Remember me
▼ Content

Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?


Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?12-12-2015 11:33
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
There's still no consistent theory why Greenland is covered in ice. Isn't that a first condition to have a real good debate about climate change?

Greenland is melting, and that is blamed on climate change. But what if Greenland was on the North pole some 15,000 years ago, the reason why it is melting comes in a total other daylight. The 'model-makers' would then be able to make spectacular better models then they are doing now.

You can find two articles that contain interesting facts about this issue that might wake you up. Its recommended to be read in this order:
1) http://hubpages.com/education/Why-is-Greenland-Covered-in-Ice
2) http://hubpages.com/education/How-Old-Are-Pyramids-Around-the-World

There's still much more coming up on this topic. This is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak


Thanks in advance for your feedback
12-12-2015 12:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
What is it scienceless idiot week???

Greenland was not at the North pole 15,000 years ago.

Greenland is covered in ice because it is at a high latitude and very high in altitude. So it snows rather than rains and there is not a suficently hot summer to melt the snow. So the sun's heat is reflected back rather than warming the surface.

This has been happening for a long time.

Because Greenland is a basin surounded by mountains the ice has a problem flowing out of it.

So it getts thicker. 3 Km thick or so now.

It is not significantly melting. 12.9 Gtonns a year of net ice mass loss. So what?

Edited on 12-12-2015 12:49
12-12-2015 13:08
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Thanks for posting your reply. I would recommend you to study this issue deeper before you reply a standard answer that has been quoted to you.

The University of Bristol, funded by the British Antarctic Survey, claims that none of the posited theories can account for the thick ice sheet of Greenland. That's the result of an extensive modelling.

Let's continue this discussion in mutual respect.
12-12-2015 14:57
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Buildreps wrote:
There's still no consistent theory why Greenland is covered in ice. Isn't that a first condition to have a real good debate about climate change?.....


No.
Not necessary to know exactly how Greenland's icecap came to be in order to discuss climate change.

Regarding your views on how Greenland's icecap came to be, you are aware that you're making extraordinary claims? That "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" (see ationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence)
I don't see that you've actually presented any evidence on your webpages regarding "Earth crust shifts" or anything similar. A fair amount of verbage and speculation, yes.

Quoting from your webpage "Earth Crust Shifts are now confirmed."
Show me.
References to peer-reviewed literature preferred.
12-12-2015 15:29
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Yes, I know the claim is extraordinary.

The fact is that Paleomagnetism, which is the study of the record of the Earth's magnetic field in rocks, has to deal with two variables, while it has only has one equation.

x+y=1. Tell me how you are going to solve this equation, without assuming one of the two variables is fixed?

When the earth magnetic field has changed, which it did many times during our history, paleomagnetists simply assume that the crust remained stable, while there is no way to tell if it actually did.

Can you solve this equation and tell me you didn't make an assumption? Good luck

Edited on 12-12-2015 15:31
12-12-2015 18:54
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Buildreps wrote:
Yes..... make an assumption? Good luck


Which shows what?

That some unknown component of crustal motion would affect conclusions drawn from paleomagnetic data? Sure.

That there is or has been some previously unknown component of crustal motion? Not at all.
Edited on 12-12-2015 18:57
12-12-2015 23:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Buildreps wrote:
Thanks for posting your reply. I would recommend you to study this issue deeper before you reply a standard answer that has been quoted to you.

The University of Bristol, funded by the British Antarctic Survey, claims that none of the posited theories can account for the thick ice sheet of Greenland. That's the result of an extensive modelling.

Let's continue this discussion in mutual respect.


The problem with models is that they are programs, complete with bugs, someone's idea of what is supposed to happen, and the pitiful resolution of even our best computers to simulate something as complex as nature.

To put a model's results over what is there is ridiculous. To do so IS using a standard 'answer' to many global warming arguments.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2015 23:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Buildreps wrote:
Yes, I know the claim is extraordinary.

The fact is that Paleomagnetism, which is the study of the record of the Earth's magnetic field in rocks, has to deal with two variables, while it has only has one equation.

x+y=1. Tell me how you are going to solve this equation, without assuming one of the two variables is fixed?

When the earth magnetic field has changed, which it did many times during our history, paleomagnetists simply assume that the crust remained stable, while there is no way to tell if it actually did.

Can you solve this equation and tell me you didn't make an assumption? Good luck


The discovery that Earth's magnetic field flips from time to time happened BECAUSE of the assumption that Earth's crust is moving (unstable as you put it). This discovery could not have happened if you took the view the continents never moved, as the bulk of scientists of the day assumed.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2015 00:07
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
"Because Greenland is a basin surrounded by mountains the ice has a problem flowing out of it."

Antarctica has become a sort of basin as well, due to the pressure of the ice sheet. The thickest parts of the ice sheet is trapped between mountain ranges.

That the ice sheet is there 'because it is a basin with mountains around it' is a visual assumption based on its current state of being.

The ice sheet pushed the land mass down and sideways, creating mountain ranges around the ice sheet. Something similar happens when you put your feet in the sand.

A land mass on a pole kind of develop its own 'open shop freezer'. If you study the maps of Antarctica you'll see similar patterns. The thickest parts of the sheet is trapped between mountain ranges, and it didn't get there because there are mountain ranges. The mountain ranges are the result of the pressure, not the cause.
Edited on 13-12-2015 00:08
13-12-2015 02:13
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Buildreps wrote:
.....The mountain ranges are the result of the pressure, not the cause.


How many geologists agree with that statement?

Don't think you'll find anything like that in any textbook or in any peer-review journal paper. I imagine most any geologist would laugh. There are glacial moraines, but not mountains.
13-12-2015 09:07
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
There won't be many geologists who openly would dare to agree with that statement. To be among nodding donkeys can be good for your career, but doesn't give wings to scientific progress.

If there is just one geologist who could show me the calculations to turn an island that's not on the North pole into a deep freeze, I will take a serious look at it. There is in fact no one who can show me this.

Thank you all for replying to this post.
Edited on 13-12-2015 09:11
13-12-2015 13:46
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Buildreps wrote:
Yes, I know the claim is extraordinary.

The fact is that Paleomagnetism, which is the study of the record of the Earth's magnetic field in rocks, has to deal with two variables, while it has only has one equation.

x+y=1. Tell me how you are going to solve this equation, without assuming one of the two variables is fixed?

When the earth magnetic field has changed, which it did many times during our history, paleomagnetists simply assume that the crust remained stable, while there is no way to tell if it actually did.

Can you solve this equation and tell me you didn't make an assumption? Good luck


You have never done any maths then.
14-12-2015 11:16
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Can you explain me how you're going to solve it without a second equation? There's a Nobel prize in Maths waiting for you if you can.
14-12-2015 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Buildreps wrote:
Can you explain me how you're going to solve it without a second equation? There's a Nobel prize in Maths waiting for you if you can.


Sorry, Rene Descartes beat you to it. This is the equation of a straight line.
It has a slope of -1 and is offset by 1.

What this has to do with magnetic flux in rocks is beyond me.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-12-2015 21:22
14-12-2015 21:37
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Into the Night wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Can you explain me how you're going to solve it without a second equation? There's a Nobel prize in Maths waiting for you if you can.


Sorry, Rene Descartes beat you to it. This is the equation of a straight line.
It has a slope of -1 and is offset by 1.

What this has to do with magnetic flux in rocks is beyond me.


Of course parrot killer. We are perhaps getting somewhat of topic with this equation. But there are an infinite amount of solutions. You just assume one value and automatically get the other. That's easy. That's not very scientific.

Why I coined this is because the paleomagnetic data are interpreted exclusively as magnetic polar wanderings, while we know that the geographical pole is shifting as well.

The question is: Can anyone prove that the crust was always stable?
Edited on 14-12-2015 21:40
14-12-2015 22:48
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Buildreps wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Can you explain me how you're going to solve it without a second equation? There's a Nobel prize in Maths waiting for you if you can.


Sorry, Rene Descartes beat you to it. This is the equation of a straight line.
It has a slope of -1 and is offset by 1.

What this has to do with magnetic flux in rocks is beyond me.


Of course parrot killer. We are perhaps getting somewhat of topic with this equation. But there are an infinite amount of solutions. You just assume one value and automatically get the other. That's easy. That's not very scientific.

Why I coined this is because the paleomagnetic data are interpreted exclusively as magnetic polar wanderings, while we know that the geographical pole is shifting as well.

The question is: Can anyone prove that the crust was always stable?


Are you basing the unstable crust hypothesis on the movie "2012" where at the climax of the film china suddenly slips 1000 miles closer to the US so the heros could get to the rescue arks without having to refuel?
14-12-2015 23:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Buildreps wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Can you explain me how you're going to solve it without a second equation? There's a Nobel prize in Maths waiting for you if you can.


Sorry, Rene Descartes beat you to it. This is the equation of a straight line.
It has a slope of -1 and is offset by 1.

What this has to do with magnetic flux in rocks is beyond me.


Of course parrot killer. We are perhaps getting somewhat of topic with this equation. But there are an infinite amount of solutions. You just assume one value and automatically get the other. That's easy. That's not very scientific.

Why I coined this is because the paleomagnetic data are interpreted exclusively as magnetic polar wanderings, while we know that the geographical pole is shifting as well.

The question is: Can anyone prove that the crust was always stable?

We've pretty well figured out that continents move. We know the direction they have moved. Greenland was never at the pole. It is currently moving north by northwest. It seems to have broken off of the area we now call England.

We also know the reason for the shifting of the geographical pole, what causes it, and why it's periodic. We know the magnetic pole shifts over time, which is one of the reasons we update our navigation charts on a regular basis. We know the magnetic pole reverses on a fairly periodic basis.

The equation of a line is not scientific. It's mathematical. There is a difference. Science does hang it's hat on math and logic though.


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2015 11:52
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Thanks for your response Parrot Killer. Interesting name you've chosen for yourself. Why are you parroting what you've been told? Who are 'we' by the way? Is it 'we' and 'the others'?

Without seeing into the centre of the Earth, you cannot claim with certainty the source of the geomagnetic field.

Dr. Glatzmaier of the UCSC who is an expert in the field of geodynamo says there are only speculative models that suggest how it could work. Their solution, I quote: "...shows how convection in the fluid outer core is continually trying to reverse the field but that the solid inner core inhibits magnetic reversals because the field in the inner core can only change on the much longer time scale of diffusion. Only once in many attempts is a reversal successful, which is probably the reason why the times between reversals of the Earth's field are long and randomly distributed."

Hm? Randomly? Where is then the model to make it randomly distributed? There is no mathematical model possible for a random distribution. The term random is another way to say "we do not understand how it works".

Another fact is that no one still can fit two different maps of the magnetic isochrons and spreading rates based on the measurable width of rock segments on the seafloor of the Atlantic on top of eachother. While these two should be driven by one and the same force - plate tectonics.

How do you explain that?

Science is only successful because it embraced mathematics, but still uses it in an irrational way.
Edited on 15-12-2015 11:53
15-12-2015 13:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Buildreps wrote:
Thanks for your response Parrot Killer. Interesting name you've chosen for yourself. Why are you parroting what you've been told?
I'm not. The parrots I kill are those that mindlessly echo the religious line without thinking. I kill parrots for entertainment purposes.
Buildreps wrote:
Who are 'we' by the way? Is it 'we' and 'the others'?
Those who embrace western thought. The collective knowledge we have amassed in the Western world.
Buildreps wrote:
Without seeing into the centre of the Earth, you cannot claim with certainty the source of the geomagnetic field.
Even if you did see into the center of the Earth, you wouldn't see how it worked. Magnetic fields have visibility. We can only see their effects.
Buildreps wrote:
Dr. Glatzmaier of the UCSC who is an expert in the field of geodynamo says there are only speculative models that suggest how it could work. Their solution, I quote: "...shows how convection in the fluid outer core is continually trying to reverse the field but that the solid inner core inhibits magnetic reversals because the field in the inner core can only change on the much longer time scale of diffusion. Only once in many attempts is a reversal successful, which is probably the reason why the times between reversals of the Earth's field are long and randomly distributed."
One man's proposed model.
Buildreps wrote:
Hm? Randomly? Where is then the model to make it randomly distributed?
Ask the good doctor. It's his model.
Buildreps wrote:
There is no mathematical model possible for a random distribution.
There actually is, but it involves a fairly new kind of mathematics known as math Domains, specifically the study of the Full Boolean Math Domain. A bit involved to describe here. In brief, it is the study of numeric systems that move beyond the N, or resolution, of the domain.

A die has six sides. Rolling the die will produce one side up depending on the initial spin, where and how the die snags on the surface, the energy of the die, and the type of surface it ricochets upon. It will always produce one of six results (assuming it ends up on a flat surface). This is despite the enormous numbers used to calculate the pending roll result.

In other words, you are contracting into a small resolution (six) from a system using a much larger resolution. This is the definition of a particular kind of random number, known as a randR, or a repeatable random number (the die has no memory).

A deck of cards operates in a similar way during the shuffle, but the random number it produces is known as a randN, or non-repeatable random number (the cards have a memory. Once a card is drawn, it cannot be drawn again).

In both cases, it is theoretically possible to calculate the random number, but practically speaking, there is no computer with anywhere near a large enough N (resolution) value to perform this job. This is also why weather modelling is always accident prone. The best that can be done is a sort of psuedo-simulation of the weather, and only with perfect understanding of all forces acting on that weather (which we don't have). Many people refer to this line of thinking as Chaos Theory, but this changes with the use of Math Domains.
Buildreps wrote:
The term random is another way to say "we do not understand how it works".
It is often looked that way, but with the concept of Math Domains it becomes easier to describe the characteristics of just what a random number actually is.

Unfortunately, almost all schools only teach the Real Math Domain. This is the domain typically used in theories of science, with it's four primitive operations, infinitely thin lines infinitely long, and infinitely small points. It is also incapable of describing the concept of a random number.

The Full Boolean Domain is strange stuff for most folks, for it has five primitive operations, not four, and a very different looking number line.

Buildreps wrote:
Another fact is that no one still can fit two different maps of the magnetic isochrons and spreading rates based on the measurable width of rock segments on the seafloor of the Atlantic on top of eachother. While these two should be driven by one and the same force - plate tectonics.

How do you explain that?

I don't. I simply accept the evidence at this point that reversals do happen from time to time on a fairly periodic basis. The length of the period does seem to vary somewhat.
Buildreps wrote:
Science is only successful because it embraced mathematics, but still uses it in an irrational way.

It uses it in quite a rational way. It does tend to limit itself to the Real Domain, however. There are some studies that do recognize the other Domains, but very few. This may be the core of your interpretation of an 'irrational' way. It's also possible that you simply do not understand the principle involved or how the theory underlying the principle came to be. There is no shame in this. The schools have done a horrid job of teaching science, history, or mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-12-2015 13:12
15-12-2015 13:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Buildreps wrote:Who are 'we' by the way? Is it 'we' and 'the others'?

I'm not sure of the full extent of the domain but you can include me in the "we."

Buildreps wrote:Without seeing into the centre of the Earth, you cannot claim with certainty the source of the geomagnetic field.

Interesting assertion. Is Global Warming real?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-12-2015 14:53
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Into the Night wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Thanks for your response Parrot Killer. Interesting name you've chosen for yourself. Why are you parroting what you've been told?
I'm not. The parrots I kill are those that mindlessly echo the religious line without thinking. I kill parrots for entertainment purposes.
Buildreps wrote:
Who are 'we' by the way? Is it 'we' and 'the others'?
Those who embrace western thought. The collective knowledge we have amassed in the Western world.
Buildreps wrote:
Without seeing into the centre of the Earth, you cannot claim with certainty the source of the geomagnetic field.
Even if you did see into the center of the Earth, you wouldn't see how it worked. Magnetic fields have visibility. We can only see their effects.
Buildreps wrote:
Dr. Glatzmaier of the UCSC who is an expert in the field of geodynamo says there are only speculative models that suggest how it could work. Their solution, I quote: "...shows how convection in the fluid outer core is continually trying to reverse the field but that the solid inner core inhibits magnetic reversals because the field in the inner core can only change on the much longer time scale of diffusion. Only once in many attempts is a reversal successful, which is probably the reason why the times between reversals of the Earth's field are long and randomly distributed."
One man's proposed model.
Buildreps wrote:
Hm? Randomly? Where is then the model to make it randomly distributed?
Ask the good doctor. It's his model.
Buildreps wrote:
There is no mathematical model possible for a random distribution.
There actually is, but it involves a fairly new kind of mathematics known as math Domains, specifically the study of the Full Boolean Math Domain. A bit involved to describe here. In brief, it is the study of numeric systems that move beyond the N, or resolution, of the domain.

A die has six sides. Rolling the die will produce one side up depending on the initial spin, where and how the die snags on the surface, the energy of the die, and the type of surface it ricochets upon. It will always produce one of six results (assuming it ends up on a flat surface). This is despite the enormous numbers used to calculate the pending roll result.

In other words, you are contracting into a small resolution (six) from a system using a much larger resolution. This is the definition of a particular kind of random number, known as a randR, or a repeatable random number (the die has no memory).

A deck of cards operates in a similar way during the shuffle, but the random number it produces is known as a randN, or non-repeatable random number (the cards have a memory. Once a card is drawn, it cannot be drawn again).

In both cases, it is theoretically possible to calculate the random number, but practically speaking, there is no computer with anywhere near a large enough N (resolution) value to perform this job. This is also why weather modelling is always accident prone. The best that can be done is a sort of psuedo-simulation of the weather, and only with perfect understanding of all forces acting on that weather (which we don't have). Many people refer to this line of thinking as Chaos Theory, but this changes with the use of Math Domains.
Buildreps wrote:
The term random is another way to say "we do not understand how it works".
It is often looked that way, but with the concept of Math Domains it becomes easier to describe the characteristics of just what a random number actually is.

Unfortunately, almost all schools only teach the Real Math Domain. This is the domain typically used in theories of science, with it's four primitive operations, infinitely thin lines infinitely long, and infinitely small points. It is also incapable of describing the concept of a random number.

The Full Boolean Domain is strange stuff for most folks, for it has five primitive operations, not four, and a very different looking number line.

Buildreps wrote:
Another fact is that no one still can fit two different maps of the magnetic isochrons and spreading rates based on the measurable width of rock segments on the seafloor of the Atlantic on top of eachother. While these two should be driven by one and the same force - plate tectonics.

How do you explain that?

I don't. I simply accept the evidence at this point that reversals do happen from time to time on a fairly periodic basis. The length of the period does seem to vary somewhat.
Buildreps wrote:
Science is only successful because it embraced mathematics, but still uses it in an irrational way.

It uses it in quite a rational way. It does tend to limit itself to the Real Domain, however. There are some studies that do recognize the other Domains, but very few. This may be the core of your interpretation of an 'irrational' way. It's also possible that you simply do not understand the principle involved or how the theory underlying the principle came to be. There is no shame in this. The schools have done a horrid job of teaching science, history, or mathematics.


It's unbelievable Parrot Killer, I can even agree with some of your ideas. It's actually interesting debating with you. That brings me directly to the following - do you believe you've already killed me?

I agree there's immature mathematics that describes alleged random processes. I believe there must exist mathematics to describe anything, because everything is in its core mathematical. Rejecting negative numbers, imaginary numbers, zero and infinity as to be real is therefore irrational, but that's completely off topic by the way.

The thing that worries me though is that people who like to 'kill' for the sake of entertainment are often classified in a certain corner. They are often very smart too.

Thanks you took the effort to respond.
Edited on 15-12-2015 14:55
15-12-2015 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Buildreps wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...

It uses it in quite a rational way. It does tend to limit itself to the Real Domain, however. There are some studies that do recognize the other Domains, but very few. This may be the core of your interpretation of an 'irrational' way. It's also possible that you simply do not understand the principle involved or how the theory underlying the principle came to be. There is no shame in this. The schools have done a horrid job of teaching science, history, or mathematics.


It's unbelievable Parrot Killer, I can even agree with some of your ideas. It's actually interesting debating with you. That brings me directly to the following - do you believe you've already killed me?
At this point I see no parrot here to kill. I see some confusion caused by a lack of education in certain areas, but no more.
Buildreps wrote:
I agree there's immature mathematics that describes alleged random processes. I believe there must exist mathematics to describe anything, because everything is in its core mathematical.
There are some mathematicians that would agree with you! I do not. There is no mathematical system to describe free agency, for example.
Buildreps wrote:
Rejecting negative numbers, imaginary numbers, zero and infinity as to be real is therefore irrational, but that's completely off topic by the way.

Not completely off topic, since mathematics describes the theories that both show global warming can't work, and mathematical techniques are used to produce summaries of data.

The Full Boolean Domain has no imaginary numbers and no negative numbers. It also does not have the concept of infinity. Neither does it have any fractions. It does have a zero however. It forms one end of the number line, which is finite, in that domain.

This Domain is used in all instrumentation including that used to measure weather, make machine parts and the machines from them, represent nature in limited systems, forms the commonly used cryptography we use today for banking and the web, is part of every scale and machine from the slide rule to the computer, and is an important part of random and psuedo-random mathematics. It is the reason why it is possible to say weather (or climate) modelling is incapable of producing anything accurate. Any numbers resulting from such modelling are fabricated data resulting from game theory.


Buildreps wrote:
The thing that worries me though is that people who like to 'kill' for the sake of entertainment are often classified in a certain corner. They are often very smart too.
I am not politically correct. I have no plan to be. It is not worth my time to succumb to the changing winds of it. If this is the certain corner you mention, I have no problem with being classified there.
Buildreps wrote:
Thanks you took the effort to respond.

No problem. I enjoy a good conversation.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-12-2015 21:08
15-12-2015 22:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The Full Boolean Domain has no imaginary numbers and no negative numbers.


Negative numbers are not imaginary.

Basic maths.

Don't talk drivel about stuff you know zero about.

Edited on 15-12-2015 22:16
15-12-2015 22:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The Full Boolean Domain has no imaginary numbers and no negative numbers.


Negative numbers are not imaginary.

Basic maths.

Don't talk drivel about stuff you know zero about.


I would suggest you take your own advice. I am not talking about the Real math Domain (the kind most schools teach).

I also never said negative numbers were or were not imaginary.


The Parrot Killer
16-12-2015 12:46
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Shall we get back on topic? Who believes here on this forum that climate change is caused by man-made CO2 emission?

(I'm probably not the first one who asked this. Sorry for my laziness to check all posts.)
Edited on 16-12-2015 12:57
16-12-2015 12:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Buildreps wrote:
Shall we get back on topic? Who believes here on this forum that climate change is caused by man-made CO2 emission?

Who here on this forum can define "climate change" in a falsifiable way that ties it to "greenhouse effect"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-12-2015 20:10
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Buildreps wrote:
Shall we get back on topic? Who believes here on this forum that climate change is caused by man-made CO2 emission?

(I'm probably not the first one who asked this. Sorry for my laziness to check all posts.)


A better question would be "who believes that CO2 has a suficiently large influence on climate to cause significant problems for humans?"

Economic problems would count. Problems less expensive for any nation than it spends on traffic lights would not.
16-12-2015 23:45
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Shall we get back on topic? Who believes here on this forum that climate change is caused by man-made CO2 emission?

(I'm probably not the first one who asked this. Sorry for my laziness to check all posts.)


A better question would be "who believes that CO2 has a suficiently large influence on climate to cause significant problems for humans?"

Economic problems would count. Problems less expensive for any nation than it spends on traffic lights would not.


I don't agree with your suggestion, Tim. I'm not initially interested in the economic part of the alleged climate warming. Defining the right mechanism is first, then comes the rest.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense to me, by the way.
Edited on 16-12-2015 23:46
17-12-2015 22:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Buildreps wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Shall we get back on topic? Who believes here on this forum that climate change is caused by man-made CO2 emission?

(I'm probably not the first one who asked this. Sorry for my laziness to check all posts.)


A better question would be "who believes that CO2 has a suficiently large influence on climate to cause significant problems for humans?"

Economic problems would count. Problems less expensive for any nation than it spends on traffic lights would not.


I don't agree with your suggestion, Tim. I'm not initially interested in the economic part of the alleged climate warming. Defining the right mechanism is first, then comes the rest.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense to me, by the way.


Then what are you interested in in this GW subject?

What impacts do you think will be big if it ever happens?
17-12-2015 23:17
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
You suggest to involve economics in this discussion, while no one agrees on the cause in the first place. Why should we then complicate things by introducing economics in this debate?

About 99% of the population believes that CO2 cause climate change. A scientist who shouts that climate change isn't caused by CO2 is directly identified as an idiot or a republican. Maybe even both.

How do you want to convince the general public that CO2 is not the driver of climate warming? I think that everyone who's smart understands that climate warming would happen anyway, like it did in history.

By the way: It's here in the Netherlands between 13 to 15 degrees. That's the warmest recorded day ever
18-12-2015 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Buildreps wrote:
You suggest to involve economics in this discussion, while no one agrees on the cause in the first place. Why should we then complicate things by introducing economics in this debate?

Because the solutions to solve the 'problem' affect the economy.
Buildreps wrote:
About 99% of the population believes that CO2 cause climate change. A scientist who shouts that climate change isn't caused by CO2 is directly identified as an idiot or a republican. Maybe even both.
Making up a number. I don't believe it.
A scientist who shouts that climate change isn't caused by CO2 is ostracized, threatened, and ridiculed though.
Buildreps wrote:
How do you want to convince the general public that CO2 is not the driver of climate warming? I think that everyone who's smart understands that climate warming would happen anyway, like it did in history.
Good question.
Buildreps wrote:
By the way: It's here in the Netherlands between 13 to 15 degrees. That's the warmest recorded day ever


Yeah. We had a day like that on Christmas day in 1967 here. Enjoy your nice weather!


The Parrot Killer
18-12-2015 06:12
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Buildreps wrote:
....About 99% of the population believes that CO2 cause climate change..... here in the Netherlands....


That 99% certainly isn't true here in the US. I expect a significant percentage here are completely clueless, wouldn't know what CO2 is, much less know about any association with climate change. Lots of ignorance here.
19-12-2015 13:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Buildreps wrote:
You suggest to involve economics in this discussion, while no one agrees on the cause in the first place. Why should we then complicate things by introducing economics in this debate?

About 99% of the population believes that CO2 cause climate change. A scientist who shouts that climate change isn't caused by CO2 is directly identified as an idiot or a republican. Maybe even both.

How do you want to convince the general public that CO2 is not the driver of climate warming? I think that everyone who's smart understands that climate warming would happen anyway, like it did in history.

By the way: It's here in the Netherlands between 13 to 15 degrees. That's the warmest recorded day ever


I don't care what drives it if the projected results are nothing to care about. Which is why I focus on the impacts not the causes.

The climate in the Neitherlands is warmer than it has been for 300 years at least.

It is not as warm as it was in the medeval warm period or in the even warmer bronze age holocene optimal. Rome invaded Britian to grow vines amongst other things.
21-12-2015 20:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The climate in the Neitherlands is warmer than it has been for 300 years at least.

Has the weather in the Netherlands been warmer than it has been for 300 years at least?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
Oh No! Greenland is Melting, at an alarming rate...1324-08-2019 02:52
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
▲ 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