MetalJeff wrote:
All I have to say to this is: LOL at your lacking grasp of the English language.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We're melting, we're melting
We're melting, we're meltingFollow
All I have to say to this is: LOL at your lacking grasp of the English language.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
Care to read that last link? I thought not. It has actual sections of a report from the IPCC and points out the flaws. You can expect as much from this most current report.
No thanks. Here is his main page ...
I know I probably should read your article but it's hard to take a website seriously that uses a repeating cloud background and looks like a website I composed 10 years ago.
I was just pointing out that you linked a source that was refuting your position. Each of the websites used as sources for the part you quoted were shown to be out of date or unreasonably biased.
Edited, Feb 2nd 2007 6:22pm by baelnic
The thing is this.
Your first point on variance was already covered. Then you made the faulty argument of trying to equate local temperature to global averages. So you ran over to the whole natural causes, which was also covered. You then attacked the credibility of the claim, which was resoundingly crushed. When faced with that you felt you had to bring a little bit of credibility to your own position and ended up with a students un cited class project arguing both sides. Hardly the most authoritative source. Laughable at best, enough so that I didnt even click on your second link.
Then with no other defense you resort to attacking the english of Nobby. An Englishman, who not only is over-educated and fluent in his own language but also has a firm command of a number of other languages.
Metaljeff your Kung Fu is weak.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2007 1:27am by bodhisattva
Your first point on variance was already covered. Then you made the faulty argument of trying to equate local temperature to global averages. So you ran over to the whole natural causes, which was also covered. You then attacked the credibility of the claim, which was resoundingly crushed. When faced with that you felt you had to bring a little bit of credibility to your own position and ended up with a students un cited class project arguing both sides. Hardly the most authoritative source. Laughable at best, enough so that I didnt even click on your second link.
Then with no other defense you resort to attacking the english of Nobby. An Englishman, who not only is over-educated and fluent in his own language but also has a firm command of a number of other languages.
Metaljeff your Kung Fu is weak.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2007 1:27am by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#105REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 5:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Edited, Feb 2nd 2007 8:44pm by MonxDoT
Did you humps really just argue science with MonxDot for two pages?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Another global warming debate? Okay: scientific consensus is that most of the recent rise in temperature is us.
What do I mean by consensus? I looked back at every article in the journals Science, Nature and Scientific American over the period of one year. Not a single article concluded there was little or no warming due to human activity. I did this a couple years back. There is more consensus now.
Oh yes, I'm certain there are theories contrary to the prevailing line of thinking and a thousand alternative causes. Scientists don't make a living just repeating what other people say.
Make no mistake about it: this is what scientific consensus looks like. It isn't a bunch of people all saying exactly the same thing. It isn't agreement on every detail. If it looks or sounds like an ad campaign, that is probably what it is.
By the way, that doesn't mean they're right.
Monx calls this "incomplete science" and actually for a change he is right, sort of, in that science is never complete. If it were, we'd understand the climate and the study would move from the sphere of "sciences" to the sphere of "engineerings" and that's extremely unlikely any time soon. The first step in that process is to basically wait 50 years and see what turns out to happen. Even if we pull back, craploads of damage has already been done (exact amount disputed within the consensus) and it is going to get nice and warm here on planet Earth - or the overwhelming majority of scientists on the issue are deluded (which is always a possibility).
Take a look at the wikipedia map from 05 of who has and has not signed on to the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png
It's getting lonely on one side of this map.
This is going to be like the national debt (for the USA).
What do I mean by consensus? I looked back at every article in the journals Science, Nature and Scientific American over the period of one year. Not a single article concluded there was little or no warming due to human activity. I did this a couple years back. There is more consensus now.
Oh yes, I'm certain there are theories contrary to the prevailing line of thinking and a thousand alternative causes. Scientists don't make a living just repeating what other people say.
Make no mistake about it: this is what scientific consensus looks like. It isn't a bunch of people all saying exactly the same thing. It isn't agreement on every detail. If it looks or sounds like an ad campaign, that is probably what it is.
By the way, that doesn't mean they're right.
Monx calls this "incomplete science" and actually for a change he is right, sort of, in that science is never complete. If it were, we'd understand the climate and the study would move from the sphere of "sciences" to the sphere of "engineerings" and that's extremely unlikely any time soon. The first step in that process is to basically wait 50 years and see what turns out to happen. Even if we pull back, craploads of damage has already been done (exact amount disputed within the consensus) and it is going to get nice and warm here on planet Earth - or the overwhelming majority of scientists on the issue are deluded (which is always a possibility).
Take a look at the wikipedia map from 05 of who has and has not signed on to the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png
It's getting lonely on one side of this map.
This is going to be like the national debt (for the USA).
Debalic wrote:
Did you humps really just argue science with MonxDot for two pages?
It is like standing next to an ugly girl. He makes us look smarter!
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#109REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 5:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yeah, because voting = scientific fact. Speaking of the politicization of science.
MonxDoT wrote:
But dumbasses like you don't realize the sun causes more global warming than humans.
Amusingly, Senator Inhofe was trying to use the same study to say "Look! The sun contributes 50%!" instead of realizing that the study was showing a dramatic shift towards anthropogenic causes.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
MonxDoT wrote:
so that a ten year old can understand it.
Edited, Feb 2nd 2007 7:50pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 7:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This is the brilliant leftist Jophiel for you. "Percent or less of change" of a few degrees farenheit ftw.. Can somebody with one tenth of a brain give me an educated guess of the relative warming energy gererated by the Sun versus the relative warming energy generated by humans? On a percentage basis, of course.
Read the study.
You said "Global warming". Warming = Upwards change in climate temperature. Or, alternately, you could learn to speak English.
You said "Global warming". Warming = Upwards change in climate temperature. Or, alternately, you could learn to speak English.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 7:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Have any of you ever seen Jophiel smacked down that hard before?
Yeah, with the Nerf horns.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#116REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 8:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) weeeellllll, we're wwwwwaaaiiiittttttiiiiiinnnnngggggg...
Get what? What you're asking is irrelevant. A moment's thought or a few minutes' reading will show you why.
I am amused that my "We're waiting" bit cut you deep enough that you've tried to throw it back at me three times now but, beyond that, you're not asking for anything worth discussing.
I am amused that my "We're waiting" bit cut you deep enough that you've tried to throw it back at me three times now but, beyond that, you're not asking for anything worth discussing.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 8:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow, it doesn't get any better than this! He wants to drag it on! None of you are going to clue him in on the fact the total energy generated by the Sun is like 99.9% relatively greater than the total energy generated by humans and their fossil fuel burning activities on Planet Earth to Jophiel?
#119REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 8:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That whole exchange should be framed in an Asylum FAQ, as a warning of what happens when you mess with the Monx.
Um, the Earth does not recieve the entirety of the sun's energy output. Not by, maybe, 99.999%
The Earth's core itself generates a substantial amount of heat and energy, 100% of which is transferred to the rest of the planet. What does this have to do with the conversation? As little as the total amount of the Sun's output.
I don't have much to add to these conversations, except to point out the obvious to those too stupid to see it themselves.
The Earth's core itself generates a substantial amount of heat and energy, 100% of which is transferred to the rest of the planet. What does this have to do with the conversation? As little as the total amount of the Sun's output.
I don't have much to add to these conversations, except to point out the obvious to those too stupid to see it themselves.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#121REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 8:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Finally! You speak some Truth. You Big Dummy! [FredSanfordVoice /off]
That's still irrelevant. Its not that humans are generating more or less energy than the sun total. Much of it has to do with trapping energy that normally gets reflected or deflected away, so in that sense we're actually amplifying the sun's energy intake. Few natural causes generate such effects, such as large-scale volcanoes or large meteor impacts. But we generate that, artificially, on a continuous basis. Slight variations in Venus's composition, proximity to the sun and perhaps other factors caused that planet's runaway greenhouse effect to its present condition. Our affecting this planet's atmosphere and energy intake may be enough to do the same here.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#123REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 9:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Magnetic Shields Down! You BIG DUMMY! [FredSanfordVoice /off]
Yes, internal events do add their own effects to climate change. That's part of *my* old argument. I'm of the belief that human interference won't necessarily tip the balance to runaway greenhouse effects, but I'm not up to bandying about official documents and made-up numbers, so I just gave my opinions (in the other multi-page thread) and let it be. You can go right ahead if you want to; I'll just point out the flaws in your irrelevant arguments.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#125REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 9:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think he felt my Flame.
Here's some random numbers on amounts of energy received by the sun (not total amount generated) and amounts of energy generated by the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power
http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/geothermal.cfm
Those numbers need to be converted but to my untrained eye it looks like the tropical opceans receive 560 trillion gigajoules whereas the land under the US alone generates 2.4 trillion GJ. While a few hundred times the difference (with the differences in measured areas considered) is considerable, it's the cumulative effect of such energies (landmass and oceanic surface changes, volcanic discharges, etc) that needs to be looked at. Your 0.0000000000001% is just more senseless crap to spew.
Wikipedia wrote:
Availability of solar energy
There is no shortage of solar-derived energy on Earth. Indeed the storages and flows of energy on the planet are very large relative to human needs. Consider the following:
* The amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the amount of energy the world uses in fossil fuels each year.
* Tropical oceans absorb 560 trillion gigajoules (GJ) of solar energy each year, equivalent to 1,600 times the world’s annual energy use.
* The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than 16 billion GJ of electricity—more than one and one-half times the electricity consumed in the United States in 2000.
* Annual photosynthesis by the vegetation in the United States is 50 billion GJ, equivalent to nearly 60% of the nation’s annual fossil fuel use.
Plants, on average, capture 0.1% of the solar energy reaching the Earth. The land area of the lower 48 United States intercepts 50 trillion GJ per year, equivalent to 500 times of the nation’s annual energy use.[45] This energy is spread over 8 million square kilometers of land area, so that the energy absorbed per unit area is 6.1 GJ per square meter per year.
There is no shortage of solar-derived energy on Earth. Indeed the storages and flows of energy on the planet are very large relative to human needs. Consider the following:
* The amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the amount of energy the world uses in fossil fuels each year.
* Tropical oceans absorb 560 trillion gigajoules (GJ) of solar energy each year, equivalent to 1,600 times the world’s annual energy use.
* The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than 16 billion GJ of electricity—more than one and one-half times the electricity consumed in the United States in 2000.
* Annual photosynthesis by the vegetation in the United States is 50 billion GJ, equivalent to nearly 60% of the nation’s annual fossil fuel use.
Plants, on average, capture 0.1% of the solar energy reaching the Earth. The land area of the lower 48 United States intercepts 50 trillion GJ per year, equivalent to 500 times of the nation’s annual energy use.[45] This energy is spread over 8 million square kilometers of land area, so that the energy absorbed per unit area is 6.1 GJ per square meter per year.
Petroleum geologists wrote:
The accessible geothermal resource base in the United States at depths less than 7 km is estimated to be 17,200,000 x 1018 joules although this estimate reflects the large volume of rock involved rather than actual recoverable resources. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated identified and undiscovered convection hydrothermal resources in the United States to be 2,400 x 1018 joules which is the energy equivalent to 430 x 109 barrels of oil. Additionally, resource estimates for geothermal-geopressured parts of the northern Gulf of Mexico range from 270 x 1018 to 2,800 x 1018 joules.
Those numbers need to be converted but to my untrained eye it looks like the tropical opceans receive 560 trillion gigajoules whereas the land under the US alone generates 2.4 trillion GJ. While a few hundred times the difference (with the differences in measured areas considered) is considerable, it's the cumulative effect of such energies (landmass and oceanic surface changes, volcanic discharges, etc) that needs to be looked at. Your 0.0000000000001% is just more senseless crap to spew.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Recent Visitors: 323
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (323)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We're melting, we're melting
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC