Remember me
▼ Content

Why


Why07-06-2019 18:37
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
OK. So why aren't there any global warming believers on this web site?
07-06-2019 18:44
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
keepit wrote:
OK. So why aren't there any global warming believers on this web site?


I believe we a warmer now, than we were during the great ice age... Also believe we haven't quite hit the peak yet, and start to cool off for the next great cooling event. Think we will see a little bit more warming, and much higher CO2 levels, before the next ice age. All normal and natural, nothing to be concerned over, and nothing we can change. Actually a good thing, we are heading toward an long period of idea plant growing climate, which is going to produce a surplus of food. We'll have more, time, money, and resources to work on real problems.
07-06-2019 18:49
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Harvey,
You didn't mention the coming devastation form sea level rise. The sea level rises when it gets warmer you know.
07-06-2019 19:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
OK. So why aren't there any global warming believers on this web site?


There are, unless you're a robot.

Other believers in this religion include James and Wake, both of which have been posting here recently.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2019 19:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
You didn't mention the coming devastation form sea level rise. The sea level rises when it gets warmer you know.


Circular argument fallacy. You simply assume it's getting warmer. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature. The output of the Sun is basically the same. Earth's distance to it is basically the same, and periodic. There is nothing to warm the Earth other than those two factors.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2019 20:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Because arguing with idiots is a waste of time and the idiots here have a lot of time on their hands.
07-06-2019 20:26
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
ITN,
It's true that i assume the earth is getting warmer because of thermal insulators (GG's), but there are many scientists who think they have legitimate measurements of temp and CO2 concentration and there is evidence of ice melting.
I don't see how you can ignore it.
Edited on 07-06-2019 20:28
07-06-2019 21:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote:
OK. So why aren't there any global warming believers on this web site?

Those on this website just happen to have different religious faiths.

Except me. I'm an atheist. I don't have any theism.


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
07-06-2019 21:17
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
IBDaMann,
I'm not an atheist. The Holy Spirit visited me about 40 years ago and healed my sick and damaged soul. The Holy Spirit was orange but otherwise i don't have words to describe.
07-06-2019 22:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
spot wrote:
Because arguing with idiots is a waste of time and the idiots here have a lot of time on their hands.


Wow. You haven't posted in quite awhile, spot.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2019 22:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
It's true that i assume the earth is getting warmer because of thermal insulators (GG's),

Thermal insulation works both ways, dude. What keeps light from leaving also prevents light from arriving.

Let's assume you can build a box made of a perfect thermal insulator. It does not allow any thermal energy to escape the box. It also would not allow any thermal energy to enter the box.

The temperature in such a box would simply remain the same, completely independent of anything going on outside the box. The interior of the box would not warm.

keepit wrote:
but there are many scientists who think they have legitimate measurements of temp and CO2concentration

Doesn't matter what they believe. This is a mathematical problem, not a scientific one. Such scientists are denying statistical mathematics.

Statistical summaries require the calculation of a value called the margin of error. Temperatures on Earth can vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile. There is 197 million square miles on Earth's surface. There are simply not enough thermometers to get any usable idea of Earth's temperature. It is not possible to build enough thermometers.

CO2 concentration is even worse. There are but a few dozen stations, all mounted on Earth's surface, measuring CO2 at all. The most commonly quoted station is the Mauna Kea Observatory station, mounted on an active volcano (that puts out varying amounts of CO2).
NONE of the volcanic activity in Hawaii is showing up on the Mauna Kea data. They are cooking the data to remove it, using unknown values to cook it with.

Statistical mathematics REQUIRES the use of raw data. Cooked data is not allowed.

Cooked data is utterly useless.

They do the same with thermometers too. Most thermometers are located near cities. They are not uniformly spaced. They cook the data to remove the 'urban heat island' effect, an unknown value. Cooking the data renders it useless.

Location grouping with thermometers is significant. The effect must be removed. Thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced.

Time is significant. Storms move. Earth moves. Oceans and air move. All readings MUST be obtained at the same time.

Authority is significant. Different authorities have their own agendas. All readings MUST be taken by the same authority.

Statistical math is incapable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers. It is incapable of predicting the future (one of the reasons why news polls suck). It is only good for summarizing past or current data. It cannot predict the future. You might as well as use entrails.

keepit wrote:
and there is evidence of ice melting.

Ice melts every summer. It forms every winter. The winter ice extent at the poles has been increasing the past few years. Greenland does not have a massive river in the northwest (the only place the mountains are low enough to allow melting ice to pass). There is no massive lake in the center of Greenland.

You evidence is an argument from randU fallacy. This is the fallacy of making up numbers, or using made up numbers.
keepit wrote:
I don't see how you can ignore it.
Easy. It's made up numbers. They are random numbers of type randU.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2019 23:42
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
ITN, Made up numbers or inconvenient numbers?
07-06-2019 23:45
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
ITN,
Please keep in m ind that when i say, "the ice is melting" i'm not talking about the ice in my drink. Rather, i'm talking about "net ice quantity melting".
08-06-2019 02:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
ITN, Made up numbers or inconvenient numbers?


Made up numbers.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 02:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Please keep in m ind that when i say, "the ice is melting" i'm not talking about the ice in my drink. Rather, i'm talking about "net ice quantity melting".

The total amount of ice on Earth can't be measured.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 03:22
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
keepit wrote:
ITN, Made up numbers or inconvenient numbers?


The level of change these people are promoting, and the amount of CO2, are very tiny numbers, so the data they use, measurements they make, must be very precise, to gain any sort of accuracy. Close enough, isn't good enough. Even if the had millions of thermometers, and figured a way to measure the entire world in an instant, it still wouldn't be accurate, too many external factors influence temperature at any given moment. It' very large planet, only we occupy less than 20% of it, the rest is water. Of the 20% of tsurface, that is land, a very small portion of that, is considered industrialized cities. Mankind's presence on this planet is really kind of small, as is our influence on natural processes. If you try to get the size in perspective, you can understand, we aren't significant enough to change the course of the planet. We are just basically along for the ride. Sure, we are trashing our living environment, polluting the air and water, garbage and sewage every where, but that's just a mess that will eventually get cleaned up, after we are gone.

There are a lot of people who see just how filthy we are living, and believe we can do better, and as a whole, would live healthier if we could some how change our habits. Unfortunately, they think they are a whole lot smarter than the bulk of the population, and figure the can lie and manipulate the morons, to get what they want. Most people aren't that stupid, just have different interests and concerns. Lies and scams are very difficult to maintain over long periods of time, truth always comes out.
08-06-2019 07:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
HarveyH55 wrote: Even if the had millions of thermometers, and figured a way to measure the entire world in an instant, it still wouldn't be accurate, too many external factors influence temperature at any given moment. It' very large planet, only we occupy less than 20% of it, the rest is water. Of the 20% of tsurface, that is land, a very small portion of that, is considered industrialized cities.

Well put. We would need several hundreds of millions of evenly-spaced synchronized thermometers across the entirety of the earth's surface (to include the surface of the ocean), and then another equivalent layer of additional hundreds of millions of evenly-spaced synchronized thermometers about a mile up in altitude, and then another layer another mile up, and another, and another, etc... in order to get an average global temperature in the ballpark of a statistical 20degF margin of error.

Let's say we were to place only 100 thermometers in each of 1,000 metropolitan areas around the world (i.e. 100,000 thermometers total) ... the margin of error would be completely unusable for any application.


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




Join the debate Why:

Remember me

▲ 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