time you can't get any more out of those reactors, the rods (actually the pellets in them) are safe to be discarded.
Fusion plants, if we can get one working, would not be renewable fuel. There is plenty of potential fuel (hydrogen) around for it though.
Hydroelectric is renewable, as long as it rains and snows.
We don't really know where coal comes from. We don't know if it's renewable. There is some speculation about the source of it, but that is all it is. We do know that coal is not a fossil, even if fossils are contained within it.
Wind and solar are renewable, but inefficient ways to generate electricity.
This attempt to label 'good' energy and 'bad' energy is purely political and done for political purposes.
We have discussed the algorithm my climate model uses.
No, we have not. You have only posted your equation from time to time. You have not shown how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
The warming affect of Greenhouse Gases increases at the power of 4. If you would like to truly analyze it, I will post the equation again.
Please do so, and show how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
It apparently works the exact opposite of radiation, which is emitted based on the temperature to the power of 4.
You are deriving it from the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Please show the relationship and why.
GreenMan wrote:
Using that mixing ratio was the only way that I could get the model's output to closely follow the recorded temperature.
There is no recorded temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Any other mixing ratio won't even close close to representing the actual record.
We don't have an actual record of the temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Our climate system is unstable, naturally.
What is 'climate system'? Earth's temperature? That is stable.
GreenMan wrote:
You can see from the climate record that it is always changing.
There is no climate record. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
GreenMan wrote:
That's one of the Denier's favorite talking points.
That something you can't define is changing?
GreenMan wrote:
The assumption is that weather variations are cyclical.
They are not?
GreenMan wrote:
They are to an extent.
What is not?
GreenMan wrote:
They don't just shoot straight up, during an overall warming trend. They drop back a bit once in a while.
Climate doesn't 'shoot' anywhere. There is no such thing as a global climate.
GreenMan wrote:
But in the long run the temperatures just keep climbing,
Earth's temperatures are determine by the Sun's output and Earth's distance from the Sun.
GreenMan wrote:
until their driving force [historically CO2 and CH4] is eliminated,
CO2 and CH4 are not forces. They are matter. They don't matter. They can't force anything.
GreenMan wrote:
in what I think is a major die-off of most plants and animals.
Doom and gloom again. Your 'prediction' is based on your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
I think that because you can see a sharp rise in CH4 and the beginning of a gradual decrease in CO2, as a peak temperature event occurs, before heading back into another glacial period.
It is not possible to measure the concentration of CO2 nor CH4 for the entire world. We don't have enough stations.
GreenMan wrote:
It's all pretty interesting stuff, if you are interested in the history of humanity, and the earth we live on. But you would have to get over your random number fixation.
No, it is YOU that has to get over your random number fixation. I'm just calling you on it.
GreenMan wrote:
Data obtained from ice cores is not random numbers.
It is if you are trying to use it to describe conditions over anything besides the core site itself.
GreenMan wrote:
You deniers don't seem to understand that your irrelevant information, like gases being stored in the ocean, are useless trivia. Only so much gas is stored in the ocean. It's not like the oceans are our dumping grounds or our saving grace.
We are not 'dumping' CO2 or methane into the oceans. These gases naturally occur in the oceans as well as the atmosphere.
GreenMan wrote:
We are killing the oceans with all our physical pollution and our gas pollution.
The oceans are not dying.
GreenMan wrote:
It can only take so much, before the fish go belly up everywhere. Most people don't get to make it past that.
Fish aren't going 'belly up' as you describe. They are actually doing quite well.
GreenMan wrote:
There are solutions for our energy problem, but the only viable one is to design small scale power generators at multiple locations.
You have something against the grid? Why?
GreenMan wrote:
Use nothing but renewable energy.
Oil and natural gas ARE renewable energy sources.
GreenMan wrote:
Begin implementation immediately, if you want to be on the leading edge of what everyone is doing tomorrow.
We will use the same energy sources as today. We might add some new ones, such as fusion power.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-10-2017 03:02 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 09-10-2017 05:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
You don't know the science or what reality is. Don't try philosophy, you suck at science, logic, and math.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science,
No, you don't. You deny science.
GreenMan wrote:
over what you call faith.
You certainly have a lot of that!
GreenMan wrote:
If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically,
You don't know what logic is. You keep making mistakes in it.
GreenMan wrote:
or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way.
You don't rethink a damn thing.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't really have faith, as you call it.
You're a liar, dude.
GreenMan wrote:
Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
You haven't changed a thing with new information coming in.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-10-2017 05:52 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
We have discussed the algorithm my climate model uses.
No, we have not. You have only posted your equation from time to time. You have not shown how it was derived.
GreenMan wrote:
The warming affect of Greenhouse Gases increases at the power of 4. If you would like to truly analyze it, I will post the equation again.
Please do so, and show how it was derived.
Ok, I will start another thread for it.
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It apparently works the exact opposite of radiation, which is emitted based on the temperature to the power of 4.
You are deriving it from the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Please show the relationship and why.
No, I did not derive it from the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I did do some research into black body radiation, before creating the model, and that is where I came up with the notion to try adding each gas's contribution to overall warming by the power of 4. That was a little more difficult to program though, so I did begin by just adding the gases straight up. It didn't matter what constant was used to multiply the concentration with, it didn't work out, until I began adding the gases by the power of 4. And of course, recently it's been discussed here that radiation is emitted based on temperature by the power of 4. Coincidentally, exactly inverse.
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Using that mixing ratio was the only way that I could get the model's output to closely follow the recorded temperature.
There is no recorded temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Any other mixing ratio won't even close close to representing the actual record.
We don't have an actual record of the temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Our climate system is unstable, naturally.
What is 'climate system'? Earth's temperature? That is stable.
GreenMan wrote:
You can see from the climate record that it is always changing.
There is no climate record. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
GreenMan wrote:
That's one of the Denier's favorite talking points.
That something you can't define is changing?
GreenMan wrote:
The assumption is that weather variations are cyclical.
They are not?
GreenMan wrote:
They are to an extent.
What is not?
GreenMan wrote:
They don't just shoot straight up, during an overall warming trend. They drop back a bit once in a while.
Climate doesn't 'shoot' anywhere. There is no such thing as a global climate.
GreenMan wrote:
But in the long run the temperatures just keep climbing,
Earth's temperatures are determine by the Sun's output and Earth's distance from the Sun.
For the most part that is true. But as we have discussed before, the average temperature of the earth is 33C more than it should be, based solely on distance from the sun.
And, also as discussed previously, if the earth's climate was influenced only by the sun, then why doesn't the average temperature of the earth follow the increases and decreases of energy received from the sun [due to the Milankovitch Effect]?
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
until their driving force [historically CO2 and CH4] is eliminated,
CO2 and CH4 are not forces. They are matter. They don't matter. They can't force anything.
GreenMan wrote:
in what I think is a major die-off of most plants and animals.
Doom and gloom again. Your 'prediction' is based on your religion.
No, my prediction is based on my realization of the future, after doing extensive research, both in science/physics and in prophecy/metaphysics.
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I think that because you can see a sharp rise in CH4 and the beginning of a gradual decrease in CO2, as a peak temperature event occurs, before heading back into another glacial period.
It is not possible to measure the concentration of CO2 nor CH4 for the entire world. We don't have enough stations.
You are such a prude, Parrot. Back in the day, way back when, even before then, the gas concentrations changed very gradually over time. They changed gradually, because their sources increased or decreased gradually over time [generally, but not always gradually]. Gases spread out because of collisions, and eventually become equally dispersed throughout the lower atmosphere. Same thing with orbiting dust. So if you can get away from the source of gas, then the concentration that you measure is going to be very close to what the average concentration of the planet is. Antarctica is as far away from the source of CO2 and CH4 as possible on our planet. So the ice there is a good proxy. It is also a good proxy for the average temperature of the planet, because it follows what the rest of the planet is doing. It's not as accurate as using thousands of thermometers spread out all over the world, but it should be close enough to determine if there is some relationship between the gases and the temperature of the planet.
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's all pretty interesting stuff, if you are interested in the history of humanity, and the earth we live on. But you would have to get over your random number fixation.
No, it is YOU that has to get over your random number fixation. I'm just calling you on it.
GreenMan wrote:
Data obtained from ice cores is not random numbers.
It is if you are trying to use it to describe conditions over anything besides the core site itself.
Do you really think that those scientists who drilled those cores, went down there and froze their asses off, just to see what the climate of Antarctica was like for the past million years?
No, Parrot, they don't care about Antarctic weather. The ice there contains a climate record of the earth. But you have to get your head out of your ass to look at it. [I know it's warm and cozy in there (just a little smelly), but it's time to come out, and take a look around at the real world]
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You deniers don't seem to understand that your irrelevant information, like gases being stored in the ocean, are useless trivia. Only so much gas is stored in the ocean. It's not like the oceans are our dumping grounds or our saving grace.
We are not 'dumping' CO2 or methane into the oceans. These gases naturally occur in the oceans as well as the atmosphere.
Just because it occurs naturally, doesn't mean it's ok to produce more of it.
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
We are killing the oceans with all our physical pollution and our gas pollution.
The oceans are not dying.
As far as you know. And that's because you avoid reading the news about die-offs that have been occurring for years.
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It can only take so much, before the fish go belly up everywhere. Most people don't get to make it past that.
Fish aren't going 'belly up' as you describe. They are actually doing quite well.
So how are the starfish doing? When I was a child, my father would wade out into the rocks in the surf and grab them, then pitch them back to the shore. They were everywhere. Did you know that they are almost non-existent now?
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
There are solutions for our energy problem, but the only viable one is to design small scale power generators at multiple locations.
You have something against the grid? Why?
Not so much the grid as much as where the power feeding the grid, and where it comes from. Of course, our reliance on the grid makes us vulnerable to losing it. So, if I was our enemy, then I would probably shut down your grid, just for giggles and shits.
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Use nothing but renewable energy.
Oil and natural gas ARE renewable energy sources.
It takes millions of years to renew oil and natural gas. And besides that, burning them creates CO2, which is a pollutant.
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Begin implementation immediately, if you want to be on the leading edge of what everyone is doing tomorrow.
We will use the same energy sources as today. We might add some new ones, such as fusion power.
You can do what you want, for a little while longer. Have fun, while you can.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| RE: Posts09-10-2017 15:10 |
Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆
(32) |
I am reading your posts so thank you. I want to fully understand some points so will be doing some research. I will respond in time. Very interesting reading though. |
|
| 09-10-2017 23:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Ok, I will start another thread for it.
Fine. We will discuss it there.
GreenMan wrote:
For the most part that is true. But as we have discussed before, the average temperature of the earth is 33C more than it should be, based solely on distance from the sun.
You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know what the temperature 'should' be. Argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
And, also as discussed previously, if the earth's climate was influenced only by the sun, then why doesn't the average temperature of the earth follow the increases and decreases of energy received from the sun [due to the Milankovitch Effect]?
It probably does.
GreenMan wrote:
No, my prediction is based on my realization of the future, after doing extensive research, both in science/physics and in prophecy/metaphysics.
Nope.
GreenMan wrote:
You are such a prude, Parrot.
You don't know my sex life. It has nothing to do with this forum. I'll take this as an attempt of a general insult because you obviously don't know what it means.
GreenMan wrote:
Back in the day, way back when, even before then, the gas concentrations changed very gradually over time. They changed gradually, because their sources increased or decreased gradually over time [generally, but not always gradually]. Gases spread out because of collisions, and eventually become equally dispersed throughout the lower atmosphere.
Air doesn't mix evenly.
GreenMan wrote:
Same thing with orbiting dust.
Dust doesn't orbit. Dust from the Earth are suspended particulates in the air. Dust concentrations are not evenly distributed.
GreenMan wrote:
So if you can get away from the source of gas, then the concentration that you measure is going to be very close to what the average concentration of the planet is.
Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
Antarctica is as far away from the source of CO2 and CH4 as possible on our planet.
Really??? A lot of both gases are in the sea. Antarctica is surrounded by sea.
GreenMan wrote:
So the ice there is a good proxy.
Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
The ice core is an indication of the conditions at the site of the ice core...period.
GreenMan wrote:
It is also a good proxy for the average temperature of the planet,
WRONG. Same math errors.
GreenMan wrote:
because it follows what the rest of the planet is doing.
No, it doesn't. Learn random number mathematics, probability mathematics, and statistical mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
It's not as accurate as using thousands of thermometers spread out all over the world,
It is just as accurate. It is an argument from randU in both cases, due to math errors.
GreenMan wrote:
but it should be close enough to determine if there is some relationship between the gases and the temperature of the planet.
Nowhere close. Same math errors.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you really think that those scientists who drilled those cores, went down there and froze their asses off, just to see what the climate of Antarctica was like for the past million years?
No, they did it to see if they could do it. They did. They use the same technology back in Russia to drill for oil now.
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, they don't care about Antarctic weather.
Sure they do. They're out there working in it!
GreenMan wrote:
The ice there contains a climate record of the earth.
No, it doesn't. Same math errors.
GreenMan wrote:
But you have to get your head out of your ass to look at it.
You have to learn the math, dude.
GreenMan wrote:
[I know it's warm and cozy in there (just a little smelly), but it's time to come out, and take a look around at the real world]
Don't try philosophy. You suck at math, science, and logic.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You deniers don't seem to understand that your irrelevant information, like gases being stored in the ocean, are useless trivia. Only so much gas is stored in the ocean. It's not like the oceans are our dumping grounds or our saving grace.
We are not 'dumping' CO2 or methane into the oceans. These gases naturally occur in the oceans as well as the atmosphere.
Just because it occurs naturally, doesn't mean it's ok to produce more of it.
Since CO2 doesn't do anything but help plants to grow, help put wildfire out, and put the fizz in your drinks, there is nothing wrong with producing it. Since CH4 is a power source, there is nothing wrong with producing it.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
We are killing the oceans with all our physical pollution and our gas pollution.
The oceans are not dying.
As far as you know. And that's because you avoid reading the news about die-offs that have been occurring for years.
A die-off does not mean the whole ocean is dying.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It can only take so much, before the fish go belly up everywhere. Most people don't get to make it past that.
Fish aren't going 'belly up' as you describe. They are actually doing quite well.
So how are the starfish doing? When I was a child, my father would wade out into the rocks in the surf and grab them, then pitch them back to the shore. They were everywhere. Did you know that they are almost non-existent now?
You can have ours. We have plenty of them.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
There are solutions for our energy problem, but the only viable one is to design small scale power generators at multiple locations.
You have something against the grid? Why?
Not so much the grid as much as where the power feeding the grid, and where it comes from.
It comes from the power sources available at each power plant. It comes from many power sources.
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, our reliance on the grid makes us vulnerable to losing it.
Really??? The advantage of the grid is that it is redundant. It can recover automatically when sections of it fails, or when a power plant goes offline, or when different loads are demanded.
Local power only means if you lose your generator, you have no power. You can't use power from someone else's generator. It also means if you change your loading significantly, you can cause the generator to fail. Generators also require fuel, just as the big boys do. Depending on the Sun won't cut it, since that's not available 24 hours a day. Depending on the wind won't cut it, since the wind is not always blowing sufficiently to produce the power you need. To MAKE the generator, you must melt steel and copper. You can't do THAT with solar or wind power!
GreenMan wrote:
So, if I was our enemy, then I would probably shut down your grid, just for giggles and shits.
Good luck. You'll probably fail in your attempt.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Use nothing but renewable energy.
Oil and natural gas ARE renewable energy sources.
It takes millions of years to renew oil and natural gas.
Nope. We can synthesize oil in a matter of hours. We can synthesize natural gas too, that takes even less time.
The process is the same as the conditions found underground.
Oil wells that are pumped dry and capped are full of oil again just a year or two later.
Whole oil fields have done this.
Oil is found WELL below any fossil layer. It does not come from dinosaurs (unless you count the Sinclair Oil logo!).
GreenMan wrote:
And besides that, burning them creates CO2, which is a pollutant.
CO2 is not a pollutant. You don't know what pollution is.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Begin implementation immediately, if you want to be on the leading edge of what everyone is doing tomorrow.
We will use the same energy sources as today. We might add some new ones, such as fusion power.
You can do what you want, for a little while longer. Have fun, while you can.
Another lame attempt at Pascal's Wager again. Apparently you still haven't learned that this is a fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-10-2017 04:21 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: ....Pascal's Wager....
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB(2), or FAB(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB(1), or FAB(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Edited on 10-10-2017 04:28 |
| 10-10-2017 06:21 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Ok, I will start another thread for it.
Fine. We will discuss it there.
GreenMan wrote:
For the most part that is true. But as we have discussed before, the average temperature of the earth is 33C more than it should be, based solely on distance from the sun.
You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know what the temperature 'should' be. Argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
And, also as discussed previously, if the earth's climate was influenced only by the sun, then why doesn't the average temperature of the earth follow the increases and decreases of energy received from the sun [due to the Milankovitch Effect]?
It probably does.
GreenMan wrote:
No, my prediction is based on my realization of the future, after doing extensive research, both in science/physics and in prophecy/metaphysics.
Nope.
GreenMan wrote:
You are such a prude, Parrot.
You don't know my sex life. It has nothing to do with this forum. I'll take this as an attempt of a general insult because you obviously don't know what it means.
GreenMan wrote:
Back in the day, way back when, even before then, the gas concentrations changed very gradually over time. They changed gradually, because their sources increased or decreased gradually over time [generally, but not always gradually]. Gases spread out because of collisions, and eventually become equally dispersed throughout the lower atmosphere.
Air doesn't mix evenly.
GreenMan wrote:
Same thing with orbiting dust.
Dust doesn't orbit. Dust from the Earth are suspended particulates in the air. Dust concentrations are not evenly distributed.
GreenMan wrote:
So if you can get away from the source of gas, then the concentration that you measure is going to be very close to what the average concentration of the planet is.
Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
Antarctica is as far away from the source of CO2 and CH4 as possible on our planet.
Really??? A lot of both gases are in the sea. Antarctica is surrounded by sea.
GreenMan wrote:
So the ice there is a good proxy.
Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
The ice core is an indication of the conditions at the site of the ice core...period.
GreenMan wrote:
It is also a good proxy for the average temperature of the planet,
WRONG. Same math errors.
GreenMan wrote:
because it follows what the rest of the planet is doing.
No, it doesn't. Learn random number mathematics, probability mathematics, and statistical mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
It's not as accurate as using thousands of thermometers spread out all over the world,
It is just as accurate. It is an argument from randU in both cases, due to math errors.
GreenMan wrote:
but it should be close enough to determine if there is some relationship between the gases and the temperature of the planet.
Nowhere close. Same math errors.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you really think that those scientists who drilled those cores, went down there and froze their asses off, just to see what the climate of Antarctica was like for the past million years?
No, they did it to see if they could do it. They did. They use the same technology back in Russia to drill for oil now.
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, they don't care about Antarctic weather.
Sure they do. They're out there working in it!
GreenMan wrote:
The ice there contains a climate record of the earth.
No, it doesn't. Same math errors.
GreenMan wrote:
But you have to get your head out of your ass to look at it.
You have to learn the math, dude.
GreenMan wrote:
[I know it's warm and cozy in there (just a little smelly), but it's time to come out, and take a look around at the real world]
Don't try philosophy. You suck at math, science, and logic.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You deniers don't seem to understand that your irrelevant information, like gases being stored in the ocean, are useless trivia. Only so much gas is stored in the ocean. It's not like the oceans are our dumping grounds or our saving grace.
We are not 'dumping' CO2 or methane into the oceans. These gases naturally occur in the oceans as well as the atmosphere.
Just because it occurs naturally, doesn't mean it's ok to produce more of it.
Since CO2 doesn't do anything but help plants to grow, help put wildfire out, and put the fizz in your drinks, there is nothing wrong with producing it. Since CH4 is a power source, there is nothing wrong with producing it.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
We are killing the oceans with all our physical pollution and our gas pollution.
The oceans are not dying.
As far as you know. And that's because you avoid reading the news about die-offs that have been occurring for years.
A die-off does not mean the whole ocean is dying.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It can only take so much, before the fish go belly up everywhere. Most people don't get to make it past that.
Fish aren't going 'belly up' as you describe. They are actually doing quite well.
So how are the starfish doing? When I was a child, my father would wade out into the rocks in the surf and grab them, then pitch them back to the shore. They were everywhere. Did you know that they are almost non-existent now?
You can have ours. We have plenty of them.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
There are solutions for our energy problem, but the only viable one is to design small scale power generators at multiple locations.
You have something against the grid? Why?
Not so much the grid as much as where the power feeding the grid, and where it comes from.
It comes from the power sources available at each power plant. It comes from many power sources.
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, our reliance on the grid makes us vulnerable to losing it.
Really??? The advantage of the grid is that it is redundant. It can recover automatically when sections of it fails, or when a power plant goes offline, or when different loads are demanded.
Local power only means if you lose your generator, you have no power. You can't use power from someone else's generator. It also means if you change your loading significantly, you can cause the generator to fail. Generators also require fuel, just as the big boys do. Depending on the Sun won't cut it, since that's not available 24 hours a day. Depending on the wind won't cut it, since the wind is not always blowing sufficiently to produce the power you need. To MAKE the generator, you must melt steel and copper. You can't do THAT with solar or wind power!
GreenMan wrote:
So, if I was our enemy, then I would probably shut down your grid, just for giggles and shits.
Good luck. You'll probably fail in your attempt.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Use nothing but renewable energy.
Oil and natural gas ARE renewable energy sources.
It takes millions of years to renew oil and natural gas.
Nope. We can synthesize oil in a matter of hours. We can synthesize natural gas too, that takes even less time.
The process is the same as the conditions found underground.
Oil wells that are pumped dry and capped are full of oil again just a year or two later.
Whole oil fields have done this.
Oil is found WELL below any fossil layer. It does not come from dinosaurs (unless you count the Sinclair Oil logo!).
GreenMan wrote:
And besides that, burning them creates CO2, which is a pollutant.
CO2 is not a pollutant. You don't know what pollution is.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Begin implementation immediately, if you want to be on the leading edge of what everyone is doing tomorrow.
We will use the same energy sources as today. We might add some new ones, such as fusion power.
You can do what you want, for a little while longer. Have fun, while you can.
Another lame attempt at Pascal's Wager again. Apparently you still haven't learned that this is a fallacy.
Parrot, you are just like a 4 year old child, that doesn't want to go home after spending all day at the fair. No amount of reasoning will do, you just want to go for more rides, and you don't care that everyone else wants supper and relaxation.
The party is over, and it doesn't matter how much you try to argue the point by declaring that no one but you knows what they are talking about.
The Antarctic ice is a good proxy for the earth's climate, which is why they drilled it. Dust and Gases might not mix perfectly evenly throughout the air, but they mix well enough to determine what their concentration is. It might not be perfect, but it is close enough to figure out what is going on.
None of your whining is going to change any of that. So you might as well shut up, get in the car, and go home and have supper and get ready for bed, little boy.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 10-10-2017 06:43 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
ITN wrote:
Since CO2 doesn't do anything but help plants to grow, help put wildfire out, and put the fizz in your drinks...
There's something to consider...
Forget the hot chocolate and coffee on that bitter cold morning out the door.
Grab a Pepsi and the CO2 will absorb and trap your body heat and you'll stay warm much longer. Careful though...too much and you'll soon feel feverish.
Thanks for the tip ITN.
Edited on 10-10-2017 06:46 |
| 10-10-2017 20:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Parrot, you are just like a 4 year old child, that doesn't want to go home after spending all day at the fair. No amount of reasoning will do, you just want to go for more rides, and you don't care that everyone else wants supper and relaxation.
The party is over, and it doesn't matter how much you try to argue the point by declaring that no one but you knows what they are talking about.
Well, you've reduced your argument to pleading now.
GreenMan wrote:
The Antarctic ice is a good proxy for the earth's climate,
No, it isn't.
GreenMan wrote:
which is why they drilled it.
That isn't why they drilled it. They drilled it mostly to see if they could.
GreenMan wrote:
Dust and Gases might not mix perfectly evenly throughout the air, but they mix well enough to determine what their concentration is.
No, they don't.
GreenMan wrote:
It might not be perfect, but it is close enough to figure out what is going on.
No, it isn't.
GreenMan wrote:
None of your whining is going to change any of that.
It is not my whining. It's the math. You can't change the math.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-10-2017 20:22 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote:
Since CO2 doesn't do anything but help plants to grow, help put wildfire out, and put the fizz in your drinks...
There's something to consider...
Forget the hot chocolate and coffee on that bitter cold morning out the door.
Grab a Pepsi and the CO2 will absorb and trap your body heat and you'll stay warm much longer. Careful though...too much and you'll soon feel feverish.
Thanks for the tip ITN.
Anytime!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 12-10-2017 03:53 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
litesong wrote:My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB(2), or FAB(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB(1), or FAB(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Edited on 12-10-2017 04:12 |
| 12-10-2017 09:26 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Parrot, you are just like a 4 year old child, that doesn't want to go home after spending all day at the fair. No amount of reasoning will do, you just want to go for more rides, and you don't care that everyone else wants supper and relaxation.
The party is over, and it doesn't matter how much you try to argue the point by declaring that no one but you knows what they are talking about.
Well, you've reduced your argument to pleading now.
GreenMan wrote:
The Antarctic ice is a good proxy for the earth's climate,
No, it isn't.
GreenMan wrote:
which is why they drilled it.
That isn't why they drilled it. They drilled it mostly to see if they could.
GreenMan wrote:
Dust and Gases might not mix perfectly evenly throughout the air, but they mix well enough to determine what their concentration is.
No, they don't.
GreenMan wrote:
It might not be perfect, but it is close enough to figure out what is going on.
No, it isn't.
GreenMan wrote:
None of your whining is going to change any of that.
It is not my whining. It's the math. You can't change the math.
Nothing wrong with my math. You need to grow up and get a life.
You think you can just say whatever you want, and for some reason you expect people to believe you. Some people might believe you, but you are very easy to see through for anyone who has the time to check out some of you claims. And once we find out that you are a bull shitter, then you get to wear that label forever. And guess what.
You have proven yourself a bull shitter.
According to the European Science Foundation, the purpose of EPICA [they drilled ice cores in Antarctica] was to get a glimpse of the earth's past climate. Here is a clip from their archives.
"This programme has been motivated primarily by the urgent need to predict more accurately how global climate is likely to respond to increased emissions of greenhouse gases as a result of human activities. In order to predict the future, it is necessary to determine how global climate has responded to variations in greenhouse gas concentrations in the past, in combination with other forcing factors such as changes in solar output and in the earth's orbit."
http://archives.esf.org/coordinating-research/research-networking-programmes/life-earth-and-environmental-sciences-lee/completed-esf-research-networking-programmes-in-life-earth-and-environmental-sciences/european-project-for-ice-coring-in-antarctica-epica-page-1/more-information.html
There's a link for you to go read all about it, so you don't make an idiot out of yourself about this again. Or, you can delete it, if that makes you feel better.
Never thought I would meet a Bull Shitting Parrot.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 12-10-2017 10:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing wrong with my math. You need to grow up and get a life.
There is plenty wrong with your math. If you expect to get a decent result, you have to use something besides random numbers as source terms, and you have to justify the equation (which you never did).
GreenMan wrote:
You think you can just say whatever you want, and for some reason you expect people to believe you.
No, you have to actually use valid and verifiable data, learn statistical math and apply it properly, and justify your equation.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-10-2017 18:01 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
[ "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:.... statistical math and apply it properly, and justify your equation.
All the above prove that "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner. |