| World 'nowhere near on track' to avoid warming beyond 1.5C target27-09-2018 20:49 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 28-09-2018 00:11 |
Jeffvw★☆☆☆☆
(84) |
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.
It seems to be like a good thing. All this burning of fossil fuels has led to the greatest prosperity and health humanity has ever seen. The predicted disasters have not materialized. There is no acceleration in sea level rise; storm intensities are not increasing; droughts and floods are not increasing; the planet is greening at a phenomenal rate. What's not to like? |
| 28-09-2018 03:19 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.
Pascal's Wager fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 28-09-2018 04:49 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.
Pascal's Wager fallacy.
...Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with climate change. Once again
you are trying to use philosophy to replace science. |
| 28-09-2018 14:54 |
Gamul1☆☆☆☆☆
(35) |
James___ wrote:
...Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with climate change. Once again
you are trying to use philosophy to replace science.
While it obviously has nothing to do with God, it is a reasonable analogy between climate change believers and climate change deniers.
- God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
- A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
- You must wager (it is not optional).
- Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
- Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
- But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.
Where it says God above, replace it with Climate Change. In that you can see the parallel to the climate change argument and ITNs analogy.
I believe in climate change myself. I just believe there may be more to what is behind it than simply AGW. ITN does not appear to believe in climate change at all and denies all science that not only shows change, but basic scientific facts about how climate works.
For ITN - this whole argument is very much like Pascal's Wager - where everyone is absolutely pushing him to follow the last bullet. |
|
| 28-09-2018 19:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.
Pascal's Wager fallacy.
...Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with climate change. Once again
you are trying to use philosophy to replace science.
False equivalence fallacy. Fixation.
I'm not replacing science with anything. I am showing you an error in your logic. That is not science either.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 28-09-2018 19:59 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.
Nowhere near on track to warm +1c by 2100 so no need to worry. |
| 29-09-2018 05:52 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Gamul1 wrote:
James___ wrote:
...Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with climate change. Once again
you are trying to use philosophy to replace science.
While it obviously has nothing to do with God, it is a reasonable analogy between climate change believers and climate change deniers.
- God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
- A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
- You must wager (it is not optional).
- Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
- Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
- But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.
Where it says God above, replace it with Climate Change. In that you can see the parallel to the climate change argument and ITNs analogy.
I believe in climate change myself. I just believe there may be more to what is behind it than simply AGW. ITN does not appear to believe in climate change at all and denies all science that not only shows change, but basic scientific facts about how climate works.
For ITN - this whole argument is very much like Pascal's Wager - where everyone is absolutely pushing him to follow the last bullet.
..Have to disagree. No one is pushing itn to do anything. After all, he is the one who's doing the pushing. We know climate change happens if we accept that there have been ice ages. We have no physical proof that an ice age ever occurred. We can only infer by the preponderance of evidence.
..And as itn states he can show how illogical the science is which would have us believe there ever was an ice age. That is where he would bring in Pascal's Wager, to say that there was no ice age and therefore there is no God. There is only proof of a God if people accept what evidence is presented to them that they can consider as being credible. And with itn he refutes any logic that would suggest an understanding that he cannot grasp. Ergo, to itn there is no climate change just as there is no God. After all for their to be a God first a "god" would have to be defined. Yet how can we define that which is not just as we cannot define climate change because we cannot define what a climate is. After all, "is" is not a definition of anything because it is undefined which itn claims to be. So would this make itn God ? Only in his own mind.
..With what I think of climate change would be pointless to discuss it in here. And since I know another avenue that I can pursue to make my thoughts known why should I make my life difficult trying to reason with someone who for the most part rejects science ?
Edited on 29-09-2018 06:04 |
| 29-09-2018 20:33 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
James___ wrote:
Gamul1 wrote:
James___ wrote:
...Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with climate change. Once again
you are trying to use philosophy to replace science.
While it obviously has nothing to do with God, it is a reasonable analogy between climate change believers and climate change deniers.
- God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
- A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
- You must wager (it is not optional).
- Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
- Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
- But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.
Where it says God above, replace it with Climate Change. In that you can see the parallel to the climate change argument and ITNs analogy.
I believe in climate change myself. I just believe there may be more to what is behind it than simply AGW. ITN does not appear to believe in climate change at all and denies all science that not only shows change, but basic scientific facts about how climate works.
For ITN - this whole argument is very much like Pascal's Wager - where everyone is absolutely pushing him to follow the last bullet.
..Have to disagree. No one is pushing itn to do anything. After all, he is the one who's doing the pushing. We know climate change happens if we accept that there have been ice ages. We have no physical proof that an ice age ever occurred. We can only infer by the preponderance of evidence.
..And as itn states he can show how illogical the science is which would have us believe there ever was an ice age. That is where he would bring in Pascal's Wager, to say that there was no ice age and therefore there is no God. There is only proof of a God if people accept what evidence is presented to them that they can consider as being credible. And with itn he refutes any logic that would suggest an understanding that he cannot grasp. Ergo, to itn there is no climate change just as there is no God. After all for their to be a God first a "god" would have to be defined. Yet how can we define that which is not just as we cannot define climate change because we cannot define what a climate is. After all, "is" is not a definition of anything because it is undefined which itn claims to be. So would this make itn God ? Only in his own mind.
..With what I think of climate change would be pointless to discuss it in here. And since I know another avenue that I can pursue to make my thoughts known why should I make my life difficult trying to reason with someone who for the most part rejects science ?
Or just ignore ITN. |
| 29-09-2018 20:36 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
...@All,
..Because I accept that scientists are capable of doing such research to understand past climatic events I can also notice that the Earth has significant cooling thousands of years ahead of any noticeable decrease in CO2 levels. I added reference lines to better illustrate this discrepancy.
..What I find interesting is that no one considers the cooling after an inter-glacial period occurs regardless of CO2 levels.
..Besides what was it that Einstein said ? He wanted to understand God's thoughts. This could have been his way of saying that he wanted to understand how the universe which God allows for works.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/kbmqAm9H3GFGbKv57 |
| 29-09-2018 21:30 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Gamul1 wrote:
James___ wrote:
...Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with climate change. Once again
you are trying to use philosophy to replace science.
While it obviously has nothing to do with God, it is a reasonable analogy between climate change believers and climate change deniers.
- God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
- A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
- You must wager (it is not optional).
- Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
- Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
- But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.
Where it says God above, replace it with Climate Change. In that you can see the parallel to the climate change argument and ITNs analogy.
I believe in climate change myself. I just believe there may be more to what is behind it than simply AGW. ITN does not appear to believe in climate change at all and denies all science that not only shows change, but basic scientific facts about how climate works.
For ITN - this whole argument is very much like Pascal's Wager - where everyone is absolutely pushing him to follow the last bullet.
..Have to disagree. No one is pushing itn to do anything. After all, he is the one who's doing the pushing.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is trying to change theories of science. It is YOU that saying there is 'climate change' when you can't even define it!
James___ wrote:
We know climate change happens
Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
if we accept that there have been ice ages.
Irrelevant. Whether one accepts there have been ice ages or not is immaterial. Define 'climate change'.
...deleted irrational portion...
James___ wrote:
..With what I think of climate change would be pointless to discuss it in here.
Indeed. You have not defined 'climate change'. Discussing meaningless buzzwords is rather pointless.
James___ wrote:
And since I know another avenue that I can pursue to make my thoughts known why should I make my life difficult trying to reason with someone who for the most part rejects science ?
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is rejecting science.
Over the course of your posts you have rejected the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Planck's laws, the Chapman cycle, Maxwell's laws, the Theories of Faraday concerning electromagnetism, Newton's theories of angular motion, Einstein's theory of relativity and his theory of special relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Gilbert's law, the theory by Thomas Gold, etc. You have also rejected the branch of statistical mathematics and even of probability mathematics.
It doesn't matter where you go. You are going to have to square with the science you reject, or you are going to get the same arguments coming back at you.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-09-2018 21:33 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..Because I accept that scientists are capable of doing such research to understand past climatic events I can also notice that the Earth has significant cooling thousands of years ahead of any noticeable decrease in CO2 levels. I added reference lines to better illustrate this discrepancy.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
..What I find interesting is that no one considers the cooling after an inter-glacial period occurs regardless of CO2 levels.
...deleted irrelevant portion...
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-09-2018 21:34 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Or just ignore ITN.[/color]
Bulverism fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-09-2018 22:57 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
...The 3 previous posts are an example of an obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Overview
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a common, chronic and long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts (obsessions) and behaviors (compulsions) that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/index.shtml
..itn obviously does not understand that satellites can measure the Earth's temperature which then can be verified by local meteorologists to ensure accuracy.
..When measuring pack ice, it's elevation can also be measured. This in turn would allow a scientist to know how thick the ice pack it is by how far above the surface of the sea it is. This is what can be used to determine how massive an iceberg is by simply knowing how much mass is required for a part of it to be elevated above sea level. And yet I've seen all to often where it's posted in here that we can't know or understand these basic concepts. After all, everyone knows that ice is not as dense as water yet that is a common claim made in this forum, that we can't know that or even to begin to understand it.
..This is for the fun of it. With attempts at stabilizing qubits for quantum computing heat decreases cohesion. This same principle can exist in atmospheric gasses. Scientists can measure the change of a signal transmitted from a satellite. That signal can be verified by real time measurements by thermometers on the Earth's surface so even signal degradation can be used to show heat.
..Yet as itn always says, heat "is". And technically speaking anything above absolute 0 is heat. But then that does not let us differentiate between Boltzmann's Ideal Gas Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant because they both describe a form or type of heat. So what's left to discuss ? Nothing.
Edited on 29-09-2018 23:44 |
| 30-09-2018 22:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
...deleted psychoquackery...
..itn obviously does not understand that satellites can measure the Earth's temperature
They can't. They can only measure light. They are not in contact with the Earth or its atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
which then can be verified by local meteorologists to ensure accuracy.
They can't.
James___ wrote:
..When measuring pack ice, it's elevation can also be measured.
True.
James___ wrote:
This in turn would allow a scientist to know how thick the ice pack it is by how far above the surface of the sea it is.
You don't the sea level. It's not possible to measure global sea level. You have no reference point. I already discussed this. Argument of the stone.
James___ wrote:
This is what can be used to determine how massive an iceberg is by simply knowing how much mass is required for a part of it to be elevated above sea level.
It's good enough for an iceberg. It is not good enough to measure pack ice.
James___ wrote:
And yet I've seen all to often where it's posted in here that we can't know or understand these basic concepts.
Because you can't measure the temperature of the Earth, the global sea level, or the thickness of pack ice (except in a few select locations by using cores).
James___ wrote:
...deleted unrelated material...
...deleted non-English portion...
..Yet as itn always says, heat "is".
Correct. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
And technically speaking anything above absolute 0 is heat.
WRONG. Heat has no temperature.
James___ wrote:
But then that does not let us differentiate between Boltzmann's Ideal Gas Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant because they both describe a form or type of heat.
Neither defines heat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does that. Neither describes heat either. Boltzmann never wrote an ideal gas law. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a constant of proportionality for the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 01-10-2018 19:03 |
noutopia☆☆☆☆☆
(17) |
We are nowhere near stopping at any temperature, we probably won't be here to know. |
| 01-10-2018 19:46 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...deleted psychoquackery...
..itn obviously does not understand that satellites can measure the Earth's temperature
They can't. They can only measure light. They are not in contact with the Earth or its atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
which then can be verified by local meteorologists to ensure accuracy.
They can't.
James___ wrote:
..When measuring pack ice, it's elevation can also be measured.
True.
James___ wrote:
This in turn would allow a scientist to know how thick the ice pack it is by how far above the surface of the sea it is.
You don't the sea level. It's not possible to measure global sea level. You have no reference point. I already discussed this. Argument of the stone.
James___ wrote:
This is what can be used to determine how massive an iceberg is by simply knowing how much mass is required for a part of it to be elevated above sea level.
It's good enough for an iceberg. It is not good enough to measure pack ice.
James___ wrote:
And yet I've seen all to often where it's posted in here that we can't know or understand these basic concepts.
Because you can't measure the temperature of the Earth, the global sea level, or the thickness of pack ice (except in a few select locations by using cores).
James___ wrote:
...deleted unrelated material...
...deleted non-English portion...
..Yet as itn always says, heat "is".
Correct. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
And technically speaking anything above absolute 0 is heat.
WRONG. Heat has no temperature.
James___ wrote:
But then that does not let us differentiate between Boltzmann's Ideal Gas Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant because they both describe a form or type of heat.
Neither defines heat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does that. Neither describes heat either. Boltzmann never wrote an ideal gas law. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a constant of proportionality for the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJacjInTeOM&t=2s |
| 01-10-2018 19:57 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
noutopia wrote:
We are nowhere near stopping at any temperature, we probably won't be here to know.
..Something to consider;
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm |
| 02-10-2018 00:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
noutopia wrote:
We are nowhere near stopping at any temperature, we probably won't be here to know.
Since it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, there is no way to know if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same (stopped).
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-10-2018 00:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
noutopia wrote:
We are nowhere near stopping at any temperature, we probably won't be here to know.
..Something to consider;
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-10-2018 12:27 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity. |
| 05-10-2018 18:57 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
AK_User wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity.
Bingo. However, this is not so much about controlling the planet, it's about controlling you.
Same arrogance.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 05-10-2018 18:58 |
| 05-10-2018 19:56 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
AK_User wrote:
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity.
We don't control it, we affect it like pissing in drinking water. Its not hard to understand Why do everything in your power to make the future a JG Ballard hellscape?
In Anglo Saxon they say its being a cunt.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 05-10-2018 20:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity.
We don't control it, we affect it like pissing in drinking water. Its not hard to understand Why do everything in your power to make the future a JG Ballard hellscape?
In Anglo Saxon they say its being a cunt.
Welcome to your new paradox.
Which is it, dude?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-10-2018 07:32 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
spot wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity.
We don't control it, we affect it like pissing in drinking water. Its not hard to understand Why do everything in your power to make the future a JG Ballard hellscape?
In Anglo Saxon they say its being a cunt.
Humans can have an effect on some things, but planetary surface temperatures is not among them. The pollution China spews never makes it as far as the US because it never leaves the troposphere. All pollution is washed out of the troposphere within just a few weeks. The only way to have any effect on the planet's temperature is to effect the stratosphere, and only the most powerful of volcanoes, or a very large meteorite strike is capable of doing that. It is pure hubris to think humans could have any impact on planetary surface temperatures. |
| 06-10-2018 07:59 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
AK_User wrote:
spot wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity.
We don't control it, we affect it like pissing in drinking water. Its not hard to understand Why do everything in your power to make the future a JG Ballard hellscape?
In Anglo Saxon they say its being a cunt.
Humans can have an effect on some things, but planetary surface temperatures is not among them.
Agreed.
AK_User wrote:
The pollution China spews never makes it as far as the US because it never leaves the troposphere.
Actually, a bit of it does. The US is part of the troposphere too. The troposphere is capable of carrying particulate pollution from China all the way to the US. It's not enough to cloud the skies like they do in China of course, but it IS detectable.
AK_User wrote:
All pollution is washed out of the troposphere within just a few weeks. Depends on where you are. Some places do not see rain for many weeks or even months. A fair amount of China is desert and is very dry. It's not where the crappy coal plants they use are located though.
AK_User wrote:
The only way to have any effect on the planet's temperature is to effect the stratosphere, and only the most powerful of volcanoes, or a very large meteorite strike is capable of doing that.
True. The aircraft we routinely fly in the tropopause or slightly into the stratosphere are not enough to have any significant effect.
AK_User wrote:
It is pure hubris to think humans could have any impact on planetary surface temperatures.
True.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-10-2018 13:51 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
AK_User wrote:
spot wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity.
We don't control it, we affect it like pissing in drinking water. Its not hard to understand Why do everything in your power to make the future a JG Ballard hellscape?
In Anglo Saxon they say its being a cunt.
Humans can have an effect on some things, but planetary surface temperatures is not among them. The pollution China spews never makes it as far as the US because it never leaves the troposphere. All pollution is washed out of the troposphere within just a few weeks. The only way to have any effect on the planet's temperature is to effect the stratosphere, and only the most powerful of volcanoes, or a very large meteorite strike is capable of doing that. It is pure hubris to think humans could have any impact on planetary surface temperatures.
Such things as urbanisation or changes in land use can have dramatic effects on temperature.
These are generally local in our western societies but the changes caused by the drying out of the Arel sea or the desertification of North Africa after the Islamic invasion, a process which is continuing, do cause very clear changes in temperature.
If CO2 is any significant driver of temperature is debatable. I don't know enough to argue either way.
I go with the IPCC's numbers because they simply do not scare me at all. I think a slightly warmer and wetter world will be a good thing. |
| 06-10-2018 15:01 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17934174/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report-1-5-degrees
According to the drafts, the report finds that it would take a massive global effort, far more aggressive than any we've seen to date, to keep warming in line with 1.5°C — in part because we are already en route to 3°C of warming. And even if we hit the 1.5°C goal, the planet will still face massive, devastating changes. So it's pretty grim.
Anyway out in the real world this is what is happening |
| 06-10-2018 18:59 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17934174/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report-1-5-degrees
According to the drafts, the report finds that it would take a massive global effort, far more aggressive than any we've seen to date, to keep warming in line with 1.5°C — in part because we are already en route to 3°C of warming. And even if we hit the 1.5°C goal, the planet will still face massive, devastating changes. So it's pretty grim.
Anyway out in the real world this is what is happening
What exactly do you see as the single worst problem from a +3c warming?
Can you then cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights which woul need to spend more than it's traffic light budget to sort?
If you can you will have suceeded where nobody else has. |
| 06-10-2018 20:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
AK_User wrote:
spot wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity.
We don't control it, we affect it like pissing in drinking water. Its not hard to understand Why do everything in your power to make the future a JG Ballard hellscape?
In Anglo Saxon they say its being a cunt.
Humans can have an effect on some things, but planetary surface temperatures is not among them. The pollution China spews never makes it as far as the US because it never leaves the troposphere. All pollution is washed out of the troposphere within just a few weeks. The only way to have any effect on the planet's temperature is to effect the stratosphere, and only the most powerful of volcanoes, or a very large meteorite strike is capable of doing that. It is pure hubris to think humans could have any impact on planetary surface temperatures.
Such things as urbanisation or changes in land use can have dramatic effects on temperature.
These are generally local in our western societies but the changes caused by the drying out of the Arel sea or the desertification of North Africa after the Islamic invasion, a process which is continuing, do cause very clear changes in temperature.
If CO2 is any significant driver of temperature is debatable. I don't know enough to argue either way.
I go with the IPCC's numbers because they simply do not scare me at all. I think a slightly warmer and wetter world will be a good thing.
While the Aral sea disaster certainly exists, it is not causing temperatures to change. The water is still there. It's been diverted.
Islam does not cause deserts to form.
CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.
You are correct that a warmer and wetter environment is generally a good thing.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 06-10-2018 20:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17934174/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report-1-5-degrees
According to the drafts, the report finds that it would take a massive global effort, far more aggressive than any we've seen to date, to keep warming in line with 1.5°C — in part because we are already en route to 3°C of warming. And even if we hit the 1.5°C goal, the planet will still face massive, devastating changes. So it's pretty grim.
Anyway out in the real world this is what is happening
Not the real world. A fake one built by IPCC models. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-10-2018 03:53 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
spot wrote:
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17934174/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report-1-5-degrees
According to the drafts, the report finds that it would take a massive global effort, far more aggressive than any we've seen to date, to keep warming in line with 1.5°C — in part because we are already en route to 3°C of warming. And even if we hit the 1.5°C goal, the planet will still face massive, devastating changes. So it's pretty grim.
Anyway out in the real world this is what is happening
...The Little Ice Age is now believed to have been focused around Greenland/Iceland. Even an ice age seems to be centered around the north of Greenland. This is where glacial melt in that area might be a good indicator of further warming. Of course this also affects tectonic plate rebound. |
| 07-10-2018 14:20 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
What exactly do you see as the single worst problem from a +3c warming?
Can you then cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights which woul need to spend more than it's traffic light budget to sort?
If you can you will have suceeded where nobody else has.
Tim
I recommend you read Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet if you are really interested on the effects it will have. I have a copy so all I could do is quote it at you. When there were ice sheats covering where I am sitting now the difference was 6 degrees so its safe to say a 3 degree change would have a profound effect.
My brother is a civil engineer and he finds your traffic light claim comical.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 07-10-2018 14:21 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
Not the real world. A fake one built by IPCC models. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
no
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 07-10-2018 18:31 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
What exactly do you see as the single worst problem from a +3c warming?
Can you then cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights which woul need to spend more than it's traffic light budget to sort?
If you can you will have suceeded where nobody else has.
Tim
I recommend you read Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet if you are really interested on the effects it will have. I have a copy so all I could do is quote it at you. When there were ice sheats covering where I am sitting now the difference was 6 degrees so its safe to say a 3 degree change would have a profound effect.
My brother is a civil engineer and he finds your traffic light claim comical.
Spot.
I will not read any sort of bilge you wish to use as a diversion away from the fact that you are utterly unable to show any place that will actually have any sort of significant trouble.
Edited on 07-10-2018 18:38 |
| 07-10-2018 19:38 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
What exactly do you see as the single worst problem from a +3c warming?
Can you then cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights which woul need to spend more than it's traffic light budget to sort?
If you can you will have suceeded where nobody else has.
Tim
I recommend you read Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet if you are really interested on the effects it will have. I have a copy so all I could do is quote it at you. When there were ice sheats covering where I am sitting now the difference was 6 degrees so its safe to say a 3 degree change would have a profound effect.
My brother is a civil engineer and he finds your traffic light claim comical.
Spot.
I will not read any sort of bilge you wish to use as a diversion away from the fact that you are utterly unable to show any place that will actually have any sort of significant trouble.
You say nobody can tell you what the bad effects will be I point out a book that I have read that covers that subject, I am starting to think you aren't really interested, but then again a loony that thinks that algea blooms are great probably can't be reasoned with.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 07-10-2018 20:12 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
What exactly do you see as the single worst problem from a +3c warming?
Can you then cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights which woul need to spend more than it's traffic light budget to sort?
If you can you will have suceeded where nobody else has.
Tim
I recommend you read Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet if you are really interested on the effects it will have. I have a copy so all I could do is quote it at you. When there were ice sheats covering where I am sitting now the difference was 6 degrees so its safe to say a 3 degree change would have a profound effect.
My brother is a civil engineer and he finds your traffic light claim comical.
Spot.
I will not read any sort of bilge you wish to use as a diversion away from the fact that you are utterly unable to show any place that will actually have any sort of significant trouble.
You say nobody can tell you what the bad effects will be I point out a book that I have read that covers that subject, I am starting to think you aren't really interested, but then again a loony that thinks that algea blooms are great probably can't be reasoned with.
And I am of the definate opinion that you know that there simply is no real trouble from a slightly warmer world.
If you had anything to say, any sort of actual problem, you would have taken the opportunity to spread the word. |
| 07-10-2018 23:23 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
And I am of the definate opinion that you know that there simply is no real trouble from a slightly warmer world.
If you had anything to say, any sort of actual problem, you would have taken the opportunity to spread the word.[/color]
Well one thing I am qualified to make a statement on is on what I know. I am not as sure of what I know about what the future as you seem to be.
I do know that you are an idiot however
As for spreading the word I think that anyone who has found themselves here has already made up their mind.
Most members seem to be life hating anti-enviroment trolls.
I'm here because I'm board not to make friends.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 08-10-2018 06:26 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
AK_User wrote:
spot wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Wow. That takes a great deal of arrogance to think that humans could have any kind of control over the mean surface temperature of the planet. In Yiddish they call it Chutzpah. I call it pretentious audacity, not to mention a great deal of stupidity.
We don't control it, we affect it like pissing in drinking water. Its not hard to understand Why do everything in your power to make the future a JG Ballard hellscape?
In Anglo Saxon they say its being a cunt.
Humans can have an effect on some things, but planetary surface temperatures is not among them. The pollution China spews never makes it as far as the US because it never leaves the troposphere. All pollution is washed out of the troposphere within just a few weeks. The only way to have any effect on the planet's temperature is to effect the stratosphere, and only the most powerful of volcanoes, or a very large meteorite strike is capable of doing that. It is pure hubris to think humans could have any impact on planetary surface temperatures.
Such things as urbanisation or changes in land use can have dramatic effects on temperature.
These are generally local in our western societies but the changes caused by the drying out of the Arel sea or the desertification of North Africa after the Islamic invasion, a process which is continuing, do cause very clear changes in temperature.
If CO2 is any significant driver of temperature is debatable. I don't know enough to argue either way.
I go with the IPCC's numbers because they simply do not scare me at all. I think a slightly warmer and wetter world will be a good thing.
You are absolutely right, temperature changes as a result of urbanization are indeed local.
The desertification of northern Africa is the result of the change in our axial tilt over the last 9,000 years. We have gone from 24.15° to 23.45°, changing our closest approach to the sun from July to early January today. This had an effect on our seasons.
We've had ice-ages when atmospheric CO2 were ten times higher than they are today, and we had the hottest temperatures yet recorded when atmospheric CO2 temperatures were below current levels. There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures.
Ideally, atmospheric CO2 levels should be somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 ppm for the overwhelming majority of plants to thrive. At our current level of 407 ppm plants are on a starvation diet.
Your first clue about the IPCC is their name. This is an "Intergovernmental" body, meaning it is a political organization, not a scientific organization. They claim to republish what other scientists have published, but many of the scientists who the IPCC quotes have called them out for misrepresenting their data. Including NASA.
Don't put any stock in the IPCC. Use the bibliography that the IPCC publishes and go read those papers yourself. Do not trust a political organization who is noted for pushing a particular ideology.
Edited on 08-10-2018 06:29 |
| 08-10-2018 11:06 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
AK_User wrote:
The desertification of northern Africa is the result of the change in our axial tilt over the last 9,000 years. We have gone from 24.15° to 23.45°, changing our closest approach to the sun from July to early January today. This had an effect on our seasons.
...That makes no sense. What does make sense is if you consider wind patterns. The wind that blows across the Sahara comes from where? Looking at ancient weather conditions didn't give you the answer, did it? |