UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade

[PoliticalNick]

Wrong. It's the Theory of Evolution. It is not the same Theory of Evolution that Darwin devised.

Actually it is almost identical to what Darwin proposed. I'm sure when your theory of AGW is a few hundred years old with a few hundred years of evidence gathered in the real world application and thousands of more years of evidence in the fossil record it will be generally accepted as proven also.

You keep trying to convince us that a theory is a fact but you can't. Some theories have more evidence, like Darwin,to make them generally accepted as fact while others, like string theory, have absolutely no real world evidence at all. AGW falls a lot closer to string theory at this point in time.

So do you want to quit trying to seem superior while I make you look like a complete idiot yet or do you wish to continue on with your assertion that a theory is a fact when all theories, by definition, are guesses and predictions with different levels of reliable evidence to back them up.

 

[petros]

For Beaver.

Electric currents induced in Earth's ionosphere generate magnetic fields (ionospheric dynamo region). Such a field is always generated near where the atmosphere is closest to the Sun, causing daily alterations that can deflect surface magnetic fields by as much as one degree. Typical daily variations of field strength are about 25 nanoteslas (nT) (i.e. ~ 1:2,000), with variations over a few seconds of typically around 1 nT (i.e. ~ 1:50,000).

For Zipperfish

Magnetosphere

Main article: Magnetosphere

Some of the charged particles from the solar wind are trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt. A smaller number of particles from the solar wind manage to travel, as though on an electromagnetic energy transmission line, to the Earth's upper atmosphere and ionosphere in the auroral zones. The only time the solar wind is observable on the Earth is when it is strong enough to produce phenomena such as the aurora and geomagnetic storms. Bright auroras strongly heat the ionosphere, causing its plasma to expand into the magnetosphere, increasing the size of the plasma geosphere, and causing escape of atmospheric matter into the solar wind. Geomagnetic storms result when the pressure of plasmas contained inside the magnetosphere is sufficiently large to inflate and thereby distort the geomagnetic field.

The solar wind is responsible for the overall shape of Earth's magnetosphere, and fluctuations in its speed, density, direction, and entrained magnetic field strongly affect Earth's local space environment. For example, the levels of ionizing radiation and radio interference can vary by factors of hundreds to thousands; and the shape and location of the magnetopause and bow shock wave upstream of it can change by several Earth radii, exposing geosynchronous satellites to the direct solar wind. These phenomena are collectively called space weather. The mechanism of atmospheric stripping is caused by gas being caught in bubbles of magnetic field, which are ripped off by solar winds.[18] Variations in the magnetic field strength have been correlated to rainfall variation within the tropics.[19]

More than just the tropics. Globally.

 

[Zipperfish]

Actually it is almost identical to what Darwin proposed. I'm sure when your theory of AGW is a few hundred years old with a few hundred years of evidence gathered in the real world application and thousands of more years of evidence in the fossil record it will be generally accepted as proven also.

No it isn't. You can't expect to constantly spouting off ignorant garbage and not get called on it, sorry.

Punctuated equilibrium, game theory and the evolutionary biology approach of Wilson and Dawkins changed the theory significantly. See, that's what happens with scientific theories--they evolve over time to adapt the model more closely to the observed universe. A theory, contrary to your earlier assertion, is not just a guess.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Actually it is almost identical to what Darwin proposed. I'm sure when your theory of AGW is a few hundred years old with a few hundred years of evidence gathered in the real world application and thousands of more years of evidence in the fossil record it will be generally accepted as proven also.

It's already more than 100 years old, that's the big lie of the climate change deniers, that climate change science is new and unsupported by evidence. Svante Arrhenius went through laborious calculations in the late 1800s to determine what would happen if you doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere based on the physical principles available then.

Since then people like Guy Callendar and Gilbert Plass have used the much more powerful knowledge available with quantum theory and modern technology like infra-red spectrometers to determine with a much higher precision what the effect of doubling CO2 would have. This in conjunction with work going back more than 50 years to determine the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Based on very well established science that we use constantly to make the modern world work and direct evidence of the changes occurring in the natural world we have a high degree of confidence that climate change is occurring, it's serious and it's us driving most of it.

On the contrarian side you have people like Fred Singer and Fred Seitz (and their successors) who also worked with the tobacco lobby to deny the science on the effect of smoking. Climate change science actually utilizes science to determine with growing accuracy that we are in fact forcing the climate into a new and much more energetic state. Climate change denial is well established industry spin on the valid science.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Since then people like Guy Callendar and Gilbert Plass have used the much more powerful knowledge available with quantum theory....

Sure thing, because quantum theory has absolutely NO actual physical evidence of anything. It is a bunch of fancy math and a lot of speculation. We aren't even close to being able to see individual atoms clearly let alone neutrons, protons & electrons. If you want to base your position on climate change on a purely speculative science go ahead but it ain't gonna change the minds of anyone.

When will you morons realize that the predictions of AGW are wrong. If they were right I would be watching the palm trees in my yard wilt right now instead of watching the frost melt. I don't know how many times you can change your story and predictions after they don't come true and still believe you are right but it is amusing to watch from the sidelines.

A theory, contrary to your earlier assertion, is not just a guess.

Holy f*ck Zipperhead! How many times must I post the definition and synonyms of theory to get you to admit a theory is NOT a fact? Really, are you completely stupid? Maybe you are just too f*cking arrogant to ever admit you made a mistake. I don't know what your mental malfunction is but you just keep looking more & more retarded every time you deny the definition of the word.

Please let me help you before you are just considered a mental midget forever. A theory is a guess, a supposition. Some theories have large amounts of substantiated evidence to back them up while others have no evidence at all.

An example being my watermelon theory. I have a theory I can shove a whole watermelon up your a$$. I have absolutely zero evidence to back it up but based on my strength and the elasticity of human skin and the sphincter I believe I can do it. Until I try it is just a theory with no real world evidence to back it up. Now had someone else tried and succeeded on another person I would have some empirical evidence to back up my claim and my theory would be considered a lot stronger but still a guess until I can actually prove it is possible.

Are you getting it yet or do I need to put that watermelon up your a$$ so my theory can be a fact and fit with your incorrect definition of the word.

Would you like to start with this one...

 

[darkbeaver]

No it isn't. You can't expect to constantly spouting off ignorant garbage and not get called on it, sorry.

Punctuated equilibrium, game theory and the evolutionary biology approach of Wilson and Dawkins changed the theory significantly. See, that's what happens with scientific theories--they evolve over time to adapt the model more closely to the observed universe. A theory, contrary to your earlier assertion, is not just a guess.

Dawkins!!!!!







Science’s Looming ‘Tipping Point’ | thunderbolts.info

An Engineer’s Model of the Sun

Ralph E. Juergens
(6 May 1924 – 2 November 1979)

It seems not to have occurred to anyone since Eddington, with the notable exception of an engineer, the late Ralph Juergens of Flagstaff, Arizona, that sunshine may be produced by “some subtle radiation traversing space which the star picks up.” Juergens was involved in the interdisciplinary research mentioned earlier and he saw the need to investigate the electrical nature of the Sun and solar system. He published a seminal paper in 1979, The Photosphere: Is it the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon we call the Sun? He emphasised the fact that none of the observed features of the Sun such as the corona, chromosphere, spicules, granulation, sunspots etc., had any business being there in the Standard Solar Model. For example,“..the established theory of stellar energy is embarrassed by the mild behavior of the Sun’s photospheric granules.” The photospheric granules are supposed conventionally to be the tops of vigorous convection cells driven by the Sun’s central nuclear furnace. Internal convection is essential to the Standard Solar Model because convection is supposed to ‘somehow’ generate the Sun’s complex magnetic fields.
Juergens’ observation about the “mild behavior of the Sun’s photospheric granules” foreshadowed a recent discovery by a team of scientists who have developed an ‘MRI’ of the Sun’s interior plasma motions. Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences is reported as saying,

“..our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations. If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.” [reprinted from materials provided by New York University.]
​

 

[PoliticalNick]

See, that's what happens with scientific theories--they evolve over time to adapt the model more closely to the observed universe.

So your guess gets better as more evidence is found to back it up. That's what I have been saying and you keep disagreeing. :roll:

 

[Blackleaf]

Animation - Karl Pilkington Talking About the Ice Caps Melting - YouTube

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Sure thing, because quantum theory has absolutely NO actual physical evidence of anything. It is a bunch of fancy math and a lot of speculation. We aren't even close to being able to see individual atoms clearly let alone neutrons, protons & electrons. If you want to base your position on climate change on a purely speculative science go ahead but it ain't gonna change the minds of anyone.

Quantum theory gives us powerful tools for understanding the world at the very small level, and as modern electronics are based on quantum theory how are you hooking into the internet if it doesn't work, by telegraph?

10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics : Discovery Channel

10. The Transistor
In the fall of 1945, the U.S. Army completed its work on ENIAC, the world's first vacuum-tube computer. All told, ENIAC weighed more than 30 tons (27 metric tons), had the footprint of a small house and cost nearly half a million dollars to create [source: Weik]. Fortunately, by the time ENIAC was built, Bell Laboratories was already well on its way to developing a replacement for power-hungry, space-consuming vacuum tubes: the transistor. Transistors act as both an amplifier and a switch for electronic signals, functions essential to virtually all modern electronic equipment, and without quantum mechanics, they likely wouldn't exist.

That's because transistors rely on the unique properties of semiconductors -- materials that can act as either a conductor or an insulator -- to operate. Thanks to groundbreaking discoveries in quantum mechanics, Stanford researcher Eugene Wigner and his student, Frederick Seitz, were the first to manipulate the properties of semiconductors in the 1930s. Armed with their research, scientists from Bell Laboratories developed the first rudimentary transistors over the next decade, and by 1954, the United States military had constructed TRIDAC, the first transistor-based computer. Unlike the monstrous, unreliable vacuum-tube computers that preceded it, TRIDAC occupied only 3 cubic feet (0.08 cubic meters) and needed only 100 watts of power to operate [source: PBS]. Today, companies like Intel and AMD fabricate cutting-edge microprocessors containing billions of microprocessors, and we have quantum mechanics to thank.

 

[Zipperfish]

Holy f*ck Zipperhead! How many times must I post the definition and synonyms of theory to get you to admit a theory is NOT a fact? Really, are you completely stupid? Maybe you are just too f*cking arrogant to ever admit you made a mistake. I don't know what your mental malfunction is but you just keep looking more & more retarded every time you deny the definition of the word.

Please let me help you before you are just considered a mental midget forever. A theory is a guess, a supposition. Some theories have large amounts of substantiated evidence to back them up while others have no evidence at all.

An example being my watermelon theory. I have a theory I can shove a whole watermelon up your a$$. I have absolutely zero evidence to back it up but based on my strength and the elasticity of human skin and the sphincter I believe I can do it. Until I try it is just a theory with no real world evidence to back it up. Now had someone else tried and succeeded on another person I would have some empirical evidence to back up my claim and my theory would be considered a lot stronger but still a guess until I can actually prove it is possible.

Are you getting it yet or do I need to put that watermelon up your a$$ so my theory can be a fact and fit with your incorrect definition of the word.

Would you like to start with this one...

It apepars that once again my scintillating intellect and sparkling wit have bested you, and your head has inadvertently exploded. :lol:

 

[PoliticalNick]

It apepars that once again my MISSING intellect and LACK OF wit have bested you, and your head has inadvertently exploded. :lol:

Fify! :lol:

Should we try that watermelon experiment now? ;-)

 

[Zipperfish]

Fify! :lol:

Should we try that watermelon experiment now? ;-)

Sorry, not really into guys. You'll have to re-eanct your homoerotic fantaises with someone else. Or even yourself!

 

[PoliticalNick]

Sorry, not really into guys.

You are way too easy.....

 

[darkbeaver]

It's already more than 100 years old, that's the big lie of the climate change deniers, that climate change science is new and unsupported by evidence. Svante Arrhenius went through laborious calculations in the late 1800s to determine what would happen if you doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere based on the physical principles available then.

Since then people like Guy Callendar and Gilbert Plass have used the much more powerful knowledge available with quantum theory and modern technology like infra-red spectrometers to determine with a much higher precision what the effect of doubling CO2 would have. This in conjunction with work going back more than 50 years to determine the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Based on very well established science that we use constantly to make the modern world work and direct evidence of the changes occurring in the natural world we have a high degree of confidence that climate change is occurring, it's serious and it's us driving most of it.

On the contrarian side you have people like Fred Singer and Fred Seitz (and their successors) who also worked with the tobacco lobby to deny the science on the effect of smoking. Climate change science actually utilizes science to determine with growing accuracy that we are in fact forcing the climate into a new and much more energetic state. Climate change denial is well established industry spin on the valid science.

rent and unrelated meaning. The Hothouse Limerick

There was an old man named Arrhenius
Whose physics were rather erroneous
He recycled rays
In peculiar ways
And created a "heat" most spontaneous!

Timothy Casey, 2010
The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

I think you can tell from the metaphorical poo flinging here we haven't evolved that far from our primate roots.

 

[darkbeaver]

I think you can tell from the metaphorical poo flinging here we haven't evolved that far from our primate roots.

Evolution is another debate all together, at first glance. There was a time in the recent past when metaphorical poo flinging was markedly more educated. Have you seen my post of yesterday about DNA? If so what is your thinking?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Timothy Casey, 2010
The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

I guess this blows the whole CO2 theory to shreds....

Carbon dioxide does, in fact, have a lower thermal conductivity than either nitrogen or oxygen (by roughly 36%, calculated from the figures of Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). So a large increase (i.e. by hundreds of thousands of parts per million) in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that would increase the thermal gradient accordingly, could produce a measurable surface warming. As this cannot change the amount of heat flowing through the system, the effect would be manifest by a decrease in atmospheric temperature offset by a corresponding increase in surface temperature. However, a meagre doubling of the presently insignificant levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot have a measurable effect. In fact, geological history records that other factors have a much greater influence on global climate than carbon dioxide.

On the scale of doubling the troposphere's carbon dioxide, the surface warming predicted by this simple and materialistic thermodynamic approach is on the order of 0.004ºC

 

[darkbeaver]

I guess this blows the whole CO2 theory to shreds....

It should be considered of course but the debate has never been scientific it has been framed politically from day one. That is to say there is an agenda other than the one popularly advertized. I think we should be looking at agenda 21 and related proposals. We might also consider that forces external to this planet may have a great impact on this planet in the near future. We should also be thinking about cycles and who might have knowledge of cycles not usually discussed in the public. Knowledge is power, some books were burned many others were kept hidden. Among the powerful this seems to be a good time to gather belongings into the keep. I think were in for some fire and ice.

 

[Zipperfish]

I guess this blows the whole CO2 theory to shreds....

I guess so. Though the writer does say:

The atmosphere having gained this heat loses it when it is re-radiated, half
into space and half back to earth because radiation is omnidirectional - being
emitted by a molecule in any direction.

I expect you to write a nastygram to him wherein you throw a bunch of insults while pointing out that the earth's surface is a sphere. :lol:

 

[PoliticalNick]

I guess so. Though the writer does say:



I expect you to write a nastygram to him wherein you throw a bunch of insults while pointing out that the earth's surface is a sphere. :lol:

I already did. You didn't think you were special in some way did you? :roll: