Death knell for AGW

Death knell for AGW

#juan

#61

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream

It's an old trick of the Global Science con job.. they find isolated example their hypothesis and ignore everything else. Why don't they show the advancing ice shelves in Antarctica.. Because they are involved in a massive criminal fraud.. that's why.

There is no possible argument against the fact that the planet Earth is warming up. Glaciers are retreating in both the northern and southern hemispheres. I know our Arctic from having worked there. I know that the changes in that part of the world are dramatic. Ask any Alaskan.

http://tinyurl.com/qa3pm

Scott Free

#62

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

There is no possible argument against the fact that the planet Earth is warming up. Glaciers are retreating in both the northern and southern hemispheres. I know our Arctic from having worked there. I know that the changes in that part of the world are dramatic. Ask any Alaskan.

http://tinyurl.com/qa3pm

I think we're going to have to learn how to live with it since we don't have any idea what is causing GW. Likewise there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are subject to natures cycles, she is not subject to us; this is even more true now since this cycle seems to be solar system wide.

Perhaps reducing carbon would help for now but there is no reason to think such a policy will help in the future or assist the other planets going through the same thing.

I think we're better off trying to assist people who are in trouble because of climate change instead of creating a new economic bubble to line the global elites pockets with even more cash. I don't think channeling inflation into GW technology will work any better than it did to channel it into housing. Eventually people will catch on.

What we need, more than anything else, is a sustainable global economic model. That really might save our environment and the planet.

#juan

#63

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I think we're going to have to learn how to live with it since we don't have any idea what is causing GW. Likewise there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are subject to natures cycles, she is not subject to us; this is even more true now since this cycle seems to be solar system wide.

Perhaps reducing carbon would help for now but there is no reason to think such a policy will help in the future or assist the other planets going through the same thing.

I think we're better off trying to assist people who are in trouble because of climate change instead of creating a new economic bubble to line the global elites pockets with even more cash. I don't think channeling inflation into GW technology will work any better than it did to channel it into housing. Eventually people will catch on.

What we need, more than anything else, is a sustainable global economic model. That really might save our environment and the planet.

Don't you think it is a bit naive to think that we can dump ten billion tons of CO2 into our atmosphere without ant effect?

BTW, Whatever is going on on Mars or Jupiter, are unlikely to be related to anything we experience here.

Scott Free

#64

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Don't you think it is a bit naive to think that we can dump ten billion tons of CO2 into our atmosphere without ant effect?

I didn't say that. What I said is that we don't know that removing it would do anything about GW because we don't know what is causing GW.

So my original argument was that it makes no sense, in times of economic hardship and corporate migration east, to further straddle our economies with the burden of reducing emissions when the east isn't even slightly interested in doing the same. There is no proof that our doing such a thing is going to keep change from happening because, clearly, we are not the cause of the change in the first place.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

BTW, Whatever is going on on Mars or Jupiter, are unlikely to be related to anything we experience here.

I disagree, it has everything to do with what is happening here. The odds of three planets all simultaneously heating up in the same decade for different and unrelated reasons is so vastly remote that it can not be a coincidence. It is simply so improbable that it can not happen. There is and must be a common reason for the increase in temperature.

#juan

#65

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Jupiter, Mars, and Earth all have vastly different atmospheres. Jupiter has always given off more heat than it gets from the sun. Jupiter's storms are not powered by the sun but by the giant planet's own hot core.

The atmosphere on Mars is only a hundredth as dense as that of Earth and Martian dust has as much to do with temperature change on that planet as it's thin atmosphere. Mars would be quite a bit warmer if we somehow pumped that ten billion tons of CO2 into that atmosphere instead of our own.

Scott Free

#66

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Jupiter, Mars, and Earth all have vastly different atmospheres. Jupiter has always given off more heat than it gets from the sun. Jupiter's storms are not powered by the sun but by the giant planet's own hot core.

The atmosphere on Mars is only a hundredth as dense as that of Earth and Martian dust has as much to do with temperature change on that planet as it's thin atmosphere. Mars would be quite a bit warmer if we somehow pumped that ten billion tons of CO2 into that atmosphere instead of our own.

So what could be causing all these planets to warm up? All your arguing is that the completely improbable is probable, therefore your probably wrong. Smart money would bet against you.

I tend to think that maybe there are forces at work or extra planetary environmental factors at work that we don't know about. Is the sun warmer; are we closer; is there another factor?

But to say planetary bodies in our solar system are warming up and it has nothing to do with the sun, that every occurrence of warming (including moons) is due to localized conditions and has nothing at all to do with common conditions, is a logical fallacy and in gross error; just like saying curbing green house gas emissions will stop GW is a logical fallacy and a gross error. It may help slow it down (I will agree with that) but it will not stop it because it isn't the cause, therefore it hasn't the ability to stop it.

#juan

#67

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

So what could be causing all these planets to warm up? All your arguing is that the completely improbable is probable, therefore your probably wrong. Smart money would bet against you.

I tend to think that maybe there are forces at work or extra planetary environmental factors at work that we don't know about. Is the sun warmer; are we closer; is there another factor?

But to say planetary bodies in our solar system are warming up and it has nothing to do with the sun, that every occurrence of warming (including moons) is due to localized conditions and has nothing at all to do with common conditions, is a logical fallacy and in gross error; just like saying curbing green house gas emissions will stop GW is a logical fallacy and a gross error. It may help slow it down (I will agree with that) but it will not stop it because it isn't the cause, therefore it hasn't the ability to stop it.

If the surface of Jupiter were heating up, it would be heating up because of it's own internal heat. Jupiter is actually cooling off, and will be cooling off for a few billion years yet.

Mars is not heating up by the same mechanisms as those heating the Earth. The three situations are not in any way the same.

L Gilbert

#68

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Watched a documentary about the sun the other day and they were saying that they are just starting to look into with wavelengths of radiation coming from it may have a warming effect on our rock. Sounded to me that the sun has more to do with warming us than we'd thought before.
Anyway, if the average temp of Earth hasn't risen since '98 why have the glaciers, permafrost, polar caps kept thawing at an increasing rate. Ocean temps have gotten higher since '98.
Besides that, anyone that listens to politicians and/or the newsmedia for scientific information is off their nut.

Tonington

#69

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 10th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

That is your argument not mine. Mars, Jupiter, Earth and some moons have been observed to be warming up. There must be a commonality between them that can account for this. Carbon emissions from pollution is not common to all the planets, therefore, it can not be the reason.

Umm, yes, it is your argument turned around. Do you not remember saying this:

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I am not so stupid that I think we are the reason. If you can explain how my carbon emissions are causing global warming on Mars and Jupiter then I will concede you have a point.

So, greenhouse gases are not a common rising factor to all planets, so it can't be the reason that other planets are warming.

Can you not see the connection? You say the anthropogenic greenhouse effect isn't common to all planets, well neither is the cause on Jupiter, or Mars similar to any of the other two situations.

You're trying to make some claim that it's natural, but all three conditions are different, so how can it be the same cause? The obvious answer, the one that satisfies Occam's is that they aren't the same.

Further, none of the "skeptic" arguments are producing testable hypothesis, except those that they cling to: sun, the one common factor that suspiciously can't explain the wide varied circumstances of these warming planets.

If you can explain to me, how the sun warms the troposphere, and cools the stratosphere, well then you might have something to start with. If you can explain to me how the sun is heating the Earth at a faster rate during the night hours than it is during the daytime hours, well you're now getting close to earning a Nobel prize in Physics. In any event, 'skeptics' have no such arguments, no such mechanisms except 'unknown physical phenomena' that must exist. The only problem is that we already have known mechanisms that explain these things. And if you do find the the 'unknown physical phenomena', it will have to explain this, but also cancel out the effect of rising greenhouse gases.

There must not be any commonality. If all planets, moons, and other satellites were warming, well then you'd have a plausible reason for saying such things. To suggest something like that when not all are warming is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur.

Scott Free

#70

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 11th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

So, greenhouse gases are not a common rising factor to all planets, so it can't be the reason that other planets are warming.

Seriously...? It doesn't matter what the hell the planets have or don't have in common except they are warming. Who gives a sh!t if they have carbon in their atmosphere or not? Your totally missing the point.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Can you not see the connection? You say the anthropogenic greenhouse effect isn't common to all planets, well neither is the cause on Jupiter, or Mars similar to any of the other two situations.

You've got to be kidding me!?! SO WHAT!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You're trying to make some claim that it's natural, but all three conditions are different, so how can it be the same cause? The obvious answer, the one that satisfies Occam's is that they aren't the same.

Really... wow. All three conditions are the same - they are warming... holy hell...

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Further, none of the "skeptic" arguments are producing testable hypothesis, except those that they cling to: sun, the one common factor that suspiciously can't explain the wide varied circumstances of these warming planets.

So what are you suggesting? That we cling to one that is completely improbable and obviously wrong?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

If you can explain to me, how the sun warms the troposphere, and cools the stratosphere, well then you might have something to start with. If you can explain to me how the sun is heating the Earth at a faster rate during the night hours than it is during the daytime hours, well you're now getting close to earning a Nobel prize in Physics. In any event, 'skeptics' have no such arguments, no such mechanisms except 'unknown physical phenomena' that must exist. The only problem is that we already have known mechanisms that explain these things. And if you do find the the 'unknown physical phenomena', it will have to explain this, but also cancel out the effect of rising greenhouse gases.

We have mechanisms that explain how heat can be trapped we don't have mechanisms that explain where all the heat is coming from - all the heat warming the solar system not just earth.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

There must not be any commonality. If all planets, moons, and other satellites were warming, well then you'd have a plausible reason for saying such things. To suggest something like that when not all are warming is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur.

We don't know if all of them are heating up or not; we only know some of them are which means it is probable that they all are.

Your throwing the baby out with the bath water. What your saying is that if you stick your hand in this fire you'll get burned but that doesn't mean the other fire over there will burn you...

Scott Free

#71

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 11th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

If the surface of Jupiter were heating up, it would be heating up because of it's own internal heat. Jupiter is actually cooling off, and will be cooling off for a few billion years yet.

Then you had better inform the scientific community. You seem to be more expert then them.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Mars is not heating up by the same mechanisms as those heating the Earth. The three situations are not in any way the same.

Really? And you know this how? Do you have any idea how improbable it is that all these moons and planetary bodies would start spontaneously warming on their own and all in the same decade for different reasons? Roughly 64 trillion to 1 by my estimate.

Last edited by Scott Free; Jun 11th, 2008 at 04:37 AM..

#juan

#72

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 11th, 2008

Jupiter is a gas giant which retains a very hot core. Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives from the sun

http://tinyurl.com/4m77cx

All these moons and planetary bodies are not warming up. Do some reading. You are arguing from complete ignorance.

Tonington

#73

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 11th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

Seriously...? It doesn't matter what the hell the planets have or don't have in common except they are warming. Who gives a sh!t if they have carbon in their atmosphere or not? Your totally missing the point.

No. The point as Zzarchov and others have said is that on these different planets, the causal relationship with their respective climate change is different. Three different causes on Earth, Mars and Jupiter. The same effect. There is more than one way to warm a planet.

Quote:

You've got to be kidding me!?! SO WHAT!!!

I'm not kidding.

Quote:

Really... wow. All three conditions are the same - they are warming... holy hell...

All three conditions aren't the same. That's the whole point that you seem to be missing. Recently many people have died from natural disasters in both Burma and China. Are both of those conditions the same?

Quote:

So what are you suggesting? That we cling to one that is completely improbable and obviously wrong?

I'm suggesting that you don't have a single causal mechanism that explains the effects on Earth, Mars, and Jupiter. There is nothing improbable about what is happening here, except that some people can't seem to accept the obvious...You yourself know that greenhouse gases warm planets, you mentioned Venus...

Quote:

We have mechanisms that explain how heat can be trapped we don't have mechanisms that explain where all the heat is coming from - all the heat warming the solar system not just earth.

We know where the heat is coming from, it's coming from the sun.

This is similar to what Praxius said above, so let's consider how this works. Assuming that there is no rise in greenhouse gases, the Earth would absorb a certain fraction of the incoming radiation from the sun. The radiation that we receive from the sun is a function of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, of the intensity of the sun, and other things like albedo, just to name a few. So let's look at a graph of the Sun's radiation, at this pdf.

That's the natural ebb and flow of the radiation that we have measured for the last thirty or so years from satellite measurements. Note that it is a pseudo-cyclical phenomena. A histogram of past solar cycles shows the random nature of cycle lengths.

So, if there were no increasing greenhouse gases, no changes in land-use, we should expect the temperature of the Earth to fluctuate somewhat with this cycle. Indeed the Earth does fluctuate with this cycle. It's a part of the natural variation in Earth's climate.

The problem is, that this cycle doesn't explain why the Earth is retaining more radiation now than it was in past cycles. Increasing greenhouse gases and land use changes can explain this, they have explained this.

So, of course the source of heat is the sun, nobody with half a brain would claim otherwise. That's how a greenhouse gas works. It traps heat and prevents it from bouncing back into space. Without our increasing greenhouse gases, that heat wouldn't be trapped, and we wouldn't have a warming climate.

Quote:

We don't know if all of them are heating up or not; we only know some of them are which means it is probable that they all are.

No, it doesn't. That's the same logical fallacy you keep repeating. If the cause were the same on the three planets this discussion is dealing with, then you could make that assumption.

Quote:

Your throwing the baby out with the bath water. What your saying is that if you stick your hand in this fire you'll get burned but that doesn't mean the other fire over there will burn you...

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is:
1. Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are warming.
2. They all have different mechanisms that produced the warming climate.
3. You're trying to call it one natural cause, which ignores the second point.
4. This 'natural' cause(whatever it is you think is behind this, I suspect the sun) doesn't explain our planets circumstances.
5. Greenhouse gases, and radiative physics have explained it.

Further to point 5, they have actually made successful predictions about things which should happen. Your 'natural' cause, and the army of 'skeptics' have produced no explanation that encompasses more than just the temperature record(which they fail at anyways), nor have they made any predictions which have come true.

Walter

#74

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 11th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

All these moons and planetary bodies are not warming up. Do some reading. You are arguing from complete ignorance.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for --

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Scott Free

#75

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 11th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

No. The point as Zzarchov and others have said is that on these different planets, the causal relationship with their respective climate change is different. Three different causes on Earth, Mars and Jupiter. The same effect. There is more than one way to warm a planet.

I'm not kidding.

All three conditions aren't the same. That's the whole point that you seem to be missing. Recently many people have died from natural disasters in both Burma and China. Are both of those conditions the same?

I'm suggesting that you don't have a single causal mechanism that explains the effects on Earth, Mars, and Jupiter. There is nothing improbable about what is happening here, except that some people can't seem to accept the obvious...You yourself know that greenhouse gases warm planets, you mentioned Venus...

We know where the heat is coming from, it's coming from the sun.

This is similar to what Praxius said above, so let's consider how this works. Assuming that there is no rise in greenhouse gases, the Earth would absorb a certain fraction of the incoming radiation from the sun. The radiation that we receive from the sun is a function of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, of the intensity of the sun, and other things like albedo, just to name a few. So let's look at a graph of the Sun's radiation, at this pdf.

That's the natural ebb and flow of the radiation that we have measured for the last thirty or so years from satellite measurements. Note that it is a pseudo-cyclical phenomena. A histogram of past solar cycles shows the random nature of cycle lengths.

So, if there were no increasing greenhouse gases, no changes in land-use, we should expect the temperature of the Earth to fluctuate somewhat with this cycle. Indeed the Earth does fluctuate with this cycle. It's a part of the natural variation in Earth's climate.

The problem is, that this cycle doesn't explain why the Earth is retaining more radiation now than it was in past cycles. Increasing greenhouse gases and land use changes can explain this, they have explained this.

So, of course the source of heat is the sun, nobody with half a brain would claim otherwise. That's how a greenhouse gas works. It traps heat and prevents it from bouncing back into space. Without our increasing greenhouse gases, that heat wouldn't be trapped, and we wouldn't have a warming climate.

No, it doesn't. That's the same logical fallacy you keep repeating. If the cause were the same on the three planets this discussion is dealing with, then you could make that assumption.

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is:
1. Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are warming.
2. They all have different mechanisms that produced the warming climate.
3. You're trying to call it one natural cause, which ignores the second point.
4. This 'natural' cause(whatever it is you think is behind this, I suspect the sun) doesn't explain our planets circumstances.
5. Greenhouse gases, and radiative physics have explained it.

Further to point 5, they have actually made successful predictions about things which should happen. Your 'natural' cause, and the army of 'skeptics' have produced no explanation that encompasses more than just the temperature record(which they fail at anyways), nor have they made any predictions which have come true.

I don't know how to explain my position any more clearly. To me it seems obvious but apparently it isn't so to you. I think we should just agree, in a civilized manner, to disagree. The future will show the truth of our arguments. I would have thought the 15 year hiatus from GW being predicted now by scientists confirmed my suspicions. I expect when my daughter is my age this debate will still be raging.

Anyway, I'm not some kind of enemy of the earth. If someday there is a clear and concise argument with proper evidence maybe I'll join you on that band wagon. So far I haven't read or seen such an argument. The popular opinion of a crowd is not enough to convince me. I do appreciate your efforts, though however, I think your in error but I realize I could be too - time will tell.

Zzarchov

#76

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 11th, 2008

Thats what Tonnington is saying.

He has read your point, see's what you are saying, pointed out a glaring error and shown you the actual reasons for global warming that are not hype.

Far beyond the Al Gores and TV Pundits and Government and Lobby group mouth pieces, on both sides,

Exist real scientists, with actual facts and reasons you can follow if your actually willing to spend the time to FULLY understand them before rambling off catch phrases like gospel (or heresy)

Tonington

#77

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 11th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I don't know how to explain my position any more clearly. To me it seems obvious but apparently it isn't so to you. I think we should just agree, in a civilized manner, to disagree. The future will show the truth of our arguments. I would have thought the 15 year hiatus from GW being predicted now by scientists confirmed my suspicions. I expect when my daughter is my age this debate will still be raging.

See, it's things like that which trouble me. One study comes out, which is essentially a confirmation of bias when people begin to brandy it about without even beginning to understand what the study says, or what the study did. If you want to see some of my problems with it, you can go to the "U.S. Senate votes to begin global warming debate" thread that Praxius started. I'll reprint one of the main problems I have with it:

Quote:

That model as far as I know does not take it into account, rather it focuses on the Meridional Overturning Circulation in the Atlantic, which is included in global models. But their approach is flawed from the start, though an interesting approach. They use the seas surface temperatures to estimate the MOC, a warm Atlantic means a strong MOC, and a cool Atlantic means a weak MOC*. Here's where they run into problems. If your model has an Atlantic that is too cold, that means the MOC is too weak. So you can nudge temperatures in the model to better 'approximate the MOC conditions. But doing this(heating water) makes it more buoyant, which in turn weakens the MOC, the opposite of what you want your model to do. It's not realistic to use only the sea surface temperatures to approximate the MOC, because you won't get it right. It's no wonder their hindcast couldn't even get the past conditions right. But that didn't stop all the 'skeptics' from saying AHAH! Told you!

* This is their approach, but the overturning of water is more than just dependent on the temperature. That should be a big clue when their method for estimating and adjusting fails.

Quote:

Anyway, I'm not some kind of enemy of the earth.

I know that. I doubt anybody who thinks as you do are. There's a number of reasons why I think people are looking the other way. I think it's mostly the solution they don't like, not the actual science, though they have tried to argue against it. If you're of a particularly libertarian bent, then you probably don't like the idea of government involvement in changing our behaviours.

That's what truly disappointing. The standard conservative approach to even solving the problem ( a rarity in that population segment) is to let the market sort it out. But the market has for all time now externalized costs whenever the government allows them to. How do you think it's suddenly going to shift around to more expensive business practices? ie. polluters pay.

How are the industry giants going to capitalize further on their infrastructure if we de-carbonize the economy? In a court of law, that would be called motive. Scientists aren't asking for more research dollars, they're asking governments to spend more on efficiency, on renewable energy, of which they have no stake. What are the industry people asking for? Subsidies to clean up their product, delayed action on clean air regulations, and delayed action on mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy(to name a few,) which benefits you and I (cleaner air, and cheaper costs of commuting.)

Trust who you will...

Scott Free

#78

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 12th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

There's a number of reasons why I think people are looking the other way. I think it's mostly the solution they don't like, not the actual science, though they have tried to argue against it. If you're of a particularly libertarian bent, then you probably don't like the idea of government involvement in changing our behaviours.

You see. That's where we differ. I know the science is bogus. I have tried to explain this but you seem to want to think you can save the world in the face of obvious fact. While you suspect I'm some kind of libertarian I suspect your some sort of guilt ridden liberal who needs to message his ego by thinking he can make a difference. Stark reality and in particular that of our own existence is a difficult pill to swallow.

Science like anything else man made is prone to mistakes but they are made so much worse if people believe in science like a new religion.

The vast majority of people will always believe what they want to believe. It is our failing as a species; 1 part ape and one part lemming.

Walter

#79

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 12th, 2008

Tonington

#80

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 12th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

You see. That's where we differ. I know the science is bogus.

Why don't you tell me what's bogus then, oh soothsayer.

You repeat the talking points well enough, though that doesn't mean you actually know anything. What papers have you read?

Quote:

I have tried to explain this but you seem to want to think you can save the world in the face of obvious fact.

I'm not trying to save the world, I just have a urge to reply when I read the same tripe printed over and over again without any apparent thought.

Quote:

While you suspect I'm some kind of libertarian I suspect your some sort of guilt ridden liberal who needs to message his ego by thinking he can make a difference.

Hahah, I'm not guilty about anything, and as far as politics go, I'm in the middle.

Quote:

Science like anything else man made is prone to mistakes but they are made so much worse if people believe in science like a new religion.

Of course it is. I just don't think you've actually read what the science says. You've probably read some newspaper articles, maybe some online blogs, but I doubt you've gone to primary documents. Yet you're still convinced, still worshiping at the alter of ignorance, as is blatantly apparent when you say things like: three planets all warming, therefore they must be driven by the same force. Elementary school kids can even point out that flaw.

#juan

#81

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 12th, 2008

Quote:

quoting Scott Free: You see. That's where we differ. I know the science is bogus.

That is complete nonsense. If you knew anything about science, you wouldn't be having this argument.

Scott you have said, "we don't know what is causing global warming" The obvious correction is that "you don't know what is causing global warming". The IPCC scientists have put forward their findings and you want to disagree with them even though you don't understand the science enough to agree or disagree.

Scott Free

#82

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 12th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Why don't you tell me what's bogus then, oh soothsayer. You repeat the talking points well enough, though that doesn't mean you actually know anything.

So go back and reread what I've already posted you lazy sod.

Tonington

#83

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 12th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

So go back and reread what I've already posted you lazy sod.

What's lazy? I've already dealt with your drivel, as well as others like Juan and Zzarchov have. But I can go through your crap again, that which I haven't responded to.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

Everywhere including other planets!

Seriously, GW is obviously horse $h!t.

Well, we already have dealt with the other planets. Unfortunately for your weak argument, the theory behind GW is not dependent on different conditions that have caused an increase in heat content on other planets. The same physics is involved of course.

Next.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I'm not the one having trouble with this very simple logic. The Earth, Mars and Jupiter are all warming up. I am not so stupid that I think we are the reason. If you can explain how my carbon emissions are causing global warming on Mars and Jupiter then I will concede you have a point.

But you are stupid enough to think that changes in dust on Mars causing 'purported' warming, and Jupiters internally driven temperature change, although different, and different from our own planet, are enough to throw out over 100 years of radiative physics, the same physics that is used to claim climate change on other planets.

Simple logic indeed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I remember when this GW stuff started. Scientists discovered that green house gases were the cause of high temperatures on Venus. Some speculated that temperatures on Earth could be affected by the same gases. Someone got a grant and boom here we are.

I didn't realize you were alive in the 1800's. Geez you are an old fart aren't you?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

The point is that the concept of GW wasn't even born here and didn't have anything to do with Earth. Some scientist went for a grant and built on an established theory. Science is very vulnerable to this kind of folly - it really is a culture of following the guy with the longest beard.

You're just proving your ignorance now.

Read --, rather than your silly conspiracy nonsense.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

Earth is not Venus and the fact that two other planets are also heating up means GW for Earth is false. Maybe not entirely but definitely mostly.

Again, your faulty logic. How many analogies does it take for you to realize that argument is logically invalid?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

Our emissions here on Earth are no where near bad enough to turn us into Venus and never will be because of anything people do.

That's not even the claim of what might happen in the future. That is your straw man argument.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

The whole planet is in this mess simply because some scientist somewhere wanted a grant to do a study and a US politician with a partisan agenda decided to panic the world.

The whole planet is doing just fine. Living things are in this mess because of the ignorance of our species.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I don't think so:

Planets all have the same furnace: the sun. Planets differ by atmosphere not by furnace. So if the temperature is rising on all the planets then obviously the increase has to do with the furnace (source of heat, the sun). Since planets all have different atmospheres it is extremely unlikely and utterly improbable that many planets would all experience warming due to new planetary conditions; even if all the planets were suffering from global warming (which seems probable from the evidence) the reason could not be (nearly zero probability) that all their atmospheres are simultaneously changing to capture more heat. The planets are warming up because of another factor; a factor that they all share in common; like the sun, proximity to it or some other as yet unknown factor. It isn't because of our carbon emissions - it just isn't. Carbon emissions from pollution are an isolated atmospheric condition of earth and not a condition shared by all the planets.

But Jupiter is warming from internal dynamics. That alone shoots your theory dead in the barrel. Do you even read this stuff before sticking your foot in your mouth?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I think we're going to have to learn how to live with it since we don't have any idea what is causing GW. Likewise there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are subject to natures cycles, she is not subject to us; this is even more true now since this cycle seems to be solar system wide.

You don't have any idea. Those who work in the field do. Those who read the journals might have a chance.

Like I asked before, do you even read primary documents, or is it all some foolish conspiracy crap?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

Perhaps reducing carbon would help for now but there is no reason to think such a policy will help in the future or assist the other planets going through the same thing.

Who wants to assist other planets? They're doing just fine, and in case you didn't notice, as far as we know this is the only planet with any life on it. The only planet with eco-systems comprised of myriad living things. The only planet that responds biotically to imbalances in nutrient cycles. Why should I give a crap about dust storms on Mars?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I think we're better off trying to assist people who are in trouble because of climate change instead of creating a new economic bubble to line the global elites pockets with even more cash.

See, you're so out of touch with the science, you don't even know what the policy debate is shaping up like. Learn about cap and dividend, and revenue neutral taxes. The global elites are doing just fine as it is now, I doubt they care how much petrol costs, or food.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I don't think channeling inflation into GW technology will work any better than it did to channel it into housing. Eventually people will catch on.

You're clueless about economics too. GW technology means infrastructure. In case you haven't noticed, over the past half century infrastructure spending increases have always been a great stimulus to economies.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

What we need, more than anything else, is a sustainable global economic model. That really might save our environment and the planet.

Well thanks for that Captain Obvious.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I didn't say that. What I said is that we don't know that removing it would do anything about GW because we don't know what is causing GW.

Again, you don't know. Doesn't mean the rest of us have our heads in the sand.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

So my original argument was that it makes no sense, in times of economic hardship and corporate migration east, to further straddle our economies with the burden of reducing emissions when the east isn't even slightly interested in doing the same. There is no proof that our doing such a thing is going to keep change from happening because, clearly, we are not the cause of the change in the first place.

That's a legitimate concern, one that doesn't deal with the science.

There's no possibility that things can get better when the solution is to ignore it. Trade agreements? Tariffs?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I disagree, it has everything to do with what is happening here. The odds of three planets all simultaneously heating up in the same decade for different and unrelated reasons is so vastly remote that it can not be a coincidence. It is simply so improbable that it can not happen. There is and must be a common reason for the increase in temperature.

You're ignorant. What do we have in common with those planets, besides a measured heat content that is increasing? If it's happening on these three, why not the rest? Why isn't the Moon warmer? Or Mercury? Or Venus? Why do they not show similar trends (the actual warming trends aren't at all the same, and can't possibly be due to an increase in solar radiation due to the magnitudes of change, and distance from the sun?)

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

So what could be causing all these planets to warm up? All your arguing is that the completely improbable is probable, therefore your probably wrong. Smart money would bet against you.

There's a number of bets right now. Smart money is on warming. I already offered one to one of your ilk here on this site. Feeling lucky punk?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

I tend to think that maybe there are forces at work or extra planetary environmental factors at work that we don't know about. Is the sun warmer; are we closer; is there another factor?

I see...and those extra forces must also cancel out the forcing impact of increased greenhouse gases. So, it must be a positive forcing, but come with a negative feedback enough to swamp the signal from greenhouse gases. That's highly unlikely. If the DSCOVR is ever launched we'll know. Again I'm betting against you on that possibility.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

But to say planetary bodies in our solar system are warming up and it has nothing to do with the sun, that every occurrence of warming (including moons) is due to localized conditions and has nothing at all to do with common conditions, is a logical fallacy and in gross error; just like saying curbing green house gas emissions will stop GW is a logical fallacy and a gross error. It may help slow it down (I will agree with that) but it will not stop it because it isn't the cause, therefore it hasn't the ability to stop it.

You just don't understand the difference between an increasingly intense sun, and increasing greenhouse gases trapping the radiation we already are exposed to.

I thought you said we don't know what the cause is? You think you can rule out greenhouse gases? I'd like to see that. You're the one claiming the theory is bunk, but all you have is empty rhetoric. Again I ask, what primary documents have you read? Did you read the papers discussing climate change on other planets? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is no, or you wouldn't hoist it like some kid at a science fair without knowing what the details even look like.

Seriously, any actual disagreements with science besides logical fallacies like non-sequitur, straw men, and red herrings? Do you even know where to begin with the science? Or do you use purely faulty rhetorical devices in place of observation and empiricism?

Scott Free

#84

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 13th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

What's lazy? I've already dealt with your drivel, as well as others like Juan and Zzarchov have. But I can go through your crap again, that which I haven't responded to.

You haven't "dealt" with anything. You completely dodge my main arguments. I think because you don't understand it. Have you considered going into law enforcement?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Well, we already have dealt with the other planets. Unfortunately for your weak argument, the theory behind GW is not dependent on different conditions that have caused an increase in heat content on other planets. The same physics is involved of course.

Next.

You have just completely missed my point!?!?! My argument has nothing at all to do with individual conditions on other planets.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

But you are stupid enough to think that changes in dust on Mars causing 'purported' warming, and Jupiters internally driven temperature change, although different, and different from our own planet, are enough to throw out over 100 years of radiative physics, the same physics that is used to claim climate change on other planets.

Simple logic indeed.

Don't be an idiot. Are you one of those people who buys lottery tickets? It seems your understanding of odds would make you prone to the "someone has to win" logic.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I didn't realize you were alive in the 1800's. Geez you are an old fart aren't you?

It was the early 1990's if i remember correctly.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You're just proving your ignorance now.

Read --, rather than your silly conspiracy nonsense.

I am going off of experience and what I saw; as it developed. I don't need a revisionist version since I was there.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Again, your faulty logic. How many analogies does it take for you to realize that argument is logically invalid?

Again, study the odds and probability of what your proposing - or don't and go buy more lottery tickets.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

That's not even the claim of what might happen in the future. That is your straw man argument.

No, that was a claim made both by a documentary on Venus that supposed it's conditions on earth and one by every bleeding heart liberal hippie wannabe like yourself "save the world!" The world isn't in trouble dumb dumb.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

The whole planet is doing just fine. Living things are in this mess because of the ignorance of our species.

I don't think you can keep up with a simple conversation? I was talking about social conditions when I said "mess." Seriously Tonington

Due try and keep up.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

But Jupiter is warming from internal dynamics. That alone shoots your theory dead in the barrel. Do you even read this stuff before sticking your foot in your mouth?

No it doesn't. But I don't live in a binary world of exclusive stimuli. I would try and explain what I mean but frankly your not up to it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You don't have any idea. Those who work in the field do. Those who read the journals might have a chance.

Like I asked before, do you even read primary documents, or is it all some foolish conspiracy crap?

I do read journals, I don't read conspiracy crap, except for the "journals." I read objectively, examine the evidence and think about the hypotheses. I break it down into reasons and conclusions. Then if it doesn't add up I dig further.

I find people like you fascinating. How is it that when faced with "scientists" and "evidence" you freeze like a deer in headlights? Do you seriously think these people are some how your superior?

You have seriously failed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Who wants to assist other planets? They're doing just fine, and in case you didn't notice, as far as we know this is the only planet with any life on it. The only planet with eco-systems comprised of myriad living things. The only planet that responds biotically to imbalances in nutrient cycles. Why should I give a crap about dust storms on Mars?

I was being --.

You should care about the other planets because their warming proves your an idiot.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

See, you're so out of touch with the science, you don't even know what the policy debate is shaping up like. Learn about cap and dividend, and revenue neutral taxes. The global elites are doing just fine as it is now, I doubt they care how much petrol costs, or food.

You've lost me here... what are you snivelling about? what you have just said has nothing to do with what I said.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You're clueless about economics too. GW technology means infrastructure. In case you haven't noticed, over the past half century infrastructure spending increases have always been a great stimulus to economies.

LMAO

I don't understand economics?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Well thanks for that Captain Obvious.

Your welcome, Captain Moron.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Again, you don't know. Doesn't mean the rest of us have our heads in the sand.

Yes you do because you think you do know, when clearly you don't.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

That's a legitimate concern, one that doesn't deal with the science.

There's no possibility that things can get better when the solution is to ignore it. Trade agreements? Tariffs?

As if you would know a legitimate concern if it slapped you in your brainwashed monkey face.

What I meant was (not that you'll be able to get this right either): If we are going to try and create a new economic bubble out of "green energy" we need all countries on board or we will destroy our economies.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You're ignorant. What do we have in common with those planets, besides a measured heat content that is increasing? If it's happening on these three, why not the rest? Why isn't the Moon warmer? Or Mercury? Or Venus? Why do they not show similar trends (the actual warming trends aren't at all the same, and can't possibly be due to an increase in solar radiation due to the magnitudes of change, and distance from the sun?)

We don't know if they're warmer. More research is needed. Perhaps an atmosphere is needed to feel the effects of warming?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

There's a number of bets right now. Smart money is on warming. I already offered one to one of your ilk here on this site. Feeling lucky punk?

The bet isn't on whether the world is warming or if carbon traps heat but what is causing the warming. You really are a f***ing idiot aren't you?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I see...and those extra forces must also cancel out the forcing impact of increased greenhouse gases. So, it must be a positive forcing, but come with a negative feedback enough to swamp the signal from greenhouse gases. That's highly unlikely. If the DSCOVR is ever launched we'll know. Again I'm betting against you on that possibility.

*sigh*

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You just don't understand the difference between an increasingly intense sun, and increasing greenhouse gases trapping the radiation we already are exposed to.

Holy f**k... go buy some lottery tickets...

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I thought you said we don't know what the cause is?

You don't have any idea what I've said.

I'm pretty sure your one of those people that thinks as long as he continues arguing he'll look intelligent.

Well, it hasn't worked, you look like a horses ass.

I'm sure you'll find support amongst others that can't understand my point either. Perhaps you should discuss my short comings the next time your all around the lottery booth?

Zzarchov

#85

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 13th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

You see. That's where we differ. I know the science is bogus. I have tried to explain this but you seem to want to think you can save the world in the face of obvious fact. While you suspect I'm some kind of libertarian I suspect your some sort of guilt ridden liberal who needs to message his ego by thinking he can make a difference. Stark reality and in particular that of our own existence is a difficult pill to swallow.

Science like anything else man made is prone to mistakes but they are made so much worse if people believe in science like a new religion.

The vast majority of people will always believe what they want to believe. It is our failing as a species; 1 part ape and one part lemming.

You haven't shown he is wrong.

You made a counter-statement,

It was shown to be in error,

You decided "screw the facts, I know Im right"

Your last line is the most accurate part of your post (and the most Ironic).

Zzarchov

#86

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 13th, 2008

Ok Scott Free, time for you to stop dodging your own question:

Ignore global warming. Basic facts.

Carbon damages private property.

Why should I allow you to throw carbon into the air and damage my private property, without you paying for it?

Why should you not be taxed for causing an activity that causes damage to private property?

No answer? Funny that.

Scott Free

#87

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 13th, 2008

I don't care what you dumb ****s think. I think your funny.

Walter

#88

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 13th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

Carbon damages private property.

Carbon is life.

Tonington

#89

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 13th, 2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free

You haven't "dealt" with anything. You completely dodge my main arguments. I think because you don't understand it. Have you considered going into law enforcement?

No I understand, you're delusional!

I haven't dodged a thing.

Quote:

My argument has nothing at all to do with individual conditions on other planets.

Obviously...or you'd know how wrong you are.

Quote:

Don't be an idiot. Are you one of those people who buys lottery tickets? It seems your understanding of odds would make you prone to the "someone has to win" logic.

Nope. Better to keep my money in my pocket.

Quote:

It was the early 1990's if i remember correctly.

It began before the early 90's. It's only been since the 90's that more people have become aware of the issue.

Quote:

I am going off of experience and what I saw; as it developed. I don't need a revisionist version since I was there.

It's not revisionist at all. You can get those facts from text books, and you weren't around for a whole lot of that scientific history.

Quote:

Again, study the odds and probability of what your proposing - or don't and go buy more lottery tickets.

Odds against your logical fallacy? Maybe you need to study some probability...

Quote:

No, that was a claim made both by a documentary on Venus that supposed it's conditions on earth and one by every bleeding heart liberal hippie wannabe like yourself "save the world!" The world isn't in trouble dumb dumb.

Right, your straw man. The world is fine, I know this, I've told you this.

Quote:

I don't think you can keep up with a simple conversation? I was talking about social conditions when I said "mess." Seriously Tonington Due try and keep up.

It's called twisting your words. What, rhetorical devices are fine for you and not me? I can keep up with you just fine, in fact I'm slowing myself to comprehend the ludicrous inane arguments that seem to have caught your ignorant brain in the vice.

Quote:

No it doesn't. But I don't live in a binary world of exclusive stimuli. I would try and explain what I mean but frankly your not up to it.

Of course it does. You're trying to make some argument about one furnace heating all the planets. Well that's fine, but it's not the cause of the climate change on Jupiter, ergo you're one mechanism for the different planets is flawed from the start. I suspect you don't actually read the details, so long as the headline can be twisted to fit your bias that seems to be fine.

Quote:

I do read journals, I don't read conspiracy crap, except for the "journals." I read objectively, examine the evidence and think about the hypotheses. I break it down into reasons and conclusions. Then if it doesn't add up I dig further.

Yet you can't realize what you're spouting doesn't add up. I suggest you read some more, then come back when you have something substantive.

Quote:

I find people like you fascinating. How is it that when faced with "scientists" and "evidence" you freeze like a deer in headlights? Do you seriously think these people are some how your superior?

You're easily amused. You seem to think you're the only one who has any critical thought bouncing around in your head. I know I'm not the only one. Maybe you've been taken with solipsism.

Quote:

I was being --.

You should care about the other planets because their warming proves your an idiot.

No, that other planets are warming does not prove I'm an idiot. If I claimed three planets are warming and without knowing what is happening on other planets, then said that the cause therefore must be the same, when those who have published the details give us the reference needed to know otherwise, well then I'd be an idiot.

Quote:

You've lost me here...

Not really surprising.

You were going on about helping those in trouble, and not the elites. Well I gave you enough clues. Anyone who knows how to use google could figure that out.

Who is typing for you?

Quote:

I don't understand economics?

Apparently not. Maybe you know enough to pay your bills at the pharmacy...

Quote:

Yes you do because you think you do know, when clearly you don't.

I know more than you on this subject, and what I know is a drop in a bucket.

Quote:

As if you would know a legitimate concern if it slapped you in your brainwashed monkey face.

What I meant was (not that you'll be able to get this right either): If we are going to try and create a new economic bubble out of "green energy" we need all countries on board or we will destroy our economies.

See, now there you go, showing how much you really don't know. Why would anyone want to create a bubble? Changing over infrastructure is not a bubble.

Quote:

We don't know if they're warmer. More research is needed. Perhaps an atmosphere is needed to feel the effects of warming?

Idiot. Venus does have an atmosphere, much heavier than ours.

Quote:

The bet isn't on whether the world is warming or if carbon traps heat but what is causing the warming. You really are a f***ing idiot aren't you?

I know exactly what the bet is about. I haven't made one with you, and you have no idea what the bets are I'm talking about.

Getting testy? Go take your meds.

Quote:

Holy f**k... go buy some lottery tickets...

See, you can't even respond to simple statements. You're lame.

Quote:

You don't have any idea what I've said.

Sure I do, I quoted you saying that we don't know what's causing it, but you think you know enough to say what it is not. You even imply that it's the sun. That is testable, and it's failed.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure your one of those people that thinks as long as he continues arguing he'll look intelligent.

Well, you're wrong. There's a real shocker

Quote:

Well, it hasn't worked, you look like a horses ass.

How witty of you.

Quote:

I'm sure you'll find support amongst others that can't understand my point either. Perhaps you should discuss my short comings the next time your all around the lottery booth?

What's funny is you think you have this brilliant point that none of us can see. We've all read it, and it's crap. Like I said, elementary school students could spot the problem with your miniature train of thought.

Anyways, I wasn't responding to simply to keep up some pointless tête-à-tête. I asked you about your claims of what in the science is bogus, then you called me lazy. So I replied to the rest of your junk. So, now why don't you actually list what you think is bogus. That should be easy enough. But you'll probably skip over that.

Easy enough challenge?

Scott Free

#90

Re: Death knell for AGW

Jun 13th, 2008

I'm not sure what is giving you difficulty Tonigton?

I agree the planet is getting warm.

I agree that carbon is contributing a role. Like wearing a blanket in the hot sun.

I disagree carbon is the reason for GW and, in fact, it is provable that it isn't by statistical analysis.

I disagree that curbing carbon output will stop global warming - the reason is simple; a bunch of planets are warming up, the odds: 1 in 36 trillion. That means GW isn't being caused by us. It's just a fact buddy - get over it.

Also a paper in the journal Climate Research, 2001;which identified uncertainties in climate energizing that were 10 (that is TEN) times greater than CO2 emissions. And pointed to errors in the IPCC which is used to predict GW.

Now when I combine my probability with the insignificance of CO2, I am left knowing that Al Gore is full of crap - his message was political, hyperbole and bad science.

There is a correlation between carbon and warming based on the Venus studies which is indisputable. Carbon will warm an atmosphere but that doesn't mean carbon is the reason the atmosphere is warming. Is any of this sinking into that little pea brain of yours?

You can find a correlation between people who wear helmets and break their arms. In places where helmets are required the incidence of helmets and arm breaks increase significantly. Does that really mean wearing a helmet increases your chances of breaking your arm? Does the law increase your chance of breaking your arm? Or is this an irrelevant correlation? Or is the cause and effect a coincidence? The correlation bogus? Just like your GW.

Last edited by Scott Free; Jun 13th, 2008 at 07:36 PM..

<
1
2
3
4
5
6
23
>
Last»

Similar Threads

Another Death of the Novel ???
by jimmoyer | Oct 12th, 2006

What Happens After Death?
by I think not | Jun 26th, 2005