Remember me
▼ Content

What do you do when you can't engage people to discuss climate change?



Page 2 of 3<123>
27-07-2019 12:51
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:Changing opinions on anything takes a while.


Good point! I don't recall my youthful deliberations on the reality of Santa Claus but I'm sure I didn't except the denial of his existence immediately.


27-07-2019 18:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Mrs Wiggles wrote: Whilst I am concerned, most people of my age know they will be dead before the impact really bothers us.

What impact?

I notice that thy prophecy of doom is beset far into the future. How doth thou seeth thus?

Mrs Wiggles wrote: Human beings by nature are pretty selfish, so they won't really care about the generations that follow.

This represents the truly classic Marxist misunderstanding of human nature. You hate your own existence and therefore project negative characterizations onto "everyone else."

I take it you're yet another who absolutely refuses to unambiguously define his terms like "Global Warming,"Climate" and "Greenhouse Effect" ... like they are undefined terms of a WACKY dogma of a religious Marxist cult of doom ... or something like that.


Mrs Wiggles wrote:Opinions and concerns are changing quickly, so don't worry yourself about those who don't care.

The Church of Global Warming is in a death spiral and won't be around for too much longer. It will go the way of the Quakers.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-07-2019 18:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
bootesvoid wrote:
Whenever I bring up the subject I just get blank stares, slight scowls and people just refusing to discuss the issue of climate change.

What does it take to finally convince them climate change isn't a hoax?


I am amazed at the wide spread indifference!

[branner: two duplicate threads merged]


Simple, don't worry about it.

Sound advice. There is nothing to panic about.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
Changing opinions on anything takes a while.

It's a religion, not an opinion.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
Whilst I am concerned, most people of my age know they will be dead before the impact really bothers us.

What impact?
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
Human beings by nature are pretty selfish, so they won't really care about the generations that follow.

BS. People care about their kids. I care about mine. That's why I don't want to see anyone establish a state religion like the Church of Global Warming.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
Opinions and concerns are changing quickly, so don't worry yourself about those who don't care.

You don't get to speak for everyone else's selfish opinions. You only get to speak for your own.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 18:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Mrs Wiggles wrote:Changing opinions on anything takes a while.


Good point! I don't recall my youthful deliberations on the reality of Santa Claus but I'm sure I didn't except the denial of his existence immediately.


Santa Claus actually existed. He was a cardinal in Turkey known for his philanthropy towards kids, especially kids in poverty.

He was also known as St Nicholas, St N'Claus, Santa N'Claus, and Santa Claus.

The modern image of the fat old elf living at the North pole was an invention of Coca Cola.
They still kept the red suit, though.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 19:23
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
bootesvoid wrote:
Whenever I bring up the subject I just get blank stares, slight scowls and people just refusing to discuss the issue of climate change.

What does it take to finally convince them climate change isn't a hoax?


I am amazed at the wide spread indifference!

[branner: two duplicate threads merged]


Simple, don't worry about it. Changing opinions on anything takes a while. Whilst I am concerned, most people of my age know they will be dead before the impact really bothers us. Human beings by nature are pretty selfish, so they won't really care about the generations that follow. Opinions and concerns are changing quickly, so don't worry yourself about those who don't care.


It's not indifference or being selfish, we just never had the tools or measurements to support the claims being made. We still don't have the tools to make global measurements, just estimates, which leaves a very large margin or error. Climate change is based on very tiny changes (1 degree Celsius, and 200 ppm CO2, over about 300 years). We've only had the capacity to actually make rough estimates for about 60 years. We can't go back in time to take measurements. Proxies and analogs aren't data or measurements, highly subjective, their usefulness is based on opinion. Climate Change is subjective, it's entirely how you wish to interpret the findings, and how they were gathered. There has been global warming since the last major ice age, natural and normal. This is our first inter-glacial, so we never observed how it works, or know what is normal, or what to expect. We don't know if the planet has fully recovered from the ice age, nor do we know when we will start to go into the next, how long it takes.

I think we are being sold a bad product, something I don't wish to buy, like ObamaCare. It's potentially very costly, and will reduce the quality of life for many, shorten the lives of many. The cost to change the entire planet to alternative energy, and stop burning fossil fuels, in a very short period, is going to be crushingly huge. It'll be total economic devastation, based on the opinion of a few, who believe that even if they are wrong about the warming, it's still would be better for the planet in the long run. We are being asked to pay a huge price, many lives to be sacrificed. I'll hit retirement age, about the same time, when the most critical years for making these changes need to be made, so I won't have the cash or the means to pay the price. Fairly certain I'll figure out ways to survive, fairly resourceful, and live in Florida. Those in the cold winter states, are going to have a rough time staying warm enough to survive.

Basically, I'm not convinced there is a crisis. Even if there is some global warming still going on, not convinced it's related to man, or CO2. I have not doubts that the proposed 'fix' will be devastating for many. The planet has gone through some pretty major changes in the past, and managed to correct itself over long periods of time. I have no doubts this will continue, with, or without humans. All the time, money, and resources, we are expected to use to fight the planet, which is incredibly huge, could be better used to better adapt to the environment we have to live in. It constantly changes, usually wins eventually. Our victories are usually temporary, but we should learn, and make improvements, instead of just rebuilding, and doing the same things that worked well enough in the past. We can't go back in time, can't stop the clock, the world keeps moving forward. We have to keep moving forward, and keep up with the changes, not fight to keep everything the same.
28-07-2019 10:42
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote: This is our first inter-glacial,


Why do you believe this is our first inter-glacial? Do you believe that science can be reasonably confident that there was an ice age 12,500 years ago?


28-07-2019 15:58
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: This is our first inter-glacial,


Why do you believe this is our first inter-glacial? Do you believe that science can be reasonably confident that there was an ice age 12,500 years ago?


I don't believe we know exactly when the ice age started or ended, just like we don't much about the thawing, warming, or when/if we will get cold again. There is a lot evidence to support an ice age though, and still finding new stuff all the time. Glaciers still exist, and we can observe and measure them. They do move, and carve out good chunks of landscape, forming valleys. There was at least one glacier, that completely melted in my lifetime. Reasonable evidence that there were a lot more glaciers, that carved out the landscape, by comparing the land, and what was left after they melt.

We uncover frozen remains of animal species, occasion, things that went extinct long ago. We have written records, and archaeology findings, that show the spread of civilizations. Pretty good record of how they lived, foods they eat, crops they grew. Cold is hard work, deadly, unpleasant. Stands to reason most folks would move to the still frozen areas by choice, they would follow the food, build cities in places where they figure on having plentiful resources for a while.

There are actual records and physical evidence, to support there having been an ice age. I also tend to believe that it was a much warmer climate before, and cooled of kind of quickly, since few of the big reptiles survived. The ones we have, likely always lived in the tropics. The timeline is debatable, but the events recorded are believable.
28-07-2019 20:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: This is our first inter-glacial,


Why do you believe this is our first inter-glacial? Do you believe that science can be reasonably confident that there was an ice age 12,500 years ago?


Science does not use confidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Theories about past unobserved events are not falsifiable. They are not science.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 20:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: This is our first inter-glacial,


Why do you believe this is our first inter-glacial? Do you believe that science can be reasonably confident that there was an ice age 12,500 years ago?


I don't believe we know exactly when the ice age started or ended, just like we don't much about the thawing, warming, or when/if we will get cold again. There is a lot evidence to support an ice age though, and still finding new stuff all the time. Glaciers still exist, and we can observe and measure them. They do move, and carve out good chunks of landscape, forming valleys. There was at least one glacier, that completely melted in my lifetime. Reasonable evidence that there were a lot more glaciers, that carved out the landscape, by comparing the land, and what was left after they melt.

We uncover frozen remains of animal species, occasion, things that went extinct long ago. We have written records, and archaeology findings, that show the spread of civilizations. Pretty good record of how they lived, foods they eat, crops they grew. Cold is hard work, deadly, unpleasant. Stands to reason most folks would move to the still frozen areas by choice, they would follow the food, build cities in places where they figure on having plentiful resources for a while.

There are actual records and physical evidence, to support there having been an ice age. I also tend to believe that it was a much warmer climate before, and cooled of kind of quickly, since few of the big reptiles survived. The ones we have, likely always lived in the tropics. The timeline is debatable, but the events recorded are believable.


And this is the key.

There is evidence to support having such a theory, but science does not use supporting evidence. Neither does it have any theory about past ice ages or tropical like conditions. These are speculations, not any theory of science. Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable, since the only way to test them is to go back in time to see what actually happened.

Nevertheless, theories about past ice ages and such do exist. They just aren't scientific ones.

Such theories can't be tested.

That said, science CAN simply assume that the ice ages happened, and build a theory around the mechanism for such a thing being possible, and THOSE theories ARE falsifiable.

Examples of this are theories about the effect of our declination, our orbit in a solar system containing not just the Sun, but many other planets as well (including some pretty big ones!), our precession rate, etc.

But testing whether the event itself happened...no.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-07-2019 20:40
28-07-2019 21:10
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe we know exactly when the ice age started or ended,


And would it matter if we knew exactly? Maybe was 13000 years maybe it was 12,000 years. Precision is important based on our needs. We know that it was an ice age. Do you think we know that it was warmer before that ice age? That the Earth wasn't a Frozen ball up until about 12,000 years ago? What I don't understand is why you would selectively believe some things from science and selectively disbelieve others? Granted not all of science has the same level of certainty. However it doesn't make sense to distrust science when it suits you.


28-07-2019 21:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe we know exactly when the ice age started or ended,


And would it matter if we knew exactly? Maybe was 13000 years maybe it was 12,000 years. Precision is important based on our needs. We know that it was an ice age. Do you think we know that it was warmer before that ice age? That the Earth wasn't a Frozen ball up until about 12,000 years ago? What I don't understand is why you would selectively believe some things from science and selectively disbelieve others? Granted not all of science has the same level of certainty. However it doesn't make sense to distrust science when it suits you.


Not science. Speculation. Science isn't a casino. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-07-2019 21:53
28-07-2019 23:31
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe we know exactly when the ice age started or ended,


And would it matter if we knew exactly? Maybe was 13000 years maybe it was 12,000 years. Precision is important based on our needs. We know that it was an ice age. Do you think we know that it was warmer before that ice age? That the Earth wasn't a Frozen ball up until about 12,000 years ago? What I don't understand is why you would selectively believe some things from science and selectively disbelieve others? Granted not all of science has the same level of certainty. However it doesn't make sense to distrust science when it suits you.[/quote}]

The point is, that it's a guess. Mostly, a reference point. We have no way of knowing when, or how long it took, for different areas to warm up enough, to be re-populated.

Yeah, I do believe that the planet was warmer, likely warmer than the scary climate change predictions, for a while, before the ice age. There are massive fossil remains, of animals, that share many similarities to reptiles. Several of them, just the skull takes up a lot of floor space in a museum. These animals would need to eat, and large quantities as well. The climate would need to be very plant friendly, lots of CO2, but warm most of the year as well. The plant growth would need to be fast, to provide a constant supply of food. A change to a cooler climate, would have shortened the growing seasons, reducing the food supply. Being cold blooded reptiles, they would have had some trouble traveling far, to find a sufficient food supply. Not to mention, reptiles aren't very smart, they wouldn't have known to head south. They would have gone any direction that provided some food, and only as long as the sun warmed them up enough to travel.

I tend to believe in the more tangible, physical sciences, things that can be repeatedly tested, measured, observed, anytime, any place, by anybody. Climate science is almost all computer models, fed with low-grade data, never meant to be used in that capacity.

I doubt I could do the calculations, with and degree of confidence. Was never really good at unit conversions, or working with a lot of zeros. But, I image it would be easy enough to find the circumference of earth, the circumference of a single CO2 molecule, and calculate the distance between all the available CO2, if they were dropped to the surface and spread out evenly. Molecules are tiny, the planet is huge, the atmosphere is over 300 miles high. I don't know the actual distance answer, but I'm not seeing a thick, continuous blanket, covering the entire sphere. Those molecules aren't spread evenly in the atmosphere, but they would be spread even thinner in a much larger volume. Think it would illustrate better, that there is no where near enough CO2, to cause any noticeable problems, unless those molecules could create massive amounts of energy. We know that's not possible, otherwise it would solve all of our energy needs, no more need to burn anything.
29-07-2019 01:55
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:The climate would need to be very plant friendly, lots of CO2, but warm most of the year as well.

I tend to believe in the more tangible, physical sciences, things that can be repeatedly tested,


So generally speaking do you believe science is dishonest for some agenda?

Why do you question their work based on what you can do yourself? There are VERY motivated people interested in disproving global warming with all the staff, equipment and research they want, AND those people do publish and refute many conclusions. They also backup most of the data we're debating the legitimacy of here.

Take ice core co2 measurements:
Just as with tree rings you can count back the years in ice layers. So the can test ice formed hundreds of thousands of years ago. So is it accurate? Yes! Because they can also test ice from 50 years ago, and 25 and 10 and compare it with measurements from the air directly.

But let me get to the real point:
If you're on this board skeptical of the global warming platform why wouldn't you present the work done in that area? There's a lot.


29-07-2019 02:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
HarveyH55 wrote: And would it matter if we knew exactly?

The answer is yes, it would matter immensely. The reason that speculation about the past can never be science is because the scientific method cannot be applied. We don't have time machines and thus can never verify any theory.

So if we were to know then it would no longer be speculation about the past. Imagine if it were to turn out that fundamentalist Christians were correct and we were to know that the universe was created 6,000 years ago and that there was absolutely no ice age 10,000 years ago, 16,000 years ago, 2 million years ago, ... nothing prior to 6,000 years ago. We would know all this and creationism would, in fact, be science. Yes, I think that would matter greatly.

And not just for religious purposes. Anything you magickally know of the past becomes fodder for the scientific method to falsify current theories and models.

HarveyH55 wrote: The point is, that it's a guess. Mostly, a reference point. We have no way of knowing when, or how long it took, for different areas to warm up enough, to be re-populated.

You are spot on. It can never be anything more than speculation about the past.

Notice that everybody's individual speculation differs to some extent based on his or her experience/background/education. It's really just a matter of arrogance for someone to insist that his/her speculation is "what we know."

[side note]
I do not intend to drag you into the middle of anything, but I want to take the opportunity to point out that tmiddles is one of those people who knows next to nothing and is thus desperate to appear "smart." As such, he works double-time to make the case that his understanding (which isn't even his own speculation) is "what we know" and that if you disagree then you pose a personal threat to his insecurities and he has to label you "stupid" and perhaps a "troll." I don't think he's going to get to that point with you as long as you don't overtly try to delve into science or math, but if you were possibly wondering why he keeps placing importance on rather inane, pointless things then it's because he has a lot of his self worth vested in the understanding he has adopted in order to delude himself into thinking he is smarter than everyone else. This forum is his opportunity to live his cognitive superhero fantasy.
[/side note]

HarveyH55 wrote: I doubt I could do the calculations, with and degree of confidence.

"Confidence" has nothing to do with "calculations." "Confidence" pertains to religions, dogmas, beliefs and conclusions in general. "Margin of error" pertains to math and statistics specifically.

Warmizombies have the highest of "confidence" in whatever conclusions they are told to believe, even without ever being given any margin of error. Statisticians, including quantum mechanics mathematicians, concern themselves only with probability (of particular states) and margin of error (of calculated values).

If you were to ask me to add 244(+/-3) and 342(+/-4) and I were to tell you the answer is 586. What would be your next question?

Would it be "What would you estimate is your confidence level?" ?
... or would it be "What did you get as the margin of error?"?

Answer: Margin of error = +/-7. You would know that my "confidence" is absolute certainty. It is a math calculation. If you have any doubts you can check my work. There are no conclusions and there is nothing to "believe."

HarveyH55 wrote: But, I image it would be easy enough to find the circumference of earth, the circumference of a single CO2 molecule, ...

Circumference of the earth: yes. In the 1700's the French Science Academy sent out a survey team with their cutting edge technology to locate the exact north pole and to mark the exact equator. Their calculations had a margin of error of about 100 meters that we can measure today with the benefit of GPS technology.

Circumference of a CO2 molecule: no. A molecule is not a round ball; it is a fluctuating probability field. CO2 is a gas that expands to fill its container.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-07-2019 05:22
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
How about the circumference of the orbit, the electrons follow around the protons and neutrons? Earth isn't a perfect sphere either, but close enough for the illustration I was trying to make. I'm doubtful there are enough CO2 molecules to completely cover the surface of that sphere, like the blanket (insulation), that forms the greenhouse effect. Some pretty big holes in that idea, not just the space between molecules. The confidence, was in my ability to juggle so many zeros, and converting units correctly. I don't know the math, to spread x number molecules evenly over the surface of a sphere, or calculate the distance between them. Guess we could say the atmosphere is 0.04% CO2, so a similar percentage of the surface would be covered? All I'm sure of, is that tiny amount, regardless of what it can do in a lab, isn't going to do much of anything out in the wild, without creating additional energy, a lot of it. That magic would have been exploited long ago, free energy.
29-07-2019 05:31
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:the atmosphere is 0.04% CO2,...that tiny amount, r...isn't going to do much of anything


There a lot of very well qualified people who would agree with that and there is pretty convincing data to support it.

Something can be "real" and "actually be happening" but be insignificant.

If someone wants to exaggerate the impact you can do them no greater favor than posing as an opponent by playing a clown and pretending basic science is in doubt along with their exotic theory. As the Trolls on this board do.

Venus is almost entirely a CO2 atmosphere yet Hoffman shows that if you measure apples to apples, same atmospheric pressure, same calculation for the energy coming from the sun, Venus behaves no differently than the earth in terms of the temperature at a given pressure. So the CO2 composition of the atmosphere wouldn't seem to be making any difference even at that much higher concentration.



Edited on 29-07-2019 05:35
29-07-2019 10:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:The climate would need to be very plant friendly, lots of CO2, but warm most of the year as well.

I tend to believe in the more tangible, physical sciences, things that can be repeatedly tested,


So generally speaking do you believe science is dishonest for some agenda?

Science is neither 'honest' nor 'dishonest'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
tmiddles wrote:
Why do you question their work based on what you can do yourself?

He doesn't. YOU do.
tmiddles wrote:
There are VERY motivated people interested in disproving global warming with all the staff, equipment and research they want, AND those people do publish and refute many conclusions. They also backup most of the data we're debating the legitimacy of here.

What data? Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
Take ice core co2 measurements:

Why?
tmiddles wrote:
Just as with tree rings you can count back the years in ice layers.

Meaningless. Ice is permeable to CO2.
tmiddles wrote:
So the can test ice formed hundreds of thousands of years ago. So is it accurate? Yes!

No. Ice is permeable to CO2.
tmiddles wrote:
Because they can also test ice from 50 years ago, and 25 and 10 and compare it with measurements from the air directly.

There are no measurements of global atmospheric CO2 content. It is not possible to measure it.
tmiddles wrote:
But let me get to the real point:

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
If you're on this board skeptical of the global warming platform why wouldn't you present the work done in that area? There's a lot.

Attempt to force negative proof fallacy. He does not have to present ANYTHING. YOU have to define 'global warming' and 'climate change', YOU have to show how it occurs without violating any law of physics, OR YOU have to be able to falsify those laws.

The burden of proof is on YOU.


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 10:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How about the circumference of the orbit, the electrons follow around the protons and neutrons?

Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They follow orbitals. The atom is not like a little miniature solar system. Sometimes they are near the nucleus, sometimes further away. See the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and quantum theory.

The Bohr model of the atom is long gone. That model is still useful for some things, but the atom itself is not the Bohr model.

The current model of the atom was developed by Schrodinger. In this model, the electrons form clouds of probability around the nucleus. It can be anywhere in that cloud, but it's in there somewhere.


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 10:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:the atmosphere is 0.04% CO2,...that tiny amount, r...isn't going to do much of anything


There a lot of very well qualified people who would agree with that and there is pretty convincing data to support it.

Where?
tmiddles wrote:
Something can be "real" and "actually be happening" but be insignificant.

If someone wants to exaggerate the impact you can do them no greater favor than posing as an opponent by playing a clown and pretending basic science is in doubt along with their exotic theory. As the Trolls on this board do.

You just called yourself a Troll, for you deny science. You also deny mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
Venus is almost entirely a CO2 atmosphere yet Hoffman shows that if you measure apples to apples, same atmospheric pressure, same calculation for the energy coming from the sun, Venus behaves no differently than the earth in terms of the temperature at a given pressure. So the CO2 composition of the atmosphere wouldn't seem to be making any difference even at that much higher concentration.

Yet you say it does make a difference. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 19:06
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How about the circumference of the orbit, the electrons follow around the protons and neutrons?

Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They follow orbitals. The atom is not like a little miniature solar system. Sometimes they are near the nucleus, sometimes further away. See the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and quantum theory.

The Bohr model of the atom is long gone. That model is still useful for some things, but the atom itself is not the Bohr model.

The current model of the atom was developed by Schrodinger. In this model, the electrons form clouds of probability around the nucleus. It can be anywhere in that cloud, but it's in there somewhere.


Thanks for sharing... The very fine, technical details, are meaningless to what I was getting at, which probably know. From the electron microscope images I've seen of atoms, the look round, like because the particles are moving very fast. Regardless though, they take up a certain amount of space. You want to pick at details, the earth isn't perfectly round, nor is the surface smooth. Over simplifying the objects is good enough, for the purpose.
29-07-2019 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How about the circumference of the orbit, the electrons follow around the protons and neutrons?

Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They follow orbitals. The atom is not like a little miniature solar system. Sometimes they are near the nucleus, sometimes further away. See the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and quantum theory.

The Bohr model of the atom is long gone. That model is still useful for some things, but the atom itself is not the Bohr model.

The current model of the atom was developed by Schrodinger. In this model, the electrons form clouds of probability around the nucleus. It can be anywhere in that cloud, but it's in there somewhere.


Thanks for sharing... The very fine, technical details, are meaningless to what I was getting at, which probably know. From the electron microscope images I've seen of atoms, the look round, like because the particles are moving very fast. Regardless though, they take up a certain amount of space. You want to pick at details, the earth isn't perfectly round, nor is the surface smooth. Over simplifying the objects is good enough, for the purpose.


We actually use a scanning tunnel microscope (yes, it's using electrons too). These images you see coming from them are not actual images of atoms. They are images of the fields of atoms, which are again consisting of a nucleus and electrons in orbitals, somewhere in that cloud. The microscope actually smears the image because individual atoms actually appears as an interference fringe.

So what you see is a computer enhanced picture of the fringe area as a 'spherical atom'. The image is constructed by a computer from where it 'thinks' the atom is most likely to be.

It's a bit like feeling around the bottom of a pot with a spoon looking for lumps, then drawing a picture of each lump as a spherical object simply because you don't the actual shape of the lump.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-07-2019 20:57
29-07-2019 21:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How about the circumference of the orbit, the electrons follow around the protons and neutrons?

Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They follow orbitals. The atom is not like a little miniature solar system. Sometimes they are near the nucleus, sometimes further away. See the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and quantum theory.

The Bohr model of the atom is long gone. That model is still useful for some things, but the atom itself is not the Bohr model.

The current model of the atom was developed by Schrodinger. In this model, the electrons form clouds of probability around the nucleus. It can be anywhere in that cloud, but it's in there somewhere.


Yes. In fact, the cloud includes the nucleus ... meaning there is a certain probability that a given electron exists where we think the nucleus might be.

In fact (and you could reasonably expect to have trouble with this one), a molecule two feet in front of you could have one of its electrons three inches to the left. Sure, it's not "likely" but as you look out over the vast quantities of molecules before you, there are so many that it is actually likely at any given moment that a few electrons are a measurable distance away from its molecule's statistical "center."

Also, when electricity flows, at any given moment there are a few electrons that are moving in the opposite direction.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-07-2019 22:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How about the circumference of the orbit, the electrons follow around the protons and neutrons?

Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They follow orbitals. The atom is not like a little miniature solar system. Sometimes they are near the nucleus, sometimes further away. See the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and quantum theory.

The Bohr model of the atom is long gone. That model is still useful for some things, but the atom itself is not the Bohr model.

The current model of the atom was developed by Schrodinger. In this model, the electrons form clouds of probability around the nucleus. It can be anywhere in that cloud, but it's in there somewhere.


Yes. In fact, the cloud includes the nucleus ... meaning there is a certain probability that a given electron exists where we think the nucleus might be.

In fact (and you could reasonably expect to have trouble with this one), a molecule two feet in front of you could have one of its electrons three inches to the left. Sure, it's not "likely" but as you look out over the vast quantities of molecules before you, there are so many that it is actually likely at any given moment that a few electrons are a measurable distance away from its molecule's statistical "center."

Also, when electricity flows, at any given moment there are a few electrons that are moving in the opposite direction.


Yup. Sometimes we use that in our electronic components!


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 23:38
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:From the electron microscope images I've seen of atoms, the look round,


You're right Harvey. As much as matter is solid it's a round ball. You can fairly compare it to any "solid stuff" since the hollow nature of matter is true for it as well.

Unless you're a radioactive particle the empty space inside is just a trivial fact.


30-07-2019 01:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:From the electron microscope images I've seen of atoms, the look round,


You're right Harvey. As much as matter is solid it's a round ball. You can fairly compare it to any "solid stuff" since the hollow nature of matter is true for it as well.

Unless you're a radioactive particle the empty space inside is just a trivial fact.


It's not a round ball. We don't know what the shape of an atom actually is.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2019 03:39
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Waste of time, the quantum mechanics is immaterial, just being argumentative, a silly game. Guessing you don't know any better than I do, so you shift to unimportant, 'tiny' details, to hide that. I don't know, not ashamed to admit that I have limited knowledge, but I not totally lacking.

Obviously, that 'round' shape, the 'cloud', or shadow, can be measured. The measurement of that cloud would be good enough. Obviously, all CO2 molecules would never just fall from the sky, and line up equidistant on the surface, which isn't perfectly smooth, so no way to accurate measure the surface area. A smooth sphere is also good enough. Just curious if the distance between would be a few microns, or meters. I know the math is a little beyond my means, though I could probably struggle through, but would have some doubts.

When my last dog died, I decide to make a pyramid for his marker, out of concrete, nice pewter plaque. I wanted the height to be 27 inches, same as the dog at his shoulder. Also wanted to use the same ratios as the Egyptian pyramids. Math classes were many years, but had to dig out the books, and do some work. Eventually got the dimensions worked out, calculated the volume. I cut some plywood, built the form, bought the concrete. Didn't even have half enough, had to go back, by 6 more 80 lbs bags, and even then, still need more. Ended up stuffing anything I had laying around rock-like in there to fill it out the rest of the way. Never went back to see where I screwed up, it was done, turned out okay. The plaque was another challenge, weight about 55 pounds, used mostly lead though. Really exceeded my calculations there as well. Figured on 10-15 pounds or so.
30-07-2019 04:46
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Waste of time, the quantum mechanics is immaterial, ...
Obviously, that 'round' shape, the 'cloud', or shadow, can be measured. ... Just curious if the distance between would be a few microns, or meters.


So all gases can be heated. When you feel hot air coming up off the oven it's not just CO2 molecules you're feeling. CO2 and "green house" gases can be heated by light and infrared radiation. CO2 and to a larger extent water vaper that are heated by light/infrared can then cause the other gases around them to be heated up. So a CO2 molecule doesn't have to be right next to another CO2 molecule for that meaning of the "greenhouse effect" to work.


30-07-2019 07:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
OK tmiddles, you're all interested in this 'green house effect'. Every "scientist" agrees with the explanation, correct?

I was surfing tonight, got a bit curious myself how this is explained to unknowing, unsuspecting gullibles.

I found close to the same thing several times over. Now read it slow and imagine every step. Even though it is full of errors, the BIG lie is in bold.

2. Global Warming
Heating by the greenhouse effect
Our planet's surface is now kept at a comfortable temperature because the atmosphere traps some of the radiant heat from the Sun and keeps it near the surface, warming the planet and sustaining living creatures. Jean Baptise Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) first conceived the mechanism in the 1820s, while wondering how the Sun's heat could be retained to keep the Earth hot. Fourier's idea, still accepted today, is that the atmosphere lets some of the Sun's radiation in, but it doesn't let all of the radiation back out. Visible sunlight passes through our transparent atmosphere to warm the Earth's land and oceans, and some of this heat is reradiated in infrared form. The longer infrared rays are less energetic than visible ones and do not slice through the atmosphere as easily as visible light.


So our atmosphere absorbs some of the infrared heat radiation, and some of the trapped heat is reradiated downward to warm the planet's surface and the air immediately above it. Fourier likened the thin atmospheric blanket to a huge glass bell jar, made out of clouds and gases, that holds the Earth's heat close to its surface.

The warming by heat-trapping gases in the air is now known as the "greenhouse effect".


The best analogy I can come up with is this...
You turn on the stove burner.
You put a pan of water on the burner.
The water is heated to boiling temp and begins to splatter.
Those splatter droplets fall back into the water and heat the pan even hotter.

THIS IS THE BIG LIE YOU ARE FALLING FOR!!!

This is by Professor Kenneth R. Lang, Tufts University. Is this one of your "expert scientists" you often refer to?

Here is the link to this particular explanation, but it can be found the same across the web.

http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_chapter.asp?id=21
Edited on 30-07-2019 07:29
30-07-2019 08:51
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
The basic meaning of Greenhouse effect is that air trapped over something being heated by sunlight results in a higher temperature, and that's not disputed. Granted the link you provided omits most of what I'm saying below and is focused on the tiny part due to water vapor, CO2 and other "greenhouse gases". If you'd like to rearrange vocabulary go ahead but still look at what I've said below whatever you want to call it. Your objections are best addressed by first talking about the basic greenhouse effect (my terminology). We can move on from there.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Jean Baptise Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) first conceived the mechanism in the 1820s, while wondering how the Sun's heat could be retained to keep the Earth hot.


Just to be clear Fourier wasn't talking about CO2 or even special greenhouse gases at all. He was just theorizing why the earth was warmer than would be expected based on our distance from the sun. It was Tyndall, 10 years old when Fourier died that discovered "water-vapour was an important heat-trapping agent. He also found that carbon dioxide was very good at trapping heat,"

GasGuzzler wrote:
[i]So our atmosphere absorbs some of the infrared heat radiation, and some of the trapped heat is reradiated downward to warm the planet's surface and the air immediately above it.


I think you're keying in on the implication they think new energy is being created in the "re-radiating downward" step. It's simply going up, some of it is moving/bouncing back down, but then bouncing back up for good. It's "Delayed" with some ping ponging, not augmented or generated.

If you're in an echochamber it's louder but you don't have to add power to run an echochamber. What's more the sound can eventually exit at full force.
Re-radiate = bounce

So let me present my understanding:
Heat is transferred by conduction (air makes contact with the hot ground), convection (heated air moving) and radiation (light or infrared radiation like a heat lamp)

So the BASIC greenhouse effect is that the gases of our atmosphere are heated up (indisputable) that they then can't leave the planet due to gravity (indisputable) and so the thermal energy around you and I takes longer leaving the planet than it would if there were no atmosphere, it's delayed a bit (I don't dispute this but maybe you do?).

We are all swimming in a great ocean of thermally energized gases we call the atmosphere. Is the energy leaving earth equal what comes in? You betcha. Does it leave as quickly as it would without an atmosphere? Nope. That's why we don't freeze to death at night and turn into taquitos during the day like we would on the moon.

Does that slowing of the thermal transfer apply to the suns energy coming in same as going out? only very very little, to the degree light and infrared can heat the air.

So why would the thermal energy from the sun not be just a slow getting into the atmosphere as leaving it? Why wouldn't it "Cancel out"? (the you've insulated yourself from the heat source question):
Because the suns energy on it's way in is ONLY in the form of light and infrared radiation. There is no way for the sun to heat earths air through conduction or convection on the way in. MOST of the heat that the earth gets from sunlight is on the ground surface, not in the air. For the heated ground to have all the suns energy leave again there are now three options because conduction and convection are in play (really it's 2, because convection is just happening right after conduction). So the air gets far more of the heat on the way out than it did on the way in.

Remember 99% of the atmosphere can ONLY be heated by conduction or convection, light and radiation pass right through.

I'm trying, so far unsuccessfully, to find out how much of the heat is in the form of conduction.



Edited on 30-07-2019 09:40
30-07-2019 11:18
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
tmiddles wrote:
I'm trying, so far unsuccessfully, to find out how much of the heat is in the form of conduction.


OK I think I got it. 42% of the thermal energy transfer to air is due to infrared radiation and 48% from conduction (including convection, water evaporating and then condensing). So most of the heat in the air is due to conduction.

I started a separate thread in the hope someone who knows this shit will come along some day soon:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right



Edited on 30-07-2019 11:19
30-07-2019 11:27
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
As the world turns... Only half the planet is receiving energy from the sun, the other half is losing energy. The warming and cooling, isn't instantaneous, takes time, about half the day, before we reach the high temperature for the day. Heavy cloud cover great reduces how high the temperature will get as well. Mean a lot of that energy, that's suppose to be bouncing up and back down, never made made it to the surface in the first place. Even if the 'greenhouse effect' worked as you claim, it would have done it's thing, well before the night cooling ended, and a new day warming began. Basically what I try to get at, is your global warming wouldn't last all night, likely maybe an hour or so? It wouldn't carry over until the next day, basically a no-issue in the grand scheme of things.
30-07-2019 12:10
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:your global warming wouldn't last all night, likely maybe an hour or so?


The thermal energy held in the atmosphere isn't just from today. Note that the moon, with no atmosphere, plunges down to -173C. We're about that far from the sun so if the atmosphere wasn't retaining/delaying the transfer out of the thermal energy from the sun we'd see a plunge like that.

BUT I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT CO2 AT ALL
Just the normal behavior of our healthy planet.
Not a controversial theory or a threat of any kind.

If we can't get what an atmosphere is and how it works we can't begin to talk about CO2.


30-07-2019 14:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:If we can't get what an atmosphere is and how it works we can't begin to talk about CO2.

So your goal is to warm people to your inevitable preaching on CO2.

You insist that atmospheres INCREASE temperatures at the bottom of said atmospheres and then will not admit you were mistaken when confronted with the moon's super high temperatures that would otherwise boil away earth's oceans.

You insist that atmospheres INCREASE a planet's "temperature" and then will not admit you were mistaken when you are presented the Stefan-Boltzmann law which shows otherwise.

If you can't have an honest conversation, you can't begin to have an honest conversation about CO2.

You don't ever intend on having an honest conversation about CO2, do you?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-07-2019 17:11
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Lets go back to boiling a pan of water on the stove, since it's all the social media craze lately. Won't be throwing on anybody though, just for fun.

So, you set this pan on the burner, turn on the heat, wait a good while for it to boil. You turn off the burner, the water stops boiling soon after, because you aren't adding anymore energy, the pot of water cools off. Leave it sit a while longer, and it returns to room temperature. Now, how much was the kitchen warmed, while you boiled the water, and how long did it take for the water, and the room temperature, before it return to the ambient temperature? Unless I'm standing right close to the stove, I'm not feeling any warming in my kitchen, and it's not that big.

Thing about 'Global Warming' is the focus entirely on the warming part, cooling is a dark, dirty topic, best avoided. We warm everyday, but we cool every night. In the fall/winter months, we do more cooling, than warming. We are working with at least a 1 degree Celsius margin of error, simply reading the thermometer, which is the claimed cumulative warming for the past 300 years, much of which wasn't measured at all, or in no where close to that 1 degree margin. Your data is only as good as the least accurate entry. For a climatologist, only the warming matters, cooling is worth worrying about, and distracts from catastrophic effects.

CO2 was chosen as the key warming agent, because there isn't anything else that can be taxed and controlled. Just not enough of it to have the great of an effect on anything. Like boiling a pot of water in the kitchen, doesn't warm the kitchen to any significant degree, and quickly cools, once the energy source is removed.
30-07-2019 19:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Waste of time, the quantum mechanics is immaterial, ...
Obviously, that 'round' shape, the 'cloud', or shadow, can be measured. ... Just curious if the distance between would be a few microns, or meters.


So all gases can be heated. When you feel hot air coming up off the oven it's not just CO2 molecules you're feeling. CO2 and "green house" gases can be heated by light and infrared radiation. CO2 and to a larger extent water vaper that are heated by light/infrared can then cause the other gases around them to be heated up. So a CO2 molecule doesn't have to be right next to another CO2 molecule for that meaning of the "greenhouse effect" to work.


Heating CO2 by using infrared light from the surface is not heating the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-07-2019 19:06
30-07-2019 19:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
The basic meaning of Greenhouse effect is that air trapped over something being heated by sunlight results in a higher temperature, and that's not disputed.

The air is not trapped.
tmiddles wrote:
Granted the link you provided omits most of what I'm saying below and is focused on the tiny part due to water vapor, CO2 and other "greenhouse gases". If you'd like to rearrange vocabulary go ahead but still look at what I've said below whatever you want to call it. Your objections are best addressed by first talking about the basic greenhouse effect (my terminology). We can move on from there.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Jean Baptise Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) first conceived the mechanism in the 1820s, while wondering how the Sun's heat could be retained to keep the Earth hot.


Just to be clear Fourier wasn't talking about CO2 or even special greenhouse gases at all. He was just theorizing why the earth was warmer than would be expected based on our distance from the sun.

There is no 'expected' temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
It was Tyndall, 10 years old when Fourier died that discovered "water-vapour was an important heat-trapping agent. He also found that carbon dioxide was very good at trapping heat,"

It is not possible to trap heat.
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[i]So our atmosphere absorbs some of the infrared heat radiation, and some of the trapped heat is reradiated downward to warm the planet's surface and the air immediately above it.


I think you're keying in on the implication they think new energy is being created in the "re-radiating downward" step. It's simply going up, some of it is moving/bouncing back down, but then bouncing back up for good. It's "Delayed" with some ping ponging, not augmented or generated.

Nice way agree with the Magick Bouncing Photon argument without actually admitting it.

* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't make heat flow backwards.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

tmiddles wrote:
If you're in an echochamber it's louder but you don't have to add power to run an echochamber.

WRONG.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.

tmiddles wrote:
What's more the sound can eventually exit at full force.
Re-radiate = bounce


* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* There is no sequence.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.

tmiddles wrote:
So let me present my understanding:
Heat is transferred by conduction (air makes contact with the hot ground), convection (heated air moving) and radiation (light or infrared radiation like a heat lamp)

Badly worded, but yes (kind of). Heat is not something that is contained in anything. Heat IS the flow. Heat IS the transfer of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.
tmiddles wrote:
So the BASIC greenhouse effect is that the gases of our atmosphere are heated up (indisputable) that they then can't leave the planet due to gravity (indisputable) and so the thermal energy around you and I takes longer leaving the planet than it would if there were no atmosphere, it's delayed a bit (I don't dispute this but maybe you do?).

* You cannot slow or trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
* There is no sequence.

tmiddles wrote:
We are all swimming in a great ocean of thermally energized gases we call the atmosphere. Is the energy leaving earth equal what comes in? You betcha. Does it leave as quickly as it would without an atmosphere? Nope.

* You cannot destroy energy.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
* You cannot trap or slow heat.
* You cannot trap light.
tmiddles wrote:
That's why we don't freeze to death at night and turn into taquitos during the day like we would on the moon.

Air has mass. it takes time to heat it (or cool it). You cannot shift the goalposts by saying the Earth is heated as quickly as the Moon, but not as quickly cooled off.
* You cannot destroy energy.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot reduce the entropy of any system.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
* There is no sequence.
tmiddles wrote:
Does that slowing of the thermal transfer apply to the suns energy coming in same as going out? only very very little, to the degree light and infrared can heat the air.

* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
tmiddles wrote:
So why would the thermal energy from the sun not be just a slow getting into the atmosphere as leaving it? Why wouldn't it "Cancel out"? (the you've insulated yourself from the heat source question):
Because the suns energy on it's way in is ONLY in the form of light and infrared radiation.

There is no way for the sun to heat earths air through conduction or convection on the way in. MOST of the heat that the earth gets from sunlight is on the ground surface, not in the air. For the heated ground to have all the suns energy leave again there are now three options because conduction and convection are in play (really it's 2, because convection is just happening right after conduction). So the air gets far more of the heat on the way out than it did on the way in.

* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
* There is no sequence.
Most of the radiance of Earth is from the surface itself.
tmiddles wrote:
Remember 99% of the atmosphere can ONLY be heated by conduction or convection, light and radiation pass right through.

Compositional error fallacy.
Some frequencies of light passes through, other frequencies of light don't. Not all photons are the same, dude. Now you are denying Planck's law.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm trying, so far unsuccessfully, to find out how much of the heat is in the form of conduction.

Irrelevant. ALL of it radiates, whether it's from the surface or from the atmosphere.
Most of Earth's radiance is from the surface.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2019 19:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:your global warming wouldn't last all night, likely maybe an hour or so?


The thermal energy held in the atmosphere isn't just from today. Note that the moon, with no atmosphere, plunges down to -173C. We're about that far from the sun so if the atmosphere wasn't retaining/delaying the transfer out of the thermal energy from the sun we'd see a plunge like that.

You are forgetting how long it takes to heat the atmosphere again.
tmiddles wrote:
BUT I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT CO2 AT ALL

No, but you were trying to create energy and reduce entropy again.
* You cannot create energy.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
tmiddles wrote:
Just the normal behavior of our healthy planet.
Not a controversial theory or a threat of any kind.

Nope. You are violating the laws of physics again.
tmiddles wrote:
If we can't get what an atmosphere is and how it works we can't begin to talk about CO2.

The atmosphere has mass. Done. That's how it works.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 17:26
John
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Usually I give some references with arguments. Articles, discussions... all the resourses with important information. For example, there are different essays to pay attention to: https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/climate-change/
Edited on 02-08-2019 17:28
02-08-2019 22:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
John wrote: Usually I give some references with arguments. Articles, discussions... all the resourses with important information. For example, there are different essays to pay attention to: https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/climate-change/

Great, we give arguments that are on the internet because they must be correct if they are from the internet.

Did you notice that *NONE* of them define "Climate Change" in any unambiguous way? Did you notice that they all simply *ASSUME* this undefined "Climate Change" ... just like religions simply assume their undefined deities?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 00:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
John wrote:
Usually I give some references with arguments. Articles, discussions... all the resourses with important information. For example, there are different essays to pay attention to: https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/climate-change/


Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate What do you do when you can't engage people to discuss climate change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
So what if CO2 goes up to 1000 ppm and gives people head ache?009-07-2019 03:27
Does mass media convince people?1818-06-2019 05:53
Chinese people are practical, not ideological.729-04-2019 21:08
Young people banding together to demand more action on climate change023-04-2019 15:06
Climate change is creating toxic crops and poisoning some of world's poorest people, scientists warn022-03-2019 17:30
▲ 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