Remember me
▼ Content

ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil



Page 3 of 4<1234>
17-06-2020 17:30
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2060)
DRKTS wrote:
pjfent wrote:


I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature variations, and came across the above.
As a layman, it brought some very alarming questions to mind, that I, unfortunately, don't have answers for.

Since we are technically living in the Quaternary ice age, and inhabiting a relatively short, warmer, interglacial phase at the moment, what does the future hold?

Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

Even with the upward temperature pressure of our greenhouse gas emissions, will there still be a gradual downward temperature trend that overwhelms what we have done and lead to an inevitable catastrophe for a human civilization of 7.6 Billion?

Are the real warming effects of our carbon emissions being masked by downward pressure by the other causative factors of the end of an interglacial phase?

Have we really averted a future catastrophe, by sheer luck, or do we need to slow, end, or even possibly increase greenhouse gas emissions, in the long term, to moderate our climate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/300px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png


The timing of the ice ages ahs to do with shifts in the Earth's orbit, primarily due to its resonance with Jupiter. At the moment we are in a particularly stable phase that will likely go on for another 10,000 to 15,000 years so no imminent ice age.

The additional CO2 in the atmosphere can produce a tipping point where we go into a permanent change in the global climate. If the resulting increase in global temperatures is large enough we may not get another ice age (at least until most of the excess CO2 is removed from the atmosphere due to rock weathering (millions of years).

So the conclusion is that short of a super-volcanic eruption or a major asteroid impact that an ice age is not imminent.


You do understand that this is our first interglacial, that we are able to study and record. Everything about the ice age, and further in the past, is just speculation. A best guess, on the information available. The future is similarly an unknown, just speculation. Predicting the future has always been a profitable enterprise, if marketed to rubes just right. Reading layers in ice cores samples, isn't all that different than ripping out the entrails of a mammal, and reading those. Those who predict the future get lucky sometimes, come real close often enough, or have a handy excuse, when they completely miss the mark. Usually, it's mostly excuses...
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil17-06-2020 17:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
HarveyH55 wrote:....Everything about the ice age, and further in the past, is just speculation....
Everything is speculation. All of it. You seem to be saying we know stuff exactly but that not that, that's speculation.

We don't know anything exactly.

IBdaMann wrote:
attempt to subdivide the atomic unit, i.e. the earth.
Ah yes your old stand by.

Whether or not you can handle it the subject matter we are concerned with is the bottom of the atmosphere and ground/ocean level.

It DOES matter what happens to parts of a whole. You can subdivide anything however you like. Your "rule" is totally manufactured BS.

A car on fire in the snow and a car parked in the sun might both have the same mean temperature but it makes a HUGE difference how that thermal energy is distributed.

Radiance headed to space can be absorbed by a CO2 molecule on it's way. That a short enough sentence for you?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 17-06-2020 17:54
17-06-2020 18:11
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
HarveyH55 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
pjfent wrote:


I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature variations, and came across the above.
As a layman, it brought some very alarming questions to mind, that I, unfortunately, don't have answers for.

Since we are technically living in the Quaternary ice age, and inhabiting a relatively short, warmer, interglacial phase at the moment, what does the future hold?

Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

Even with the upward temperature pressure of our greenhouse gas emissions, will there still be a gradual downward temperature trend that overwhelms what we have done and lead to an inevitable catastrophe for a human civilization of 7.6 Billion?

Are the real warming effects of our carbon emissions being masked by downward pressure by the other causative factors of the end of an interglacial phase?

Have we really averted a future catastrophe, by sheer luck, or do we need to slow, end, or even possibly increase greenhouse gas emissions, in the long term, to moderate our climate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/300px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png


The timing of the ice ages ahs to do with shifts in the Earth's orbit, primarily due to its resonance with Jupiter. At the moment we are in a particularly stable phase that will likely go on for another 10,000 to 15,000 years so no imminent ice age.

The additional CO2 in the atmosphere can produce a tipping point where we go into a permanent change in the global climate. If the resulting increase in global temperatures is large enough we may not get another ice age (at least until most of the excess CO2 is removed from the atmosphere due to rock weathering (millions of years).

So the conclusion is that short of a super-volcanic eruption or a major asteroid impact that an ice age is not imminent.


You do understand that this is our first interglacial, that we are able to study and record. Everything about the ice age, and further in the past, is just speculation. A best guess, on the information available. The future is similarly an unknown, just speculation. Predicting the future has always been a profitable enterprise, if marketed to rubes just right. Reading layers in ice cores samples, isn't all that different than ripping out the entrails of a mammal, and reading those. Those who predict the future get lucky sometimes, come real close often enough, or have a handy excuse, when they completely miss the mark. Usually, it's mostly excuses...



And yet you don't complain about the technology that we've developed, about how some scientists got lucky in figuring it all out. Isn't that a paradox that you claim, we live in a technological society but we can't know anything.
I think scientists that say that this current warming is different than the 1920's to the 1940's warming event don't get it. Why did the Little Ice Age end? It wasn't because of CO2. And if things start cooling again like you say we can't know, what will Florida do when it's too cold to grow oranges and people don't go to Disneyland Orlando? There is an ice core researcher in Denmark that I would think would call these short term variations as "climate ripples".
Just think, in another 200 years, about all food might be grown in greenhouses.
17-06-2020 18:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tgoebbles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:....Everything about the ice age, and further in Everything is speculation. All of it.

Nope. Falsifiability does a great job of separating the wheat from the chaff, the science from the speculation.

Harvey is correct; speculation about the past is not science, it's just speculation.

tmiddles wrote:We don't know anything exactly.

The hypotenuse of a right triangle is the square of the sum of the squares of its two legs.

We know that exactly.

Here's something else we know exactly: You are reading this right now.

Here's another thing we know exactly: You are WRONG!



tgoebbles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
attempt to subdivide the atomic unit, i.e. the earth.
Ah yes your old stand by.

Ah yes, your old standby response: EVASION.

You are dismissed.

tgoebbles wrote:Whether or not you can handle it the subject matter we are concerned with is the bottom of the atmosphere and ground/ocean level.

... which means that the intention is to deny science. Understood.

You are dismissed.


tgoebbles wrote:It DOES matter what happens to parts of a whole. You can subdivide anything however you like.

Exactly correct. That's why we put so much effort into component testing.

However, the component "part" of your focus is part of a greater whole which affects and is affected by other component parts, and you seek to draw conclusions that involve other component parts and of the greater whole while denying them all.

Invalid. You must consider the greater whole and you are dismissed until you do. Or, as you are fond of noting, the lower atmosphere is not a closed system so you don't get to treat it as such.

tgoebbles wrote: Your "rule" is totally manufactured BS.

My "rule" is that you must adhere to physics and that you don't get to apply bogus non-science that you just fabricated.

I'm sorry that you disagree.

tgoebbles wrote:Radiance headed to space can be absorbed by a CO2 molecule on it's way.

Sure. Irrelevant. Whatever you claim about the earth needs to agree with science or you have a lot of explaining to do.

Oh yeah, what you are claiming about the earth doesn't agree with science and you have a lot of explaining to do.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-06-2020 18:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:However, the component "part" of your focus is part of a greater whole which affects and is affected by other component parts, and you seek to draw conclusions that involve other component parts and of the greater whole while denying them all.


How are they "denied" ?

If I measure the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere but not the molten core of Earth or the stratosphere I am not "denying" them. If I assume they are not playing an important role in the temp of the troposphere I am still not "denying" them.

What you are doing is attempting to disqualify a discussion based on some requirement not being met.

Guess what? We'll never have all the info. So we have to work with what we have.
17-06-2020 18:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tgoebbles wrote: How are they "denied" ?

You deny their very existence. You try to treat the bottom of the atmosphere like it's a closed system.

tgoebbles wrote: If I measure the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere

Which temperature. I need you to specify.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil17-06-2020 18:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If I measure the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere

Which temperature. I need you to specify.
Any time IBD.

The annual mean temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere of Earth, worldwide.

If you're confused please be more specific.
Edited on 17-06-2020 18:29
17-06-2020 18:42
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
tmiddles wrote:

Radiance headed to space can be absorbed by a CO2 molecule on it's way. That a short enough sentence for you?




And solar radiation coming into our atmosphere can be absorbed by CO2 and then back scattered. ie., 1/2 of the incoming solar IR that it absorbs is emitted back towards space. They say that N2 and O2 really don't absorb incoming solar radiation.
And yet it's warm at night with no incoming solar IR. And if N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, why is there any heat at all? tmiddles, you just showed a major failure of atmospheric physics. And this I think I can explain.
17-06-2020 18:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If I measure the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere

Which temperature. I need you to specify.
Any time IBD.

The annual mean temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere of Earth, worldwide.

If you're confused please be more specific.


Yes, I am now greatly confused. You are using the verb "measure" and not "compute" for a "mean temperature."

Either you don't have a clue about statistical math and are totally mathematically incomeptent or this is an extension of your intentional conflation of measurement with "confidence."

So yes, at this point, without any further clarification from you, I will just go with the "mathematically incompetent" assessment and just point that out every time you try to make some sort of statement on the topic.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-06-2020 18:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
, I will just go with .

Ok.
17-06-2020 18:57
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:...gobble gobble...piddle piddle...

RQAA.
17-06-2020 19:37
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(248)
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS I have two problems/question about if that is relevant:

one is that if an ice age is eminent it'll take thousands of years to develop so a AGW effect that should be fully realized in the next 500 years wouldn't be affected anyway.

The other is that the ice ages have been a full 7 degrees cooler. What estimates are you going by for a maximum warming due to AGW?


Depends on how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. At the current rate of emissions the models say the anomaly will be at about 4C +/- 2C.

But nobody says it stops there.
17-06-2020 20:01
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS I have two problems/question about if that is relevant:

one is that if an ice age is eminent it'll take thousands of years to develop so a AGW effect that should be fully realized in the next 500 years wouldn't be affected anyway.

The other is that the ice ages have been a full 7 degrees cooler. What estimates are you going by for a maximum warming due to AGW?


Depends on how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. At the current rate of emissions the models say the anomaly will be at about 4C +/- 2C.

But nobody says it stops there.

What exactly is being measured in said "anomaly"?
17-06-2020 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted word salad...Mantras 20a5...20a4...25j...20a1...20e3...20b5...


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2020 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20a5...30...25g...20c...


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2020 21:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If I measure the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere

Which temperature. I need you to specify.
Any time IBD.

The annual mean temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere of Earth, worldwide.

If you're confused please be more specific.


You cannot define 'global warming' as 'global warming'.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or it's surface.

Mantras 25g...25c1...


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2020 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

Radiance headed to space can be absorbed by a CO2 molecule on it's way. That a short enough sentence for you?




And solar radiation coming into our atmosphere can be absorbed by CO2 and then back scattered. ie., 1/2 of the incoming solar IR that it absorbs is emitted back towards space. They say that N2 and O2 really don't absorb incoming solar radiation.
And yet it's warm at night with no incoming solar IR. And if N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, why is there any heat at all? tmiddles, you just showed a major failure of atmospheric physics. And this I think I can explain.


Who are 'they'??

Both N2 and O2 absorb solar radiance. O2 absorbs in the infrared, the visible light, and UV spectrum. Absorption can result in conversion to thermal energy or in conversion to chemical energy; as an example. Ozone (O3) is both created and destroyed by sunlight.


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2020 21:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS I have two problems/question about if that is relevant:

one is that if an ice age is eminent it'll take thousands of years to develop so a AGW effect that should be fully realized in the next 500 years wouldn't be affected anyway.

The other is that the ice ages have been a full 7 degrees cooler. What estimates are you going by for a maximum warming due to AGW?


Depends on how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. At the current rate of emissions the models say the anomaly will be at about 4C +/- 2C.

But nobody says it stops there.


It is not possible to measure the CO2 emission by any source. There is no 'anomaly'. Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Mantras 25a...25g...25c...


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2020 21:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS I have two problems/question about if that is relevant:

one is that if an ice age is eminent it'll take thousands of years to develop so a AGW effect that should be fully realized in the next 500 years wouldn't be affected anyway.

The other is that the ice ages have been a full 7 degrees cooler. What estimates are you going by for a maximum warming due to AGW?


Depends on how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. At the current rate of emissions the models say the anomaly will be at about 4C +/- 2C.

But nobody says it stops there.


So setting aside the expectation AGW raises the temp in a few hundred years, not thousands: What if he ice age is reduced my AGW? You see that being problematic?
17-06-2020 21:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
DRKTS wrote:
Depends on how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. At the current rate of emissions the models say the anomaly will be at about 4C +/- 2C.

Let me guess ... you have never seen this model, right? In any event, you aren't at liberty to post that model here in this thread to validate this conclusion of yours, right?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-06-2020 22:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS I have two problems/question about if that is relevant:

one is that if an ice age is eminent it'll take thousands of years to develop so a AGW effect that should be fully realized in the next 500 years wouldn't be affected anyway.

The other is that the ice ages have been a full 7 degrees cooler. What estimates are you going by for a maximum warming due to AGW?


Depends on how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. At the current rate of emissions the models say the anomaly will be at about 4C +/- 2C.

But nobody says it stops there.


So setting aside the expectation AGW raises the temp in a few hundred years, not thousands: What if he ice age is reduced my AGW? You see that being problematic?

Define 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2020 23:09
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS I have two problems/question about if that is relevant:

one is that if an ice age is eminent it'll take thousands of years to develop so a AGW effect that should be fully realized in the next 500 years wouldn't be affected anyway.

The other is that the ice ages have been a full 7 degrees cooler. What estimates are you going by for a maximum warming due to AGW?


Depends on how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. At the current rate of emissions the models say the anomaly will be at about 4C +/- 2C.

But nobody says it stops there.


So setting aside the expectation AGW raises the temp in a few hundred years, not thousands: What if he ice age is reduced my AGW? You see that being problematic?



Please learn some history son. In a few hundred years we might be coming out of the next "Little Ice Age".
17-06-2020 23:15
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

Radiance headed to space can be absorbed by a CO2 molecule on it's way. That a short enough sentence for you?




And solar radiation coming into our atmosphere can be absorbed by CO2 and then back scattered. ie., 1/2 of the incoming solar IR that it absorbs is emitted back towards space. They say that N2 and O2 really don't absorb incoming solar radiation.
And yet it's warm at night with no incoming solar IR. And if N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, why is there any heat at all? tmiddles, you just showed a major failure of atmospheric physics. And this I think I can explain.


Who are 'they'??

Both N2 and O2 absorb solar radiance. O2 absorbs in the infrared, the visible light, and UV spectrum. Absorption can result in conversion to thermal energy or in conversion to chemical energy; as an example. Ozone (O3) is both created and destroyed by sunlight.




"They" are the people considered as main stream theorists. As for N2 and O2, wrong on both parts. And O3 absorbs electromagnetic radiation, ie heat but it doesn't have to be solar IR. And it might not be solar IR that causes O3 to become O2 + O and then for O2 to become O + O.
Can I have some of the drugs that you're using? I mean to support mainstream physics and then to refute it at the same time without explanation, it must be one hell of a nice trip that you are on friend.
17-06-2020 23:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

Radiance headed to space can be absorbed by a CO2 molecule on it's way. That a short enough sentence for you?




And solar radiation coming into our atmosphere can be absorbed by CO2 and then back scattered. ie., 1/2 of the incoming solar IR that it absorbs is emitted back towards space. They say that N2 and O2 really don't absorb incoming solar radiation.
And yet it's warm at night with no incoming solar IR. And if N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, why is there any heat at all? tmiddles, you just showed a major failure of atmospheric physics. And this I think I can explain.


Who are 'they'??

Both N2 and O2 absorb solar radiance. O2 absorbs in the infrared, the visible light, and UV spectrum. Absorption can result in conversion to thermal energy or in conversion to chemical energy; as an example. Ozone (O3) is both created and destroyed by sunlight.




"They" are the people considered as main stream theorists.

No such thing. Theories are not 'mainstream' or any other 'stream'. They are simply theories.
James___ wrote:
As for N2 and O2, wrong on both parts.

Nope. Dead right.
James___ wrote:
And O3 absorbs electromagnetic radiation, ie heat

Light is not heat.
James___ wrote:
but it doesn't have to be solar IR.

True. It can be solar UV or even visible light.
James___ wrote:
And it might not be solar IR that causes O3 to become O2 + O

It isn't. It is UV-C light that does that. This occurs in the atmosphere no lower than the upper reaches of the stratosphere. This band of frequencies is almost completely absorbed by this action.
James___ wrote:
and then for O2 to become O + O.

Nope. It is UV-B light that does that. This occurs in the atmosphere all the way down to the surface, but is strongest near the bottom of the stratosphere, and is part of the formation of ozone.
James___ wrote:
Can I have some of the drugs that you're using?

Nope. Not using any.
James___ wrote:
I mean to support mainstream physics

No such thing.
James___ wrote:
and then to refute it at the same time without explanation,

No such thing. I am not refuting any physics or chemistry.
James___ wrote:
it must be one hell of a nice trip that you are on friend.

Not taking any trips this summer. Covid, you know.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2020 03:48
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
"They" are the people considered as main stream theorists.

No such thing. Theories are not 'mainstream' or any other 'stream'. They are simply theories.


We're still trying to find out if your mother had any children that lived.
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil19-06-2020 09:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

How do you define "core body temperature" ITN?
Edited on 19-06-2020 09:43
19-06-2020 16:16
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

Mantra 10e. Circular definition dismissed on sight.

tmiddles wrote:
How do you define "core body temperature" ITN?

Mantra 29. RQAA.

No new argumentation presented.
19-06-2020 16:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tgoebbles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Denver?

What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Earth for everything above the very bottom of the atmosphere?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
19-06-2020 17:30
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
IBdaMann wrote:
tgoebbles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Denver?

What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Earth for everything above the very bottom of the atmosphere?

.

Liberal is a very odd language, isn't it?
19-06-2020 21:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.
Circular definition. Try again.
tmiddles wrote:
How do you define "core body temperature" ITN?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2020 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tgoebbles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Denver?

What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Earth for everything above the very bottom of the atmosphere?

.

Liberal is a very odd language, isn't it?


That it is. At first glance it looks like English, but you quickly discover that many words change meaning radically depending on some arbitrary context at the time, and that many words seem to have no meaning at all, yet they are used as if they had one.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2020 22:08
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
Don't forget, words have more than one meaning, depending on the context, yet you try to make that fact to be onerous.
More than one meaning is just language as it is. Trying to require a single meaning is like trying to dictate.
19-06-2020 22:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
Don't forget, words have more than one meaning, depending on the context, yet you try to make that fact to be onerous.
More than one meaning is just language as it is. Trying to require a single meaning is like trying to dictate.


Sorry, dude. I don't speak Liberal.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2020 22:35
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
ITN,
Learning new words and meanings is one of the best ways to keep your brain working.
19-06-2020 23:06
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tgoebbles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Denver?

What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Earth for everything above the very bottom of the atmosphere?

.

Liberal is a very odd language, isn't it?


That it is. At first glance it looks like English, but you quickly discover that many words change meaning radically depending on some arbitrary context at the time, and that many words seem to have no meaning at all, yet they are used as if they had one.

Indeed. I think I'm going to stick with English. It works much better.
19-06-2020 23:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
keepit wrote:
Don't forget, words have more than one meaning, depending on the context, yet you try to make that fact to be onerous.
More than one meaning is just language as it is. Trying to require a single meaning is like trying to dictate.

Obviously you have been a speaker of Liberal for far too long...

Thankfully, there are similarities between Liberal and English. However, in English, words have meaning and they don't "change meaning" on a whim due to some arbitrary context. One such example is that the meaning of the word "theory" (in English) doesn't somehow change because... well... "science".
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil19-06-2020 23:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Learning new words and meanings is one of the best ways to keep your brain working.

Liberal does not "work the brain". It deteriorates the brain to the point where one becomes completely illiterate in logic, math, science, history, engineering, economics, and so on, to the point where one becomes completely incapable of thinking for themselves and forming their own arguments. The Liberal pathogen is a rather nasty disease...

Thankfully, there is a "red pill" treatment for it. The effectiveness of the treatment is different for each person and largely depends upon how far the pathogen has progressed through one's brain. It might have no effect at all, or it might completely cure a person. My guess is that you are too far gone, unfortunately...
Edited on 19-06-2020 23:23
19-06-2020 23:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Learning new words and meanings is one of the best ways to keep your brain working.


Sorry dude. I don't speak Liberal.


The Parrot Killer
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil20-06-2020 00:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Denver?
Same thing anyone is likely to say: That Denver is getting warmer every year. What would you say?

IBdaMann wrote:
What term do you use then for an increase in the annual mean temperature of Earth for everything above the very bottom of the atmosphere?
I'd say warming of Earths upper atmosphere.

What term would I use for a warming of Earth's core:
I'd say that Earth's core was warming.

Do you have a definition for "Core Body Temperature"? ITN keeps ducking that one.

How about you explain how describing something directly is a "circular definition" that somehow breaks GFM's brain?

He's given up debating like ITN so I can't ask him.
Edited on 20-06-2020 00:39
20-06-2020 02:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...15a...15b...10 (rock<->atmosphere)...29...15a...15b...30...29...10h...17...


No argument presented. RQAA. Spamming.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil :

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
hudson bay sea ice1601-07-2020 22:12
Electric cars vs ICE cars2215-05-2020 23:22
the coming little ice age will wreck havoc on global economy613-05-2020 21:36
Nature stops humans burning fossil fuel101-05-2020 19:13
Hurricane season coming. Lockdown end?523-04-2020 19:37
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact