Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change is unavoidable, so is a warmer or cooler climate more desireable?



Page 1 of 212>
Climate change is unavoidable, so is a warmer or cooler climate more desireable?26-11-2015 14:34
antialiased
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Let me explain. I take it as given that homo sapiens have contributed to climate change. It also should be accepted that earth is currently in an ice age (icehouse phase). Additionally, due to positions of land masses and other factors, it seems likely that the interglacial period we are in would end in a glacial period (colder temperatures). I also take it as accepted that the climate is constantly changing and that the icehouse state is the exception, not the norm for earth. And finally, that the climate is in a constant state of flux and change is inevitable (we are not yet advanced enough to control the climate precisely enough to maintain the current climate).

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?

We have to pick one, assuming we have the ability to influence the climate state. Either will have positive and negative implications for species currently alive. However, from the geological record, it would seem that greenhouse earth may be more conductive to rapid species expansion and evolution. This seems like the sort of question that isn't being discussed and I am making my first post in this forum precisely because I would like some rational reason to believe that icehouse earth is better than greenhouse earth. Thank you in advance for your time and comments.
26-11-2015 16:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3706)
antialiased wrote:Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Why do you believe you speak for "most people"? None of the smart people I know believe that? Is your point that most people are gullible scientific illiterates?

antialiased wrote: I take it as given that homo sapiens have contributed to climate change.

So, when you use the word "climate" you don't want anyone to know what you mean, right? You don't want to define it for us? To me, "climate" is the temperature in my car, which I adjust with my "climate control" settings. That is what I will presume you mean until you provide a different definition.

Yes, homo sapiens affect the temperature in my car, especially on cold days, just by being inside. My climate control, normally overrides any such effect.

antialiased wrote: I also take it as accepted that the climate is constantly changing and that the icehouse state is the exception, not the norm for earth.

1) sometimes the "climate" remains exactly the same for hours. It certainly has fluctuations but it normally returns to the same temperature.

2) I see you mentioned "earth" as an example. There are bazillions of climates all over the earth. Of which one of those were you speaking? ...and I don't see much relevance to my car.

antialiased wrote:And finally, that the climate is in a constant state of flux and change is inevitable (we are not yet advanced enough to control the climate precisely enough to maintain the current climate).


What are you talking about? We are sufficiently advanced to control all the climates we create. It's not like you're talking about trying to control the weather!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-11-2015 17:04
antialiased
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
IBdaMann wrote:

Why do you believe you speak for "most people"? None of the smart people I know believe that? Is your point that most people are gullible scientific illiterates?

. . .


I'll disregard purposeful misinterpretation as, unless English is not your first language, it means you're either trolling or . . .. Given your apparent command of the English language, I'll have to assume that it is purposeful.

The general debate seems to be whether global warming exists and whether, if it does, it can be attributed to human activity. That ignores the main question of whether global warming is desirable or undesirable. It is sort of like debating whether Barack Obama is a socialist without debating whether socialism is desirable or not.

Therefore, to cut off trolls and those who just want to debate the former, I am taking both global warming and a causal link from human activity as given. Apparently it didn't quite work.

What are you talking about? We are sufficiently advanced to control all the climates we create. It's not like you're talking about trying to control the weather!


Since earth's climate does indeed depend on weather patterns, then, yes, in order to precisely control earth's climate, it would be necessary to control the weather.

That's all the feeding I care to do this morning.
26-11-2015 18:45
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
antialiased wrote:
Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Let me explain. I take it as given that homo sapiens have contributed to climate change. It also should be accepted that earth is currently in an ice age (icehouse phase). Additionally, due to positions of land masses and other factors, it seems likely that the interglacial period we are in would end in a glacial period (colder temperatures). I also take it as accepted that the climate is constantly changing and that the icehouse state is the exception, not the norm for earth. And finally, that the climate is in a constant state of flux and change is inevitable (we are not yet advanced enough to control the climate precisely enough to maintain the current climate).

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?

We have to pick one, assuming we have the ability to influence the climate state. Either will have positive and negative implications for species currently alive. However, from the geological record, it would seem that greenhouse earth may be more conductive to rapid species expansion and evolution. This seems like the sort of question that isn't being discussed and I am making my first post in this forum precisely because I would like some rational reason to believe that icehouse earth is better than greenhouse earth. Thank you in advance for your time and comments.


I don't think the ice house option is preferable and I believe you are correct in suggesting, that if not for other factors the earth would be in a glacial phase by now.
I think the only difference between our current warming trend and those of distant past is in the make up of the atmosphere itself. For example a warm ocean will dissolve more free CO2 raising its acidity level which can have an impact on the production and stability of hard corals and shell structures.
The last time earth had CO2 levels that we do now the earth was apparently colder so the oceans did not absorb as much CO2, but that is believed to be because of reduced solar output.

If all things were equal and we could control the global climate as you suggest then I would go for warmer. It would be interesting to see what would happen to the make up of the current land masses if for example we raised the temperature globally by 5 degrees. Where would the desserts be, could wwe start farming in the arctic?
26-11-2015 19:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3706)
antialiased wrote:I'll disregard purposeful misinterpretation

I know you will avoid all science so as to preach your WACKY religion.

Please feel free to speak for all the scientifically illiterate dupes you wish.

antialiased wrote:IThe general debate seems to be whether global warming exists and whether, if it does, it can be attributed to human activity.

I'll correct you. There is no such debate. Warmizombies, such as yourself, preach a WACKY religion and purposely do not define your terms in order to maintain complete unfalsifiability of the faith...so no one can prove it false. We might as well "debate" whether a god exists with fundamentalist Christians.

The proof is in the bulveristic asshole response to anyone asking that terms be defined, in that s/he must be "trolling" or purposely "misinterpreting."

The body of science runs counter to your WACKY religion. You are free to preach but if you are going to start hurling disrespect and insults to non-believers just for asking for clarification then you are the one throwing off the gloves.


antialiased wrote:That ignores the main question of whether global warming is desirable or undesirable.

That can't be the main question, dumbass, if you can't even explain what this "Global Warming" is or whethe it even exists.

Why don't you go on record with what YOU mean by "Global Warming" and make sure you get Surface Detail's concurrence because he apparently knows the correct version.


antialiased wrote:Since earth's climate does indeed depend on weather patterns, then, yes, in order to precisely control earth's climate, it would be necessary to control the weather.


How many "climates" does earth have. I take it by your use of the defiinite article that you presume the earth has only one and that you thus deny that there are many.

I also presume that you deny the existence of the human invention "climate control."

Please, tell me more about your WACKY religion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-11-2015 19:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
antialiased wrote:
Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Let me explain. I take it as given that homo sapiens have contributed to climate change. It also should be accepted that earth is currently in an ice age (icehouse phase). Additionally, due to positions of land masses and other factors, it seems likely that the interglacial period we are in would end in a glacial period (colder temperatures). I also take it as accepted that the climate is constantly changing and that the icehouse state is the exception, not the norm for earth. And finally, that the climate is in a constant state of flux and change is inevitable (we are not yet advanced enough to control the climate precisely enough to maintain the current climate).

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?

We have to pick one, assuming we have the ability to influence the climate state. Either will have positive and negative implications for species currently alive. However, from the geological record, it would seem that greenhouse earth may be more conductive to rapid species expansion and evolution. This seems like the sort of question that isn't being discussed and I am making my first post in this forum precisely because I would like some rational reason to believe that icehouse earth is better than greenhouse earth. Thank you in advance for your time and comments.


I mostly agree with you but am sorry to say that I think I will have to disapoint you;

The predictions snce 1998 have been for a 4.2 degree c warming maximum, and that's including the 0.8c so far. But since then the temperature has not changed. So I think we can definately discout the top half of the predictions. That leaves at most a 1.3c warming.

So at most/worst there might be a warming that is so slight you will hardly notice.

There are no negative cnsequences to this. Just nice stuff. It would be better if it was more.

Still the increased CO2 will help agriculture.

The warmist/Alarmist troll has left but there are others about here.

Edited on 26-11-2015 19:26
26-11-2015 19:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3706)
MK001 wrote:I don't think the ice house option is preferable and I believe you are correct in suggesting, that if not for other factors the earth would be in a glacial phase by now.

Do you believe this because of any science that you have reviewed and understand. ..or do you believe this just because you blindly a WACKY religious dogma that requires you to abandon anything you might have learned in school?

MK001 wrote: I think the only difference between our current warming trend and those of distant past is in the make up of the atmosphere itself.

Really? Planck's Law says otherwise. I wonder what the truth really is.

MK001 wrote:For example a warm ocean will dissolve more free CO2 raising its acidity level

What an idiot. The ocean has never had any acidity, much less ever had its acidity "raised."

You went to college, you say?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-11-2015 22:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
IBdaMann wrote:
antialiased wrote:Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Why do you believe you speak for "most people"? None of the smart people I know believe that? Is your point that most people are gullible scientific illiterates?


This has certainly been one of my points. Illiteracy in the sciences, history, and philosophy is unfortunately rampant, even among many holding PhDs. For the man on the street, the problem is much worse. Most of these are Bachelor degrees or less, with many truly illiterate, they never even learned to read. Public high schools today allow students to graduate with little more than a 3rd grade level of reading, barely able to do arithmetic much less algebra, distorted views of history, and poor geography skills. Science classes are all about 'Earth Balance' along with minimal physics.

This is why there are so many that fall into the trap of believing global warming is bad, despite history that says otherwise (when we did have warmer periods), and despite the science (accepting instead that energy comes from something other than the sun).

In the void of education, propaganda becomes the norm, for it has great power over the illiterate.


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2015 01:05
antialiased
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Thanks you for your responses (except for IBdaMann, as there didn't seem to actually be a response to the question posed in any of your posts). I have been struggling with why this isn't (generally) a topic of conversation or debate. Through my research, I can see no reason why we should be alarmed about warmer temperatures and would love to actually hear politicians debate on this topic and would enjoy hearing from those who have some reason to feel differently.

I've always lived in a cold area and used to joke about how I kept waiting for global warming. It wasn't until I learned that we were currently in an ice age that I began to question the format of the debate. It's sad that this fact - that we are currently in an ice age - was never mentioned in any class I attended from elementary through graduate school.

Personally, until I hear some valid reason to prefer a colder climate, I'll be hoping that humans are causing or can cause a measurable greenhouse effect and that we continue or begin to do so.

Finally, IBdaMann, this is the philosophy sub-forum, so I'm unsure why you keep bringing up science as though it can answer every question. Scientific knowledge can tell you how to split the atom or create new life forms or whether the earth is warming, but cannot tell you whether it is a good idea - that's the realm of philosophy. Also, not sure what "wacky religion" you are talking about, since all religions are pretty wacky (isn't that definitional?).
Edited on 27-11-2015 01:08
27-11-2015 05:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3706)
antialiased wrote:Finally, IBdaMann, this is the philosophy sub-forum, so I'm unsure why you keep bringing up science as though it can answer every question.

I simply ask you for clarification, to define your terms and to explain a little better what you are saying.

You, on the other hand, become an arrogant prick, as though explaining anything is somehow beneath you, and that I am somehow stupid for asking.

This is the philosophy subforum. I don't know why you think religious bulverism is appropriate.

As long as you plan on carrying on that way I will make it a point to contrast your religio-babble against science. Simple.

antialiased wrote: Scientific knowledge can tell you how to split the atom or create new life forms or whether the earth is warming, but cannot tell you whether it is a good idea - that's the realm of philosophy. Also, not sure what "wacky religion" you are talking about, since all religions are pretty wacky (isn't that definitional?).


Your Global Warming religion is a particularly nasty religion because it requires worshipers to believe that its WACKY unfalsifiable dogma is somehow "science." This leaves warmizombies in a world of hurt.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-11-2015 22:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3706)
MK001 wrote: Your non threatening posts are actually very educational though.

Good! Let's try maintaining a higher level of respect instead of instantly taking the discussion into the mud at the first differing viewpoint.

We have a thread on "greenhouse effect." Why don't you jump in with your perspective?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-11-2015 12:08
Madison
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
@antialiased

Yes, we are in an interglacial period, but the timescale is completely different from the scale of anthropogenic climate change. The next ice age will probably first start in 20.000 years or more. This makes it (almost) completely irrelevant to our current civilization. AGW on the other hand works on a 100 year or less timescale, which makes it highly relevant. In the long run, the earth will be absorbed by the sun and melted away. So why care about ice ages?
29-11-2015 13:34
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
antialiased wrote:
....It's sad that this fact - that we are currently in an ice age - was never mentioned in any class I attended from elementary through graduate school.....


That it wasn't mentioned was probably because people didn't know.

In the past few decades a lot of paleoclimate knowledge has accumulated and the technical terminology has changed. What are now called "glacial" periods within the current pliiocene-quaternary ice-age used to be called "ice ages," with the four much older ice ages simply not known about.

A lot of the newer information hasn't been included in non-geology classes in schools.
29-11-2015 14:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
still learning wrote:
antialiased wrote:
....It's sad that this fact - that we are currently in an ice age - was never mentioned in any class I attended from elementary through graduate school.....


That it wasn't mentioned was probably because people didn't know.

In the past few decades a lot of paleoclimate knowledge has accumulated and the technical terminology has changed. What are now called "glacial" periods within the current pliiocene-quaternary ice-age used to be called "ice ages," with the four much older ice ages simply not known about.

A lot of the newer information hasn't been included in non-geology classes in schools.


I don't know when the rest of you went to school but 30 years ago the idea that we are in ana ice age was definately part of the general knowledge in physical geography.

that was also when the warm period pre-iron age was called the holocene optimal because the climate was warmer than now and the world was much more fertile for humans. There were vast lakes in what is now the Sahara desert.
29-11-2015 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Tim the plumber wrote:
still learning wrote:
antialiased wrote:
....It's sad that this fact - that we are currently in an ice age - was never mentioned in any class I attended from elementary through graduate school.....


That it wasn't mentioned was probably because people didn't know.

In the past few decades a lot of paleoclimate knowledge has accumulated and the technical terminology has changed. What are now called "glacial" periods within the current pliiocene-quaternary ice-age used to be called "ice ages," with the four much older ice ages simply not known about.

A lot of the newer information hasn't been included in non-geology classes in schools.


I don't know when the rest of you went to school but 30 years ago the idea that we are in ana ice age was definately part of the general knowledge in physical geography.

that was also when the warm period pre-iron age was called the holocene optimal because the climate was warmer than now and the world was much more fertile for humans. There were vast lakes in what is now the Sahara desert.


I've heard your version being taught as little as five years ago. This is the first time I've heard of this new definition of an ice age.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2015 23:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Into the Night wrote:I've heard your version being taught as little as five years ago. This is the first time I've heard of this new definition of an ice age.


I was that an ice age is where there is any (perminent) ice at sea level.

Interglacials are when the big ice sheets retreat.
30-11-2015 01:26
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




antialiased wrote:

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?




Because humanity wants to live for ever and carry our history along.







­
30-11-2015 01:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I've heard your version being taught as little as five years ago. This is the first time I've heard of this new definition of an ice age.


I was that an ice age is where there is any (perminent) ice at sea level.

Interglacials are when the big ice sheets retreat.


Exactly. I was agreeing with you.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2015 01:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Jakob wrote:
­




antialiased wrote:

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?




Because humanity wants to live for ever and carry our history along.







­


At all times in history when the climate has cooled (due to some effect from the sun), it has brought short growing seasons, loss of useable farmland, famines, disease from weakened hosts, and even whole nations that have fallen due to it. Cold is NOT friendly to humanity!


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2015 02:02
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



Cold will keep and preserve resources for many coming generations. That is very good for humanity.






­
30-11-2015 02:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Jakob wrote:
­



Cold will keep and preserve resources for many coming generations. That is very good for humanity.






­

What resources? Most people light fires when they get cold.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2015 02:37
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)

Cold will keep and preserve resources for many coming generations. That is very good for humanity.

That's not very specific. Care to elaborate?
30-11-2015 11:23
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




Totototo wrote:
Care to elaborate?




Oh, the line is endless...


Just as endless as the line of takers standing in line at Greenland hoping to undermine it when the ice melts..

And just as endless as the list of things humanity at the moment use to pollute with..

Try and think about it. The question is not about you and I, it is about humanity.
For once a question about something greater than us.

Also think about the age of humanity and for how long you want it to exist and do well in the future.
Will they need oil in the future..?
They won't have any because one or two generations went crazy and used it all for themselves just to generate GW.
They will look back at us and hate us..!
When they look in their history book all the ugly warlords you can think of will be nice guys compared to us.
And they may think that even if you don't bring climate to the subject.





­­
30-11-2015 12:36
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Jakob wrote:Cold will keep and preserve resources for many coming generations. That is very good for humanity.


What??????????

So the need to burn loads of fossil fuels to stay warm and grow food either in green houses or to move the food from the few places where you can manage to grow it to where the starving multitudes are will save resources???

What planet do you get your information from?
30-11-2015 12:41
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Jakob wrote:
­




Totototo wrote:
Care to elaborate?
Oh, the line is endless...


Just as endless as the line of takers standing in line at Greenland hoping to undermine it when the ice melts..

And just as endless as the list of things humanity at the moment use to pollute with..

Try and think about it. The question is not about you and I, it is about humanity.
For once a question about something greater than us.

Also think about the age of humanity and for how long you want it to exist and do well in the future.
Will they need oil in the future..?
They won't have any because one or two generations went crazy and used it all for themselves just to generate GW.
They will look back at us and hate us..!
When they look in their history book all the ugly warlords you can think of will be nice guys compared to us.
And they may think that even if you don't bring climate to the subject.


What utter drivel!!!!

There are more proven oil reserves now than ever.

It's not because there is more oil in the ground but simply because in the last oil price scare the oil companies took all those sites where they had prospected and found oil but not in situations that were comercially viable off the shelves and listed them as comercially viable at the new high price.

Soon, withing a few decades, we will not be using fossil fuels nearly as much. Technology will have moved on.

How angry do we feel about stone age man using all the best flint leaving us without such good stuff?
30-11-2015 17:26
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Oh, the line is endless...

Just as endless as the line of takers standing in line at Greenland hoping to undermine it when the ice melts..

And just as endless as the list of things humanity at the moment use to pollute with..

Try and think about it. The question is not about you and I, it is about humanity.
For once a question about something greater than us.

Also think about the age of humanity and for how long you want it to exist and do well in the future.
Will they need oil in the future..?
They won't have any because one or two generations went crazy and used it all for themselves just to generate GW.
They will look back at us and hate us..!
When they look in their history book all the ugly warlords you can think of will be nice guys compared to us.
And they may think that even if you don't bring climate to the subject.


What? I asked you a question about why you think cold will preserve resources.
30-11-2015 20:27
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­­­




antialiased wrote:
I've always lived in a cold area and used to joke about how I kept waiting for global warming. It wasn't until I learned that we were currently in an ice age that I began to question the format of the debate. It's sad that this fact - that we are currently in an ice age - was never mentioned in any class I attended from elementary through graduate school.


I feel the same way.
However I find it worse that I was never told about any risk of AGW.

I also must warn against putting up any hopes for GW. Nature can fool us and instead of just more summer we get more snow, rain, storm or worse. Somewhere there is even a risk that GW will cause a new ice age.




@Totototo

I am sorry if my answer was too long for you.



@Tim the plumber

Do you need me to tell you about the differences between the stone age man's junkyard and the junkyards produced the last 200 years..?




­
­­
30-11-2015 23:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Jakob wrote:
­­­
Do you need me to tell you about the differences between the stone age man's junkyard and the junkyards produced the last 200 years..?
­
­­


Today's junkyards full of cars are actually recycling centers. Almost everything in the car is recyclable, except for those cars involved in Obamas 'cash for junkers' program, which rendered a perfectly recyclable item into worthless landfill.


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2015 01:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3706)
Jakob wrote:
For once a question about something greater than us.


Any religion can fill that need. Why did you choose Global Warming?

Jakob wrote:
And just as endless as the list of things humanity at the moment use to pollute with..


Do you think CO2 is pollution?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2015 10:18
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Totototo

I am sorry if my answer was too long for you.

You didn't answer what I asked. I don't care about the length of your response as long as it answers MY QUESTION!
01-12-2015 10:54
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@IBdaMann

I don't know any relligion that can free people from being responseble for the future of humanity.
And if I did I would never choose it.
There is no need for religion to find something greater than you.



@Totototo

Ice makes mining more difficult and that will preserve the stuff in the mine.




­
01-12-2015 13:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3706)
Jakob wrote: @IBdaMann

I don't know any relligion that can free people from being responseble for the future of humanity.

Religiions like Global Warming espouse WACKY dogmas under the sense of urgency that some sort of salvation is needed in the name of "something greater than ourselves."

In the case of the Global Warming faith, the words "greater than ourselves" means "more important than ourselves" which means "more important than you!" which means "our political cause is going to step all over you and your family as we tax the crap out of you and break your economy."


Jakob wrote: And if I did I would never choose it.


Let's see. Do you believe in Global Warming?

Jakob wrote:There is no need for religion to find something greater than you.

This is your rationale behind your recent Global Warming preaching.

Jakob wrote:Ice makes mining more difficult and that will preserve the stuff in the mine.

Resources are extracted in all weather. No one is going to let a little inclement weather keep them separated from wealth.






.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2015 15:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Jakob wrote:@Tim the plumber

Do you need me to tell you about the differences between the stone age man's junkyard and the junkyards produced the last 200 years..?­­


Yes do tell me what the difference is between the junk yard of say sailing ships and today's cars will be in 200 years.
Edited on 01-12-2015 15:46
01-12-2015 21:13
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote:I don't think the ice house option is preferable and I believe you are correct in suggesting, that if not for other factors the earth would be in a glacial phase by now.

Do you believe this because of any science that you have reviewed and understand. ..or do you believe this just because you blindly a WACKY religious dogma that requires you to abandon anything you might have learned in school?

MK001 wrote: I think the only difference between our current warming trend and those of distant past is in the make up of the atmosphere itself.

Really? Planck's Law says otherwise. I wonder what the truth really is.

MK001 wrote:For example a warm ocean will dissolve more free CO2 raising its acidity level

What an idiot. The ocean has never had any acidity, much less ever had its acidity "raised."

You went to college, you say?


.

I base the statement about being in a glacial period now by the recorded glacial events and the timeline suggests we should be heading back into a glacial period. Not very scientific, sorry.

I don't think Plancks Law is as applicable to this question as you state, will have to read more first.

You are correct about the ocean, I should have said less alkali to be correct but I believe the impacts as describeed are still correct (weaker shells and coral growth)
01-12-2015 21:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Jakob wrote:@Tim the plumber

Do you need me to tell you about the differences between the stone age man's junkyard and the junkyards produced the last 200 years..?­­


Yes do tell me what the difference is between the junk yard of say sailing ships and today's cars will be in 200 years.


Probably just location, type of materials being recycled, etc. Junk yards serve a useful purpose.


The Parrot Killer
05-06-2016 07:58
jackk
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Global Warming is the enhancement of Earth's average surface temperature due to effects of various greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emissions from various industries and burning fossil fuels or from deforestation, which will trap heat that would otherwise escape from Earth. This is a kind of greenhouse effect.

causes of global warming
05-06-2016 11:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
jackk wrote:
Global Warming is the enhancement of Earth's average surface temperature due to effects of various greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emissions from various industries and burning fossil fuels or from deforestation, which will trap heat that would otherwise escape from Earth. This is a kind of greenhouse effect.

...deleted propaganda link...


So please describe how carbon dioxide has this magick property to add energy to the Earth's surface, since it is not an energy source?

Are you using the Magick Blanket argument, or the Magick One Way Reflector argument?

You do realize, don't you, that carbon dioxide has no remarkable thermal insulation qualities and simply converts what little light it does absorb into thermal energy that is convected away with the rest?


The Parrot Killer
05-06-2016 20:08
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Carbon Dioxide is not a Magic insulator, but there has to be some net gain in energy within the atmosphere; if the CO2 absorbs at one wavelength as energy is leaving the earth then re-radiates some energy in all directions at a different wavelength. Some of that re-radiation must head back to earth. So more CO2 must mean a net gain in energy / heat in the atmosphere (on earth). If it does not then why not?
06-06-2016 10:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
MK001 wrote:
Carbon Dioxide is not a Magic insulator, but there has to be some net gain in energy within the atmosphere; if the CO2 absorbs at one wavelength as energy is leaving the earth then re-radiates some energy in all directions at a different wavelength. Some of that re-radiation must head back to earth. So more CO2 must mean a net gain in energy / heat in the atmosphere (on earth). If it does not then why not?


Carbon dioxide converts absorbed light into thermal energy. It does not re-radiate electromagnetic energy, except as part of the overall signature of the the rest of the atmosphere according to Planck's Law (which is a different center frequency than the light that it absorbed, being colder than the surface).

Thermal energy is convected upward like everything else in the atmosphere. You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder substance. That would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is like trying to make hot coffee with an ice cube.

The Magick One Way Reflective Gas argument is false.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-06-2016 10:23
06-06-2016 19:55
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
So the description below of the simple process is absolutely false then?

"The CO2 lets sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs sunlight, warms then reradiates heat (infrared or longwave radiation). The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb. We also expect to see more infrared radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths."

Its not really a magic gas is it! it is just following a process that must obviously lead to more infrared radiation returning to earth than if it was not there?
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Climate change is unavoidable, so is a warmer or cooler climate more desireable?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
No one cares even if 97% of climate scientists think more CO2 causes warmer weather. Because of Galileo.2421-03-2017 16:40
there is no proof past climate was significantly warmer when CO2 was much more327-02-2017 04:06
warmer is always better2207-12-2016 11:57
But how can Global WARMING make some places cooler? Or similarly, droughts AND torrential rains?809-10-2016 23:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact