Remember me
▼ Content

Just one simple question


Just one simple question30-12-2016 07:17
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
Hello all, I'm new here. I just have one question I would like answered.
10,000 years ago wasn't there some sort of Ice age?
The question I need answered is this....How did we get out of that ice age? Must have been some sort of global warming. I'm guessing the cavemen were running their SUV's way too much in all that snow and ice and eventually warmed the planet up enough to come out of that ice age.

Seriously people, we've been told of doomsday for 35 years now and it ain't happening, and in that 35 years we've what, doubled? tripled? quadrupled? our GLOBAL fossil fuels usage.

A 10 day weather forecast for any given location is inaccurate at best. So for a 10 YEAR, 20 YEAR forecast, 30 YEAR forecast we are going to drastically change our lives? We willingly pay huge money for green products. We destroy beautiful landscape with wind turdbines. We voluntarily tax ourselves for using evil oil, one of the most natural products on earth. We are trying to give up liberties to the gov to regulate our energy usage IN OUR OWN HOMES!! We are SO stupid, in fact, that we buy cars that have $5,000 batteries awith no real power, believing that they are so clean. At night we plug in these batteries to charge them with electricity CREATED BY BURNING FOSSIL FUELS!!! and...on and on and on......

My rant is not over, I'm just tired and need to get some sleep before a big work day burning a LOT of fuel tomorrow.
30-12-2016 14:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Have you tried any of the many educational resources on the internet? Your questions aren't new and I could tell about Milankovich cycles but if you're honest you're not interested in crap like that and are just here to wind us up. Your not the first and you won't be the last.

If you're using a lot of fuel you must be using heavy machinery, try not to hurt yourself.
30-12-2016 16:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
A couple thousand years ago educators taught us the earth was flat.

50 years ago educators told us eating more salt would make us thirsty and help us to drink more water and keep us hydrated.

15 years ago educators told us eggs were bad bad bad. Now? pretty good stuff.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE CRAP I'VE BEEN FEAD!!

20 years ago my high school teacher told me I'd be lucky to flip burgers...right before I dropped out.....Yet today I am in the top 10% of income earners nationwide and top 4% in my state. So how do I survive and thrive? Common sense. I would only like to inject a little common sense into this debate. Throw out all theory and base ALL decisions on ONLY the facts.

Fact: The earth has warmed and cooled in cycles since it's beginning.
Fact: The earth is warming right now
Fact: The "Science" that supports man made global warming is funded by those who will get rich if it is proven true.
Theory: Burning fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm.
Theory: Al Gore is a human being.


I am not here to wind you up. Quite the opposite. Clearly we are on different sides of this issue and I would like your side to wind DOWN a bit before we give away all our rights and money to the people in power and the ones laughing their way to the bank, the same crowd that is getting rich off this hoax. I just want proven science and not scientific theory before I have to change my life for this cause.

.....and no, I am not a heavy equipment operator. I am a contractor for the banks. Today I need to go deal with another foreclosure. I'm sure it was just one more person that dedicated there life to something meaningful like climate change instead of earning a living. I will, however, be safe and I do appreciate your concern.
30-12-2016 16:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Educators told us all that? I thought they knew the earth was round before they established formal education, but then again I think verifiable facts are important. I hope you or whoever directs you in your day job do too..
30-12-2016 17:05
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
I never said anything about formal education. The FACT is that at one time, some of the smartest people in the world thought the earth was flat. It turned out to be only theory and they were wrong. Today, what some consider to be the smartest in the world, are telling us to change our lives because we are causing global warming. Man made global warming is in FACT only a theory, yet somehow it's a 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY!!! You're not suspicious just a little bit?


......I have no director, I'm self employed, but I will each and every day stick to fact based common sense.
30-12-2016 18:21
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
gasguzzler wrote: I dropped out..... I just want proven science...

"gasguzlr & gazmuffler", another old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liar whiner, says it wants science but proves it doesn't want science, by NOT taking science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in a non-existent hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Yeah, "gasguzlr & gazmuffler" doesn't want to know that Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 50+% less than in the 1980's, 10,000+ year old Antarctic ice shelves have sheered away, & an Antarctic Ice Sheet has busted its back over a covered Antarctic Island in the last year. "gasguzlr & gazmuffler" jes want ta gas guzzle & gaz its anti-sigh-ants.
30-12-2016 19:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
As you can see we only let the highest quality posters post on this high quality forum.

Gravity is only a scientific 'theory' why not walk off a cliff?

A 1.5 trillion dollar industry? where do you get your figures from? talk radio?
30-12-2016 20:11
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
spot wrote:
As you can see we only let the highest quality posters post on this high quality forum.


Gravity is only a scientific 'theory' why not walk off a cliff?

Gravity may be a theory, but common sense tells me that theory is true because every object unobstructed falls back to earth. Need common sense in this debate!
For example; if your house is too hot in the winter time, do you look at the house or do you check the heating system? Common sense says check the heat source. Why is the sun not part of this discussion?


A 1.5 trillion dollar industry? where do you get your figures from? talk radio?
The Washington Times - Tuesday, August 11, 2015
30-12-2016 20:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
But the sun is part of the discussion. Scientists have and continue to try and determine what exactly solar variation has on climate. Scientists know about, I as an interested layman know about it, If you used google you would know about it, you obviously don't.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/
You are entitled to your opinion but why should I waste my time having a discussion with someone who won't do the most rudimentary of research before making a statement?

on your other point NASAs earth monitoring budget came up before it's about 2 billion which is a lot but not anywhere near 1.5 trillion, other people are doing other programs but I doubt taken all together its anywhere near 1.5 trillon. I'm guessing the figure they used to get a big scary number must include any energy generation that's not fossil fuel, is that bad?

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY2016_Summary_Brief_corrected.pdf
30-12-2016 21:05
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
I appreciate your chart, but it only goes back to 1960. 56 years of data is an absolute microblink in a world that some believe is 4.5 billion years old.

What is wrong with clean energy? Nothing I suppose as long as it isn't funded by me(the taxpayer) and it doesn't destroy the natural beauty of God's green earth. I live in the Midwest. I've been North to Canada, South to Texas, East to New York and over to Ireland. I've been west to the Rockies and call me what you want, there is no place more beautiful than right here at home. I have a passion for the fields of grain, the timbers and rivers, but damn it if they keep putting up these hideous looking wind farms as far as the eye can see. It's disgusting. We burn fossil fuels cleaner than we ever have. We were told 40 years ago that we were going run out of fossil fuels in 100 years. Now we know we've got more than ever. Tired of the scare tactics. We were told 30 years ago that if we didn't stop global warming immediately the ice caps would melt and New York City would become part of the Atlantic. Supposedly that warming has only accelerated but I've got a friend over there and he is reporting a dry house.
When do you wake up and realize you've been lied to?? This is all about politics and money and nothing else. Your political party has always wanted more power and more control. If they control your health care, they control YOU! If they control your money they control YOU! If they control your energy usage, they control YOU! See how this is going end badly? I have done my research on this. If I want answers to 99% of things I follow the money. The money trail stinks of a hoax.

By the way, it's 10 degrees below normal here today. Sure could use a little global warming.
30-12-2016 21:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Obviously we can't measure something unless we have the means to measure it. but there is clearly a pattern there. Why do you think when we aren't watching it it does anything radically different?

and on another point,



Windfarms get you upset but your not concerned with this?

I don't care about what you half remember or what talk radio told you you were told I care about what actually happens and real evidence.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
30-12-2016 21:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
So you admit science isn't perfect but we should alter our lives and pay tons of taxes based on science that only measures a blink of our history? I have looked at hundred of climate charts and most of the 10,000 year charts show us cooler than previous times in history. I realize that charts are skewed based on bias, but if you took an average of all the "research", the evidence would suggest that what we are experiencing today is "normal". So yes, wind farms piss me off because some people are arrogant enough to think we can alter the global air temps with a lawn mower.

Also, if global warming is blamed on fossil fuel burning, why do most warming charts show warming started to significantly increase around 1920, when global fossil fuel consumption didn't skyrocket until the 1950s??

Common sense questions need some answers.
30-12-2016 21:43
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Of course science isn't perfect, What is?

Those charts? were they in crayon?
30-12-2016 21:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
Why? did you draw them?

I thought we were having a good conversation here but apparently not. If you're getting irritated that you're not defending your position very well and not answering some silly questions from a high school dropout, well, I can leave you alone if ya want. Sorry to have upset you.
Edited on 30-12-2016 21:59
31-12-2016 01:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
What? I admit science is not perfect, but if you have a better way to understand what is going on in nature share it with us.

And sorry I don't take your claim of studying hundreds of charts seriously.


If you are serious this is a bad way of teaching yourself about the subject. Ask for a book recomdation
31-12-2016 01:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
Tell you what. You post up a couple of charts, sources that you trust.
I'm looking for 10000 year global temps and 150-200 year temps...sources that YOU trust and I will certainly have some questions for ya. If I put up info then we'll just have a dumb war over the author and I could care less....we might anyway if it is obviously skewed.
31-12-2016 05:26
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
gasguzzler & gazmuffler missed: it's 10 degrees below normal here today.

"gasguzlr & gazmuffler", another old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liar whiner, says the same thing as other old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liar whiners, thinking a low temperature disproves AGW.
It SAYS it wants science but proves it doesn't want science, by NOT taking science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in a non-existent hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Yeah, "gasguzlr & gazmuffler" doesn't want to know that Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 50+% less than in the 1980's, 10,000+ year old Antarctic ice shelves have sheered away, & one Antarctic Ice Sheet has busted its back over a covered Antarctic Island in the last year. "gasguzlr & gazmuffler" jes want ta gas guzzle & gaz its anti-sigh-ants.

The High Arctic (Berserker) has caused over temperatures on 4 million square kilometers to be wildly high for 110 days.... even 20degC over temperature once. If not for 1 questionable day, it would be 125+ straight days. The HAB could readily pass 150 days & keep going.
31-12-2016 05:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
Not arguing what's happening. Just want an inch of proof that my souped up lawn mower was the cause of all that damage.

This warming cycle started around 1911, long before the fossil fuel usage exploded around 1955.

...and this warming cycle looks pretty normal on the GISS 800,000 year chart.

Please explain.
Edited on 31-12-2016 06:04
31-12-2016 12:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
You mentioned the giss chart I don't have a problem with that. However In a previous post I mentioned Milankovich cycles. Tell me have you heard of them and if they are what is affecting climate should we be cooling or warming?
31-12-2016 13:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
But the sun is part of the discussion. Scientists have and continue to try and determine what exactly solar variation has on climate. Scientists know about, I as an interested layman know about it, If you used google you would know about it, you obviously don't.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/
You are entitled to your opinion but why should I waste my time having a discussion with someone who won't do the most rudimentary of research before making a statement?

on your other point NASAs earth monitoring budget came up before it's about 2 billion which is a lot but not anywhere near 1.5 trillion, other people are doing other programs but I doubt taken all together its anywhere near 1.5 trillon. I'm guessing the figure they used to get a big scary number must include any energy generation that's not fossil fuel, is that bad?

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY2016_Summary_Brief_corrected.pdf


Which data set are you using for your graph? Seems different to the ones I normally see.

Also do you consider that the 0.8c increase in temperatures shown since 1960 (I have previously seen only about 0.5c ish as the max number) has resulted in anything drastic?

If so what?
31-12-2016 13:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Not arguing what's happening. Just want an inch of proof that my souped up lawn mower was the cause of all that damage.

This warming cycle started around 1911, long before the fossil fuel usage exploded around 1955.

...and this warming cycle looks pretty normal on the GISS 800,000 year chart.

Please explain.


Actually the normal start point used by the alarmists is about 1850.

That's because we only have any records at all for any large area of the world from that date. The degree that they cover all the globe is very poor and the degree of their accuracy is highly questionable. But...

The reason they like to start then is that therre is a long warming period from then. Because in about 1820 there was the little ice age.

Today's temperatures do not seem to be out of the noraml range of climate since about 8,000 years ago. They will look much more volatile on any graph because we have the data in very much more precision now and maybe because the climate is a bit more bouncy than it was during the holocene optimal in the early bronze age, when it was warmer than now. About 3,000 years ago.
31-12-2016 13:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
But the sun is part of the discussion. Scientists have and continue to try and determine what exactly solar variation has on climate. Scientists know about, I as an interested layman know about it, If you used google you would know about it, you obviously don't.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/
You are entitled to your opinion but why should I waste my time having a discussion with someone who won't do the most rudimentary of research before making a statement?

on your other point NASAs earth monitoring budget came up before it's about 2 billion which is a lot but not anywhere near 1.5 trillion, other people are doing other programs but I doubt taken all together its anywhere near 1.5 trillon. I'm guessing the figure they used to get a big scary number must include any energy generation that's not fossil fuel, is that bad?

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY2016_Summary_Brief_corrected.pdf


Which data set are you using for your graph? Seems different to the ones I normally see.

Also do you consider that the 0.8c increase in temperatures shown since 1960 (I have previously seen only about 0.5c ish as the max number) has resulted in anything drastic?

If so what?


I linked the source.

The fact that warmer temperatures have had effects is something I'm certain of, define 'drastic' please it seems open to interpretation.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
31-12-2016 16:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
But the sun is part of the discussion. Scientists have and continue to try and determine what exactly solar variation has on climate. Scientists know about, I as an interested layman know about it, If you used google you would know about it, you obviously don't.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/
You are entitled to your opinion but why should I waste my time having a discussion with someone who won't do the most rudimentary of research before making a statement?

on your other point NASAs earth monitoring budget came up before it's about 2 billion which is a lot but not anywhere near 1.5 trillion, other people are doing other programs but I doubt taken all together its anywhere near 1.5 trillon. I'm guessing the figure they used to get a big scary number must include any energy generation that's not fossil fuel, is that bad?

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY2016_Summary_Brief_corrected.pdf


Which data set are you using for your graph? Seems different to the ones I normally see.

Also do you consider that the 0.8c increase in temperatures shown since 1960 (I have previously seen only about 0.5c ish as the max number) has resulted in anything drastic?

If so what?


I linked the source.

The fact that warmer temperatures have had effects is something I'm certain of, define 'drastic' please it seems open to interpretation.


My point is that nothing of significance has happened even with these increased temperatures. 0.8c and we need complex data sets to tell if it is real.

Some more warming that is for each location on the earth less than the normal variability of climate at that location will not cause significant trouble.
31-12-2016 17:56
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote: Not arguing what's happening. This warming cycle started around 1911...

Of course, you argue against my data & you dismiss it. While we are warming, the solar TSI has been languid DURING this time AND even below normal for decades (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low TSI). Because of the low TSI, AGW denier liar whiners have predicted Earth ice age temperatures for 20 years & really doubled down when they saw solar TSI levels drop. Yet, Earth temperatures have NOT returned to early 20th century levels. For 385 straight months Earth temperatures have been over the 20th century average. With climbing man-made GHGs, average 20th century temperatures are in the past & aren't coming back. When the solar TSI DOES return to normal or even a bit above, Earth temperatures will REALLY jump upward.
Edited on 31-12-2016 18:02
31-12-2016 21:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
spot wrote:
Have you tried any of the many educational resources on the internet? Your questions aren't new and I could tell about Milankovich cycles but if you're honest you're not interested in crap like that and are just here to wind us up.


Well Spot, I have totally nerded out the last 24 hours, digging up anything and everything I can find on this subject, including data from your sources. When you boil it all down we are splitting hairs on 1/2 a degree going back 4.5 million years. One could easily question the accuracy of temps from 10,000+ years ago, but what was most alarming is the fact that we may not even be accurately measuring TODAY"S temps! It would take a massive satellite network that we don't have, not to mention the fraudulent ground readings that have been taken by NOAA. I did dig deep into co2 emissions history and found some GISP charts showing 3500 year periods where co2 was climbing while temps were dropping at the same rate. Accurate? Who knows..but co2 is blamed for the microblinkinhistory rise in temps....supposedly from fossil fuel burning, but those timelines don't line up either. A little more digging took me to wild fires, which are interestingly enough on steady increase since 1960, and line up quite well with temp increase since then. A little more research found that wood fires create carbon 300 times more potent than fossil fuel burning....accurate? Who knows...then I got to the part that made me realize I just wasted all my time and should just trust my gut.

This silly article said that thunderstorms were going to get more severe due to global warming and actually predicted a 6% increase in lightning in the next 10 years. Now how can you predict that??!! Not to mention the entire SCIENCE of it is incorrect. Severe thunderstorms require an unstable atmosphere which requires COLD air over warm air. Where's that cold air going to come from if we are getting so red hot? Are we only heating certain parcels with this global warming thing? If I read all this warming propaganda correctly, the greenhouse effect won't let heat escape the upper levels of the atmosphere. What I do know to be true is the sun heast the ground, and the ground heats the air, and then the heat tries to rise out of the atmosphere into space, but supposedly its trapped and can't get out because my lawn mower burnt too much gas. If that were true severe storms would be on the DECREASE. WHERE"S THE COMMON SENSE ON YOUR SIDE!??!!!!

This crap reminds me of the monster snow storm that hit Boston a few years back. Warming alarmists immediately hit the airwaves blaming the severity of the storm on global warming. They said even though it was snow, the air can hold more moisture when it's a few degrees warmer, and this is what we can expect for decades to come if we don't change our evil ways. They were right about the air holding moisture, but they forgot that the storm should have been rain, but it was 6 degrees below normal AND FELL AS SNOW. . You guys are full of hooey. I'm outta here. You people go on with your "save the planet'' crap, I don't care. Just try not to send me the bill for it. I don't appreciate paying for $hit that don't need to be done.
01-01-2017 00:19
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
Oh yea, and I forgot to address the Milankovich cycles.....yea, um I can't find them to line up on any graph. They occur every 41,000 years so for the last 200,000 years there should be roughly 49 spikes in temp. Instead there are about 20 or so minor spikes and 5 major spikes for the last 800,000 years including the one we're in now. If anything, it looks like we're slightly overdue very a nice warm up. I will enjoy it while it lasts.
01-01-2017 00:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
OH this just hacks me off the more I think about it! Imagine a 4.5 billion year timeline the distance from New York City to Ireland, about 3000 miles. If my no diploma calculations are correct, The last 100 years would be about 1 MILIMETER!!!! of that timeline!!! How flippin arrogant must you be to point to that millimeter and say yup, we made it hotter by 1/2 a degree. (hee! hee! hee!) And then say yup, I can fix her......wow. You people should come back to earth! on second thought......you should just be ashamed of yourselves for crap you sell as fact. Yesterday I thought you were ignorant. Today I know you are just bad people. Now my rant is over.
Edited on 01-01-2017 00:57
01-01-2017 08:35
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote: Today I know you are just bad people.


Someone named "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gasmuflr" declares people, other than itself, bad. Good it has no eddy-kation, 'cept at the local kkk(always small letters) meetings.
01-01-2017 08:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"gasguzlr & gazmuflr" muffed: I'm outta here..... Now my rant is over....
/////
litesong wrote: If only it would & was.
01-01-2017 23:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Have you tried any of the many educational resources on the internet? Your questions aren't new and I could tell about Milankovich cycles but if you're honest you're not interested in crap like that and are just here to wind us up.


Well Spot, I have totally nerded out the last 24 hours, digging up anything and everything I can find on this subject, including data from your sources. When you boil it all down we are splitting hairs on 1/2 a degree going back 4.5 million years. One could easily question the accuracy of temps from 10,000+ years ago, but what was most alarming is the fact that we may not even be accurately measuring TODAY"S temps! It would take a massive satellite network that we don't have, not to mention the fraudulent ground readings that have been taken by NOAA. I did dig deep into co2 emissions history and found some GISP charts showing 3500 year periods where co2 was climbing while temps were dropping at the same rate. Accurate? Who knows..but co2 is blamed for the microblinkinhistory rise in temps....supposedly from fossil fuel burning, but those timelines don't line up either. A little more digging took me to wild fires, which are interestingly enough on steady increase since 1960, and line up quite well with temp increase since then. A little more research found that wood fires create carbon 300 times more potent than fossil fuel burning....accurate? Who knows...then I got to the part that made me realize I just wasted all my time and should just trust my gut.

This silly article said that thunderstorms were going to get more severe due to global warming and actually predicted a 6% increase in lightning in the next 10 years. Now how can you predict that??!! Not to mention the entire SCIENCE of it is incorrect. Severe thunderstorms require an unstable atmosphere which requires COLD air over warm air. Where's that cold air going to come from if we are getting so red hot? Are we only heating certain parcels with this global warming thing? If I read all this warming propaganda correctly, the greenhouse effect won't let heat escape the upper levels of the atmosphere. What I do know to be true is the sun heast the ground, and the ground heats the air, and then the heat tries to rise out of the atmosphere into space, but supposedly its trapped and can't get out because my lawn mower burnt too much gas. If that were true severe storms would be on the DECREASE. WHERE"S THE COMMON SENSE ON YOUR SIDE!??!!!!

This crap reminds me of the monster snow storm that hit Boston a few years back. Warming alarmists immediately hit the airwaves blaming the severity of the storm on global warming. They said even though it was snow, the air can hold more moisture when it's a few degrees warmer, and this is what we can expect for decades to come if we don't change our evil ways. They were right about the air holding moisture, but they forgot that the storm should have been rain, but it was 6 degrees below normal AND FELL AS SNOW. . You guys are full of hooey. I'm outta here. You people go on with your "save the planet'' crap, I don't care. Just try not to send me the bill for it. I don't appreciate paying for $hit that don't need to be done.


Gosh.. that's alot to respond to, I could go through it point by point but there is no need. It's a bit of a Gish Gallop to be honest. And you PUT BITS OF IT IN ALL IN CAPITALS which is not a sign of a rational man In my opinion.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

For a start the bit I put in bold that's wrong. How can one carbon dioxide molecule be more potent then another, if you mean the quantity, even the most cursory of research should tell you your wrong. I would be ashamed of myself If I made a stupid claim like that.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-01-2017 00:17
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
My apologies, I was typing faster than my little no diploma brain could keep up.

The idea I was attempting to convey was that wildland fires create Nitrous Oxide which is 300 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas effect....but I suspect you knew that.
Edited on 02-01-2017 00:19
02-01-2017 01:43
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
So I wasted some more time and looked up Gish Gallop


.......Thus, Gish Galloping is frequently employed (with particularly devastating results) in timed debates

This ain't no timed debate bro, we got all the time in the world...that is of course until we overheat.

........... This essential flaw in the Gallop means that a skilled rebuttal of one component argument may in fact be a rebuttal to many.

Are you not skilled?
Edited on 02-01-2017 01:45
02-01-2017 02:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I don't have a diploma either, Lots of processes create Nitrous Oxide. Is the overall concentration in the atmosphere enough to overwhelm the effect caused by carbon dioxide?
02-01-2017 02:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
Does black paint overwhelm white paint? Sure it does, if you have enough of it.

Well looky here....Found an article on nitrous and check out that graph on the right!! It lines up just perfectly with the current warming trend that started in 1880-1900.


https://www.niwa.co.nz/publications/wa/vol15-no2-june-2007/article-nitrous-oxide-the-serious-side-of-laughing-gas
Edited on 02-01-2017 02:22
02-01-2017 11:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I don't believe there is enough of it, I'm not saying other compounds beside CO2 have an effect I'm saying the effect is small compared to CO2.
03-01-2017 07:33
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote:... wildland fires create Nitrous Oxide which is 300 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas effect....


Nitrous oxide's potency compared to CO2 of 300, is significant. A bit fortunately, Nitrous oxice is ~ 1300 times less common in the atmosphere than CO2, giving a CO2 global warming equivalency of 4 or 5 times less than CO2 (some studies say, 1/10th that of CO2). It does appear that wild fires are increasing strongly around the world compared to times we were suppressing fires & colder climes were afoot.
Don't know what the past forest fire burn rates were that caused 'natural" levels of nitrous oxide before the industrial revolution. Maybe it was similar to Russian, Alaska, & Yukon increases in forest fires, due to incompetence, changes in fire science, & stark, inaccessible, & excess burning conditions.
04-01-2017 18:58
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote:Nitrous oxice...


Should be, "nitrous oxide".




Join the debate Just one simple question:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Change Question1528-06-2019 06:48
Question for the Einsteins020-04-2019 17:09
Carbon Question from mostly ignorant skeptic (me)3206-02-2019 20:06
A very simple but meaningful fact about CO2, without it1210-01-2019 05:27
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
▲ 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