The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation > Page 2

Page 2 of 4

12-03-2022 17:54
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	It's a very large planet, and has been in a constant state of change. We humans have very little influence, control over any of it. We can mitigate some of the effects, but we never control them. We either migrated, or adapted when the changes became too difficult. Wouldn't we have pretty much stayed in one area, if it was paradise? We wanted to survive, so when conditions didn't support our best interest of survival, we moved to green pastures. We don't like to keep moving, and prefer to settle, call a place 'home'. Only about 20% of the planet surface is dry land. Not much of it is ideal, for providing basic needs. We are good with tools though, and can make a few improvements. As the population grew, more people claimed land as home, defended it. Eventually, though, there was little free-land to migrate to, when our 'home' was no longer ideal. There is only so much we can do, to improve the land, build shelter, farm. Some just figure there has to be a way to control the planet, stop the constant changes, and live in their own little paradise forever. But, it's not so much that they believe they could actually control the planet, but they can keep other people busy doing silly things, and leave them alone. Climate Change isn't about controlling the planet, just people.
12-03-2022 18:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	HarveyH55 wrote:Climate Change isn't about controlling the planet, just people. There are two parts. 1) power/control over people 2) redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who will do the bidding of those with power/control over people
RE: Define "climate change"14-03-2022 21:28
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:Climate Change isn't about controlling the planet, just people. There are two parts. 1) power/control over people 2) redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who will do the bidding of those with power/control over people ------------------------------------------------------------------------ How do we define a term such as "climate change"? Clearly, the definition includes: power/control over people. redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who will do the bidding of those with power/control over people. So, can we all agree on this definition for "climate change"? Which field of science is best equipped to elucidate these questions? Socioeconomics, I guess.
14-03-2022 21:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	sealover wrote:Which field of science is best equipped to elucidate these questions? Socioeconomics, I guess. 1) Socioeconomics is not science. 2) There is no branch of science that is effective at denying science. 3) There is no field of economics that runs completely counter to economics. Philosophy (and logic) is the best discipline for arriving at the proper conclusions given dogmatic assertions.
RE: "Global dimming" is a huge variable14-03-2022 22:15
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	GasGuzzler wrote: sealover wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:. .....when European nations stopped emitting so much sun blocking soot into the air. There wasn't as much shade to keep the Atlantic cool any more. Africa got some severe droughts because of it. Wait...did you just make a case for manmade COOLING? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank God for manmade COOLING! It's called "global dimming". It is a HUGE variable in climate change. If the Chinese hadn't ramped up their emissions of sun-blocking aerosols in the 1980s, temperatures would have risen much faster in the 1990s. Now that India is finally getting a chance to spew out more and more sun-blocking aerosols, there is less heating taking place in the surface waters of the Indian Ocean. Mad scientists, and I do think they are crazy, want to deliberately release massive amounts of sun-blocking aerosols in geoengineering schemes. There was a downside to cleaning up emissions from Europe. Those sun-blocking aerosols over the Atlantic had been protecting Africa from the drought caused by global warming. It's a horrible choice to have to make.

14-03-2022 22:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	sealover wrote:Thank God for manmade COOLING! It's called "global dimming". It is a HUGE variable in climate change. ... then post the formula here in this thread so I can code it up in Java. sealover wrote:If the Chinese hadn't ramped up their emissions of sun-blocking aerosols in the 1980s, temperatures would have risen much faster in the 1990s. The Chinese didn't block any of the sun in the 1980s. The earth's average temperature apparently did not rise any in the 1990s. sealover wrote:Now that India is finally getting a chance to spew out more and more sun-blocking aerosols, there is less heating taking place in the surface waters of the Indian Ocean. Too funny! You are a disinformation sponge. You must be that guy I met from Laos, Gul Ih Bul. ... at least now I know why you are all butt-hurt over Climate Change.
16-03-2022 06:35
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote: The worst case scenario is that the sea stops absorbing about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions and becomes a net source of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. How would it be a net source? To be a source it would need to actually produce CO2 right? My understanding is that CO2 is increasing now because the "source" is fossil fuels so its' CO2 that has been sequestered in the past. "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
16-03-2022 07:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Thank God for manmade COOLING! A great way to preserve food, and keep your sodas and beer cold. sealover wrote: It's called "global dimming". No. It's called a refrigerator. sealover wrote: It is a HUGE variable in climate change. What is the formula for 'climate change'? You describe a variable. You must know of an equation. sealover wrote: If the Chinese hadn't ramped up their emissions of sun-blocking aerosols in the 1980s, temperatures would have risen much faster in the 1990s. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or even of China. sealover wrote: Now that India is finally getting a chance to spew out more and more sun-blocking aerosols, there is less heating taking place in the surface waters of the Indian Ocean. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or even of India. sealover wrote: Mad scientists, and I do think they are crazy, want to deliberately release massive amounts of sun-blocking aerosols in geoengineering schemes. There was a downside to cleaning up emissions from Europe. Those sun-blocking aerosols over the Atlantic had been protecting Africa from the drought caused by global warming. Define 'global warming'. sealover wrote: It's a horrible choice to have to make. A choice between one buzzword and another. Must be tough for you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2022 07:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote: The worst case scenario is that the sea stops absorbing about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions and becomes a net source of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. How would it be a net source? To be a source it would need to actually produce CO2 right? My understanding is that CO2 is increasing now because the "source" is fossil fuels so its' CO2 that has been sequestered in the past. Too bad fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: 50 times more CO2 in sea than sky16-03-2022 07:14
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	I was about to go to sleep, but I'm so delighted that someone wants to inquire rather than insult, I'll begin. But this question deserves a LONG answer. Too tired for the moment, but it starts with the fact that there is fifty as much CO2 dissolved in the sea than there is floating in the sky. This one certainly deserves a re visit tomorrow. ====================================== tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote: The worst case scenario is that the sea stops absorbing about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions and becomes a net source of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. How would it be a net source? To be a source it would need to actually produce CO2 right? My understanding is that CO2 is increasing now because the "source" is fossil fuels so its' CO2 that has been sequestered in the past. "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
16-03-2022 07:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote:...delighted that someone wants to inquire rather than insult, ... The trolls here have such an absurd position (i.e. that all the textbooks are lying) that they can't win an argument so all they have are insults. sealover wrote:...fifty [times] as much CO2 dissolved in the sea than there is floating in the sky. Certainly makes sense that it could simply give back what it absorbed but I'd be very interested to know why. But is the short/main answer: , "when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out," says van Ommen. ? That seems straight forward enough. "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
16-03-2022 07:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: I was about to go to sleep, but I'm so delighted that someone wants to inquire rather than insult, I'll begin. But this question deserves a LONG answer. Too tired for the moment, but it starts with the fact that there is fifty as much CO2 dissolved in the sea than there is floating in the sky. This one certainly deserves a re visit tomorrow. No, there isn't. The concentration of CO2 in ocean water is the same as the air above it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2022 07:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...delighted that someone wants to inquire rather than insult, ... The trolls here have such an absurd position (i.e. that all the textbooks are lying) that they can't win an argument so all they have are insults. You are describing yourself, troll. tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...fifty [times] as much CO2 dissolved in the sea than there is floating in the sky. Certainly makes sense that it could simply give back what it absorbed but I'd be very interested to know why. But is the short/main answer: , "when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out," says van Ommen. ? Nope. Ocean water is not saturated with CO2. Nowhere near it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: but this deserves an answer right now.16-03-2022 07:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	No. The carbonated soda analogy doesn't even come close. Before you pop the cap, the carbon dioxide had been driven into the water under high pressure. It is beyond supersaturated with CO2. Once the bubbles are all released, the CO2 left in the soda will be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. The only difference that temperature makes is to how rapidly the CO2 comes out. In the end, the flat soda will have emitted the same total CO2, whether it did so slowly at low temperature, or rapidly at high temperature. A much better analogy would be vinegar and baking soda. At least the acid neutralizing capacity of bicarbonate plays a role. Not like a soda pop! Not at all. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...delighted that someone wants to inquire rather than insult, ... The trolls here have such an absurd position (i.e. that all the textbooks are lying) that they can't win an argument so all they have are insults. sealover wrote:...fifty [times] as much CO2 dissolved in the sea than there is floating in the sky. Certainly makes sense that it could simply give back what it absorbed but I'd be very interested to know why. But is the short/main answer: , "when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out," says van Ommen. ? That seems straight forward enough. "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
16-03-2022 07:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote: A much better analogy would be vinegar and baking soda. So it's not that higher temps will cause the oceans to release more CO2? I don't follow the baking soda example "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

RE: this will make a good science lesson16-03-2022 16:19
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	I want to thank you for making my day. Someone finally asked me a question about science! Actual science! You also made me realize how important it is to have a model people can relate to better understand carbon dioxide in sea water. I've always hated the can of coke analogy. The only places where the ocean is supersaturated with CO2 are microsites where CO2-rich geothermal type water enters the ocean. And people completely misinterpret how warm coke fizzes faster than cold coke. It is true that temperature is one of the variables that controls equilibrium concentrations of CO2 dissolved in sea water. Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water, but not because it fizzes faster. I forgot to consider that coke has phosphoric acid, a triprotic buffer. This makes it a little more similar to the sea, with acid-base chemistry playing a role, in addition to the purely physical phenomenon of charging up the soda with high pressure CO2. Vinegar and baking soda isn't such a great analogy either. But there you have the phenomenon of CO2 release as gas in response to acid-base reactions, and the major role of bicarbonate. But neither is really such a great analogy, and I'm wracking by brain trying to think of a better one. Please stay in touch as this develops. Thanks again for making my day! Oh, and one of the hecklers did the knee jerk contrarian thing when I told you that there is 50 times as much carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water as there is floating in the atmosphere. I believe he insisted that the concentration in sea water was equal to that in the atmosphere. There is a bit of a discrepancy there. You can use your own judgment regarding who is credible. Or you could Google "How much carbon dioxide in sea water versus atmosphere" and get the answer in a matter of seconds. ========================================== tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote: A much better analogy would be vinegar and baking soda. So it's not that higher temps will cause the oceans to release more CO2? I don't follow the baking soda example "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
RE: Global dimming and rain droplet size16-03-2022 16:34
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	GasGuzzler wrote: sealover wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:. .....when European nations stopped emitting so much sun blocking soot into the air. There wasn't as much shade to keep the Atlantic cool any more. Africa got some severe droughts because of it. Wait...did you just make a case for manmade COOLING? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global dimming doesn't get much attention in the debate, but it is a major variable influencing surface temperature. The soot and sulfur part is obvious. Dark material blocks incoming light. What is less obvious is that particulate aerosols influence the size of rain droplets. With aerosols present, tiny droplets form around particles. Because there are so many particles, the drops are all small. The clouds are more reflective. In the absence of aerosols, far fewer drops form, but they grow to much larger size. These clouds are less reflective, allowing more sunlight through. A big part of the dimming is cloud cover. Not because there more clouds than before, but because the clouds are more reflective than before. Any questions? Or did it kill your buzz that it didn't just make a good joke. "Manmade COOLING"! Ha Ha. Isn't that hilarious?
16-03-2022 17:57
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	WTF is "global dimming"?? Sounds like another entry for my list It's up to 194 entries now BTW, with your latest addition, so it's approaching 200 entries rather quickly... EDIT: Now 195 entries... I scrolled over 'white privilege' and noticed that I had forgotten all about 'male privilege', so that one has now been added to the list as well. Edited on 16-03-2022 18:04
16-03-2022 20:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: No. The carbonated soda analogy doesn't even come close. Before you pop the cap, the carbon dioxide had been driven into the water under high pressure. It is beyond supersaturated with CO2. You can carbonate a soda without pressure. See the effects of yeast. sealover wrote: Once the bubbles are all released, the CO2 left in the soda will be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Soda does not go flat instantly. sealover wrote: The only difference that temperature makes is to how rapidly the CO2 comes out. In the end, the flat soda will have emitted the same total CO2, whether it did so slowly at low temperature, or rapidly at high temperature. A much better analogy would be vinegar and baking soda. At least the acid neutralizing capacity of bicarbonate plays a role. Not like a soda pop! Not at all. Meh. It all comes down to the same old thing. Your paranoid fear of CO2. CO2 can't warm the Earth, dude. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 16-03-2022 20:35
16-03-2022 20:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: I want to thank you for making my day. Someone finally asked me a question about science! Actual science! No science here...move along...move along... sealover wrote: You also made me realize how important it is to have a model people can relate to better understand carbon dioxide in sea water. I've always hated the can of coke analogy. The only places where the ocean is supersaturated with CO2 are microsites where CO2-rich geothermal type water enters the ocean. And people completely misinterpret how warm coke fizzes faster than cold coke. It is true that temperature is one of the variables that controls equilibrium concentrations of CO2 dissolved in sea water. Nope. It is not saturated. Nowhere near it. sealover wrote: Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water, but not because it fizzes faster. False equivalence fallacy. sealover wrote: I forgot to consider that coke has phosphoric acid, a triprotic buffer. An acid is not a buffer. sealover wrote: This makes it a little more similar to the sea, with acid-base chemistry playing a role, in addition to the purely physical phenomenon of charging up the soda with high pressure CO2. You don't need high pressure to make soda. sealover wrote: Vinegar and baking soda isn't such a great analogy either. But there you have the phenomenon of CO2 release as gas in response to acid-base reactions, and the major role of bicarbonate. But neither is really such a great analogy, and I'm wracking by brain trying to think of a better one. Please stay in touch as this develops. Thanks again for making my day! Oh, and one of the hecklers did the knee jerk contrarian thing when I told you that there is 50 times as much carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water as there is floating in the atmosphere. There isn't. sealover wrote: I believe he insisted that the concentration in sea water was equal to that in the atmosphere. There is a bit of a discrepancy there. None. sealover wrote: You can use your own judgment regarding who is credible. Not about who is 'credible'. You don't get to dictate who is 'credible'. Omniscience fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. sealover wrote: Or you could Google "How much carbon dioxide in sea water versus atmosphere" and get the answer in a matter of seconds. False authority fallacy. Google is not God nor a source. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2022 20:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: sealover wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:. .....when European nations stopped emitting so much sun blocking soot into the air. There wasn't as much shade to keep the Atlantic cool any more. Africa got some severe droughts because of it. Wait...did you just make a case for manmade COOLING? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global dimming doesn't get much attention in the debate, but it is a major variable influencing surface temperature. What is the equation? You keep talking about this equation you keep denying you know anything about. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: The soot and sulfur part is obvious. Dark material blocks incoming light. They absorb incoming infrared light and convert it to thermal energy, just like anything else that absorbs infrared light. sealover wrote: What is less obvious is that particulate aerosols influence the size of rain droplets. No. The size of raindrops is influenced by cloud density and air instability. sealover wrote: With aerosols present, tiny droplets form around particles. Because there are so many particles, the drops are all small. The clouds are more reflective. Aerosols are not required to form clouds. Clouds absorb infrared light, converting to thermal energy. sealover wrote: In the absence of aerosols, far fewer drops form, but they grow to much larger size. These clouds are less reflective, allowing more sunlight through. Clouds are not rain, dude. sealover wrote: A big part of the dimming is cloud cover. Not because there more clouds than before, but because the clouds are more reflective than before. Any questions? Clouds absorb infrared light, just like ocean water. That's converted to thermal energy. sealover wrote: Or did it kill your buzz that it didn't just make a good joke. "Manmade COOLING"! Ha Ha. Isn't that hilarious? That fact that you believe it is hilarious. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2022 20:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	gfm7175 wrote: WTF is "global dimming"?? Sounds like another entry for my list It's up to 194 entries now BTW, with your latest addition, so it's approaching 200 entries rather quickly... EDIT: Now 195 entries... I scrolled over 'white privilege' and noticed that I had forgotten all about 'male privilege', so that one has now been added to the list as well. Yeah. Stick it in your list. Seems this buzzword is going to be popular here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2022 23:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote:...a model people can relate to... I think this is key for even the understanding of those with a lot of expertise. The trick is to keep it accurate. Good example of how tough that is is are models for the atom where at the end of the explanation it's "...but it's not really like that. That's just so you can understand it." I think pointed examples to address metal errors are good. Like Harvey here loves to relax into the the knowledge that something that is good for one part of an ecosystem can't be bad if it changes rapidly (IE CO2 makes plants grow, how could that be bad). A good example is an algae bloom brought on by phosphates in detergents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom sealover wrote:...there is 50 times as much carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water as there is floating in the atmosphere.... By my math that's not equal. However be aware that science denial often takes this form: I am going to disagree with you but keep my rationalization private (so you can't rebut it). So ITN is no doubt thinking that since the water and air are in equilibrium they are equal. Of course that is entirely stupid. FYI ITN won't actually discuss anything. IBD doesn't really either and just degenerates into insults. sealover wrote:...Global dimming... The historic volcanic eruptions seam like the best example of sudden unusual dimming. gfm7175 wrote: WTF is "global dimming"?? He just told you. You ever seen a cloud? Next time note the shadow. "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
RE: I couldn't have said it better16-03-2022 23:26
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	KUDOS! And what they don't seem to realize is that to the outside reader who comes to this site, they just sound straight up crazy RIGHT ON for a post from a voice of reason! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...a model people can relate to... I think this is key for even the understanding of those with a lot of expertise. The trick is to keep it accurate. Good example of how tough that is is are models for the atom where at the end of the explanation it's "...but it's not really like that. That's just so you can understand it." I think pointed examples to address metal errors are good. Like Harvey here loves to relax into the the knowledge that something that is good for one part of an ecosystem can't be bad if it changes rapidly (IE CO2 makes plants grow, how could that be bad). A good example is an algae bloom brought on by phosphates in detergents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom sealover wrote:...there is 50 times as much carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water as there is floating in the atmosphere.... By my math that's not equal. However be aware that science denial often takes this form: I am going to disagree with you but keep my rationalization private (so you can't rebut it). So ITN is no doubt thinking that since the water and air are in equilibrium they are equal. Of course that is entirely stupid. FYI ITN won't actually discuss anything. IBD doesn't really either and just degenerates into insults. sealover wrote:...Global dimming... The historic volcanic eruptions seam like the best example of sudden unusual dimming. gfm7175 wrote: WTF is "global dimming"?? He just told you. You ever seen a cloud? Next time note the shadow. "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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWCOMERS! See that this wasn't a pure echo chamber before your arrival. There are those with basic reasoning skills and thick enough skin to speak truth to... I better not say it.
16-03-2022 23:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote:...what they don't seem to realize is that to the outside reader who comes to this site, they just sound straight up crazy... Well they are preaching to the choir. The goal is not to convince those that disagree but to reinforce the ignorance of your own camp. Just watch Tucker Carlson, Shapiro, Peterson... "I will tell you what you want to hear...." It's not a problem if you look crazy to those that disagree with you if your goal is civil war. Candace Owens just shamelessly denied the moon landing happened. They know their wacko Qanon base well. This is why there is NEVER a discussion of form/process/method. Edited on 16-03-2022 23:33
16-03-2022 23:40
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: WTF is "global dimming"?? He just told you. You ever seen a cloud? Next time note the shadow. He didn't tell me anything of meaning. How is seeing a cloud (and/or the shadow) "global dimming" (whatever THAT is)? It remains a meaningless buzzword. It remains on my list of meaningless buzzwords.
16-03-2022 23:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote:"global dimming"...a meaningless buzzword. You're heard of "Nuclear Winter" right? That a nuclear war would kick so much debris into the air that the Earth would freeze for a while? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter We've had this happen in history with massive volcanic eruptions. Also you may have noticed some dimming on a cloudy day. Anthropogenic cooling (nuclear war would do it) is entirely possible. In: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg presents what I'll call "cloud boats" as a possible mitigation for Global Warming https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2009/11/global-warming-climate-carbon But wallow on arguing with the dictionary if you prefer. "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 17-03-2022 00:00
RE: the "new buzzword" is as old as you are17-03-2022 00:00
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: WTF is "global dimming"?? He just told you. You ever seen a cloud? Next time note the shadow. He didn't tell me anything of meaning. How is seeing a cloud (and/or the shadow) "global dimming" (whatever THAT is)? It remains a meaningless buzzword. It remains on my list of meaningless buzzwords. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can only guess how old you are, but chances are that the "new buzzword" is older than you. It is astounding that you had never heard this "buzzword" before. Where do you get your information? STOP! I withdraw the question. I've got a pretty good guess anyway.
17-03-2022 00:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	tmiddles wrote:The goal is not to convince those that disagree but to reinforce the ignorance of your own camp. That's why I'm so glad that seal over is here. Now you have someone who will appreciate you lying to him, and vice-versa. tmiddles wrote: Candace Owens just shamelessly denied the moon landing happened. You used the word "shamelessly" quite inappropriately. It's almost as if shame is acquired by disagreeing with you. Why does it matter what Candace Owens believes? tmiddles wrote: They know their wacko Qanon base well. ... but you are the only one who even knows what Q'anon even is. tmiddles wrote:This is why there is NEVER a discussion of form/process/method. No matter how hard I try to have a discussion with you concerning your claim that thermal energy flows from cold to hot, you EVADE. You continue EVADING to this day. The problem is on your end ... but I'm nonetheless glad that you have someone with whom you can be mutually dishonest.
RE: the ignorance is astounding17-03-2022 00:19
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	The ignorance is truly astounding! Imagine someone who spends years constantly claiming superior scientific understanding regarding climate change... Didn't even know about "global dimming". Thought is was just a "new buzzword" they were going to start hearing from now on. Well, they've had almost an hour to study it now. I'll bet that they already have conclusive "proof" that "global dimming" is physically impossible. But what were they even debating about if they didn't even have the most basic comprehension of the impact of a major volcanic eruption, for example. Why was the earth so much cooler in the year following the eruption of Mt Pinatubo? Well, Rush Limbaugh explained. It proved global warming was a hoax. Rush Limbaugh believed the temperature evidence. At least for a year. Everybody already knew about "global dimming" before that. Well, almost everybody. The ignorance is truly astounding!

17-03-2022 00:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	sealover wrote:The ignorance is truly astounding! Your foreshadowing of irony is not lacking in the least. sealover wrote:Imagine someone who spends years constantly claiming superior scientific understanding regarding climate change... ... all the while not realizing that there is no science involved in the Climate Change religion ... owing to truly astounding ignorance that renders him unable to distinguish religion from science. sealover wrote:Didn't even know about "global dimming". There is no such thing. However, if you'd like to play "make believe" then sure, we can play along. sealover wrote:I'll bet that they already have conclusive "proof" that "global dimming" is physically impossible. It is entirely possible for many things to not exist. In fact, the number of things that don't exist is quite large. sealover wrote:Why was the earth so much cooler in the year following the eruption of Mt Pinatubo? Who is affirmatively claiming that the earth was cooler [than what?] following a volcanic eruption? sealover wrote:Well, Rush Limbaugh explained. It proved global warming was a hoax. That very well might have happened but Rush Limbaugh is deceased and therefore you don't get to speak for him. sealover wrote:Rush Limbaugh believed the temperature evidence. At least for a year. Why should any rational adult believe you could read Rush Limbaugh's mind?
RE: Warmizombies? or just Warminists?17-03-2022 02:12
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	You are naive to characterize them as "warmizombies" This suggests that they know not what they do. Zombies stumble about mindlessly, capable of being herded into pens by masters. Zombies couldn't direct a massive global conspiracy to destroy capitalism. You better open your eyes. They're not warmizombies. They are WARMINISTS!
RE: phosphate buffers are a real thing17-03-2022 02:32
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: I forgot to consider that coke has phosphoric acid, a triprotic buffer. An acid is not a buffer. sealover wrote: This makes it a little more similar to the sea, with acid-base chemistry playing a role, in addition to the purely physical phenomenon of charging up the soda with high pressure CO2. False authority fallacy. Google is not God nor a source. --------------------------------------------------------------------- More proof of a truly massive conspiracy. Google must be a major part of it. Google "phosphate buffer" and see how many propagandists contributed to the BIG LIE that triprotic phosphoric acid could be called a "buffer". And you provide a teachable moment for another chemistry lesson. Phosphoric acid is triprotic. It has three hydrogens. H3PO4. Hydrogen phosphate is another name for phosphoric acid. There are three different amounts of energy involved in deprotonation. The first hydrogen comes off pretty easy. The second one is tougher. And the third takes a whole lot more energy to take off. There are three distinct pHs where phosphate buffers are best at keeping pH stable despite addition or neutralization of protons. Phosphate buffers. Gotta love 'em!
17-03-2022 05:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...a model people can relate to... I think this is key for even the understanding of those with a lot of expertise. The trick is to keep it accurate. Good example of how tough that is is are models for the atom where at the end of the explanation it's "...but it's not really like that. That's just so you can understand it." So...what is accurate to portray an atom? No one has ever seen one. tmiddles wrote: I think pointed examples to address metal errors are good. WTF is a 'metal error'? tmiddles wrote: Like Harvey here loves to relax into the the knowledge that something that is good for one part of an ecosystem can't be bad if it changes rapidly (IE CO2 makes plants grow, how could that be bad). A good example is an algae bloom brought on by phosphates in detergents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom What if you WANT to grow algae? tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...there is 50 times as much carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water as there is floating in the atmosphere.... By my math that's not equal. However be aware that science denial often takes this form: I am going to disagree with you but keep my rationalization private (so you can't rebut it). Nah. Science denial is simply denying existing laws of physics, like you do. tmiddles wrote: So ITN is no doubt thinking that since the water and air are in equilibrium they are equal. Of course that is entirely stupid. Nope. Equal means 'equal'. tmiddles wrote: FYI ITN won't actually discuss anything. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. tmiddles wrote: IBD doesn't really either and just degenerates into insults. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...Global dimming... The historic volcanic eruptions seam like the best example of sudden unusual dimming. Try spelling correctly. 'Seam' as is used here is spelled 'seem'. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: WTF is "global dimming"?? He just told you. Nope. It's just another meaningless buzzword. tmiddles wrote: You ever seen a cloud? Next time note the shadow. A cloud does not cover the globe. Clouds also absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-03-2022 05:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: KUDOS! And what they don't seem to realize is that to the outside reader who comes to this site, they just sound straight up crazy Insult fallacy. sealover wrote: RIGHT ON for a post from a voice of reason! Right...another example of someone that denies science and mathematics, like you do. sealover wrote: NEWCOMERS! See that this wasn't a pure echo chamber before your arrival. There are those with basic reasoning skills and thick enough skin to speak truth to... I better not say it. Insult fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-03-2022 05:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:...what they don't seem to realize is that to the outside reader who comes to this site, they just sound straight up crazy... Well they are preaching to the choir. The goal is not to convince those that disagree but to reinforce the ignorance of your own camp. Just watch Tucker Carlson, Shapiro, Peterson... "I will tell you what you want to hear...." It's not a problem if you look crazy to those that disagree with you if your goal is civil war. Candace Owens just shamelessly denied the moon landing happened. They know their wacko Qanon base well. This is why there is NEVER a discussion of form/process/method. Bigotry. Science is not a method or a procedure. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-03-2022 05:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:"global dimming"...a meaningless buzzword. You're heard of "Nuclear Winter" right? That a nuclear war would kick so much debris into the air that the Earth would freeze for a while? No, it wouldn't. The debris is warmed by the Sun. Not everywhere would see debris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter tmiddles wrote: We've had this happen in history with massive volcanic eruptions. Never has. tmiddles wrote: Also you may have noticed some dimming on a cloudy day. A cloud doesn't cover the entire globe. tmiddles wrote: Anthropogenic cooling (nuclear war would do it) is entirely possible. In: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist No. The sun would warm the debris, just like everything else. tmiddles wrote: Bjørn Lomborg presents what I'll call "cloud boats" as a possible mitigation for Global Warming https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2009/11/global-warming-climate-carbon What mitigation? Of what? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. tmiddles wrote: But wallow on arguing with the dictionary if you prefer. Non-sequitur fallacy. What does a dictionary have to do with any of this??? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-03-2022 05:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: WTF is "global dimming"?? He just told you. You ever seen a cloud? Next time note the shadow. He didn't tell me anything of meaning. How is seeing a cloud (and/or the shadow) "global dimming" (whatever THAT is)? It remains a meaningless buzzword. It remains on my list of meaningless buzzwords. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can only guess how old you are, but chances are that the "new buzzword" is older than you. It is astounding that you had never heard this "buzzword" before. Where do you get your information? STOP! I withdraw the question. I've got a pretty good guess anyway. So you are claiming this is an established meaningless word??? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: you never define your terms!17-03-2022 06:07
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	[/quote] So you are claiming this is an established meaningless word???[/quote] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How can even know what your question means when you NEVER ONCE have defined your terms. This isn't just to taunt you with your own words because they are your words. It is also a statement of fact about your presentation. Seriously, you have never once defined your terms in a way I could understand. But I'm mentally handicapped by that PhD you're so lucky you don't have.
17-03-2022 06:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: The ignorance is truly astounding! Yours? sealover wrote: Imagine someone who spends years constantly claiming superior scientific understanding regarding climate change... Like you? Sorry dude, science has no branch called 'climate change'. There are no theories of science about 'climate change'. Science has no theories based on a meaningless buzzword. sealover wrote: Didn't even know about "global dimming". You're the first I've heard use this buzzword. sealover wrote: Thought is was just a "new buzzword" they were going to start hearing from now on. It is. sealover wrote: Well, they've had almost an hour to study it now. Study what? Buzzwords are meaningless. sealover wrote: I'll bet that they already have conclusive "proof" that "global dimming" is physically impossible. Define 'global dimming'. sealover wrote: But what were they even debating about if they didn't even have the most basic comprehension of the impact of a major volcanic eruption, for example. Such as? sealover wrote: Why was the earth so much cooler in the year following the eruption of Mt Pinatubo? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: Well, Rush Limbaugh explained. It proved global warming was a hoax. Contextomy fallacy. sealover wrote: Rush Limbaugh believed the temperature evidence. At least for a year. There is no temperature evidence. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: Everybody already knew about "global dimming" before that. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: Well, almost everybody. You don't get to speak for almost everybody either. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: The ignorance is truly astounding! So I have already observed. You really should go out and start learning something. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 2 of 4

Join the debate The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation:

Threads	Replies	Last post
A Science Test	18	09-12-2023 00:53
Breaking news, updated retard test released, so can you drool with the best of them?	25	12-12-2022 23:59
volcanic effects on acid rain	8	06-02-2021 19:40
Attachment Test	9	01-07-2020 00:06
The hotter the classroom, the lower the test scores, research finds	1	06-03-2019 21:58