Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ptif219, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    There is a thing called GOOGLE - worth getting to know - it will answer all of these questions for you

    Please do not rely on other people to do your homework for you
     
  2. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your confused incoherent rants make no sense whatsoever.
     
  3. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOL....total BS, dude. You're just blowing smoke out your azz. "Global warming theory" states no such thing. In fact, that is one of most idiotic bits of misinformation I've seen. Anthropogenic global warming will continue for centuries and may well bring to an end the cycle of glaciation and inter-glacial periods that the world has been in for the last two and half million years. The "tipping points" discussed in what you call 'global warming theory' are actually those points in the warming of the Earth where the warming triggers feedback mechanisms that increase the warming even more, which in turn triggers more feedback and further warming. An example would be the the Arctic ice cap, or floating sea ice, which reflects 90% of the sun's energy back into space but when it melts, as it has massively in the last half century, the darker ocean waters, which absorb 90% of the sun's energy, are exposed, warming the ocean waters which then melts more ice and exposes more ocean surface to the sunlight, which then warms the water even more and melts even more ice in a continuing feedback loop.




    Just more clueless incoherent nonsense based on your own ignorance.

    If you don't know anything about this topic, and you obviously don't, why do you even bother to post?
     
  4. spt5

    spt5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If this was entirely correct, then the ice age wouldn't even have started in the 1st place. One theory floating around for the trigger of the recent ice ages is the closing of the land bridge between the Americas, altering oceanic currents. And if that is true then it didn't change.

    Was it on purpose that you didn't quantify your theory? Let me do it for you: temperature records from geologically recovered Greenland ice layer structures show, that repeatedly and periodically the temperature there climbed to today's level, then plunged into a new ice age cycle.

    Without quantification, you can't prove whether your theory of water vs. ice absorption of solar energy prevails, or the theory of oceanic heat convection currents prevails. If the latter one does, then my post was correct, meaning the reduced salinity of melted sea ice water reduces the heat convection called Gulf Current, and we are entering the new ice age by the current tipping point. This is a negative feedback effect as opposed to the positive feedback you are describing. Do you have numbers that beat mine above?

    I am a maths student, I love global investment market modeling, and global climate modeling is not that far off that. What do you have to bring to the table to call my theory "obviously" "ignorant"?
    :sunnysideup:
     
  5. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More clueless nonsense. You obviously have no real knowledge of the variety of influences that may have caused ice ages to start.

    Causes of ice ages

    The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years[38] ); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.[citation needed]

    Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).



    Yeah, that's one theory....so what? You might want to try communicating a bit clearer. It is obscure just what you're referring to when you say: "it didn't change". What do you imagine "it" is that "didn't change"?




    What "theory"? I presented no theories, 'quantified' or not. I was pointing out the scientific fact that ice reflects about 90% if the sun's energy and dark ocean water absorbs about 90% of the sun's energy.

    Melting Sea Ice Major Cause of Warming in Arctic, New Study Reveals
    (excerpts)

    ScienceDaily (Apr. 28, 2010) — Melting sea ice has been shown to be a major cause of warming in the Arctic according to a University of Melbourne, Australia study. Findings published in Nature reveal the rapid melting of sea ice has dramatically increased the levels of warming in the region in the last two decades.

    Lead author Dr James Screen of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne says the increased Arctic warming was due to a positive feedback between sea ice melting and atmospheric warming. "The sea ice acts like a shiny lid on the Arctic Ocean. When it is heated, it reflects most of the incoming sunlight back into space. When the sea ice melts, more heat is absorbed by the water. The warmer water then heats the atmosphere above it. What we found is this feedback system has warmed the atmosphere at a faster rate than it would otherwise".

    Professor Ian Simmonds, of the University's School of Earth Sciences and coauthor on the paper says the findings are significant. "It was previously thought that loss of sea ice could cause further warming. Now we have confirmation this is already happening."




    Yeah...so what? The Earth has experienced cycles of glaciation in the past. So what? What does that have to do with the current anthropogenic global warming trend?





    The halting of the Gulf Stream current is a possibility and it would indeed cause parts of Europe to get temporarily cooler but it would definitely not trigger a new period of planetary glaciation as you so ignorantly imagine.





    A whole lot of scientific evidence. You have demonstrated no real knowledge of this subject. Instead you have advanced a lot of unfounded and rather deranged claims that make no sense.
     
  6. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Isn't it easy?

    Thanks for proving my point again.
     
  7. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You should pay some attention to the tread and posts you quote:



    This is all he, or for that matter any other believer in AWG has to bring to the table, no matter if he is a math professor, a social study student or a Z-physics PhD.

    If you argue any other data with Awgists you do what they want you to do.


    Did you check yourself lately for the virus?:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...25-we-need-worry-about-35.html#post1060900498

    I am afraid you are getting one.
     
  8. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who said that? Where? Using what equation? Because it sounds like nonsense to me.
     
  9. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I replied to your latest post addressed to me:

    This is your post:

    “”Yes.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ch11s11-3.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...11s11-3-1.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...11s11-3-2.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...11s11-3-3.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...s11-3-3-2.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...s11-3-3-3.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...s11-3-3-4.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...s11-3-3-5.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...s11-3-3-6.html

    From page 11.3.3.4:
    "In northern Europe and in central Europe in winter, where time mean precipitation is simulated to increase, high extremes of precipitation are very likely to increase in magnitude and frequency."

    In other words: expect a lot of snow. “”

    http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...25-we-need-worry-about-27.html#post1060871214

    I just asked you to confirm that I understood your answer correctly.

    “”Please confirm that I understand you correctly, that your answer is, -

    1.Yes, they did,
    2.here are links proving that they did,
    3.and here is my additional explanations/clarifications.””


    http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...25-we-need-worry-about-27.html#post1060876800

    That’s all.

    Do I have your confirmation or I do not?
    Are you retracting your answer and making another one instead?

    Ironically it does not matter for you how obvious, shameless and primitive your spins and lies are as long as you are supported by other shameless and primitive scientific majorities.

    One of the greatest lies is common representation of fascism and its crimes as something which happen in the past, which belonged to Germans and was beaten to death. Agwists demonstrate that fascism is very well alive and it has mutated into a new strain of the same bacteria, the same evil. When sooner or later humanity will recover, fascism will recoil into another strain of evil.

    I understood your answer correctly. You knew very well that it was another blatant shameless lie you couldn't back up by anything, and now when it is expoosed, you are starting making another one. It does not matter for you how obvious, shameless and primitive your spins and lies are as long as you are supported by other shameless and primitive scientific majorities.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...25-we-need-worry-about-35.html#post1060900498

    Fascism is a lie told by bullies, - E. Hemingway.
     
  10. spt5

    spt5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you spell the words "ignorant", "deranged", and "BS" backwards?
    :bounce:
     
  11. spt5

    spt5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you may be right.
     
  12. spt5

    spt5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is an observational fact. You can compose your own model to it if you want to generate a set of mathematical explanations. It depends on which possible factor you want to involve in building (climate-financial) expectations for.
     
  13. spt5

    spt5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is not good enough to list all the possible factors that can influence the AGW theory. That is useless. We have to select a few factors that we can work with and then ignore the rest of the "possibilities". This is how useable and repeatable scientific results are achieved. Then later, when those extra "possibilities" become technically viable to explore, then we can incorporate them and build a separate theory (that may be a superset of the previous one). The AGW supporters constantly ignore this basic principle of scientific research and engineering. I wonder why.
    :sunnysideup:
     
  14. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You must have the pro-AGW and the anti_AGW confused. It is the Antis which are always complaining that models do not include xyz or xyy.
    Generalities are interesting to think about, but, tell me, what factors are included in AGW theory that you believe should not be included. While your post is interesting, it does not help with the debate if specifics are not mentioned.
     
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, Man induced global warming may someday ameliorate a future Ice Age. Why not advance our knowledge of structures to enable us to create habitats anywhere on Earth?
     
  16. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's better for the GW/AGW industry to keep the fear alive. That causes tax dollars to keep flowing to so-called 'climate research.' Blaming future cataclysmic 'climate' on 'man' is actually a stroke of genius. Guilt typically causes government coffers to spew forth $$$$$ especially when the VOTING public is scared into submission.
     
    spt5 and (deleted member) like this.
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, it may be about as difficult to obtain energy from pressure such that found on the ocean floors, as it is difficult to obtain energy from a vacuum.
     
  18. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Actually you never have an actual "point". Your posts are entirely composed of childish nonsense and braindead drivel. You bring absolutely nothing to this debate of any substance or meaning. Your posts are a complete waste of time for everyone.
     
  19. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Judging from your ignorant meaningless posts, I'd bet you'd be lucky if you can spell your own name forwards.
     
  20. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow. This is barely coherent and I'm being forced to repeat myself. I already did point to a false assumption. The assumption that somebody should be labelled a murderer for natural disasters.

    You also got caught out before when you said:

    And I replied:

    So lets end this nonsense.
     
  21. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And guy, when Hemingway said "Fascism is a lie told by bullies" he didn't mean that every lying bully is a fascist. He would turn in his grave if he could hear this absurd interpretation of his words.
     
  22. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    So, what objection can there be to actually solving some of our modern day social dilemmas, instead of merely and complex-idly, playing shell games with Statism?
     
  23. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hemingway meant what he said. And you get it; it is exactly what you feel you have to spin.

    I said:
    “One does not have to be a history professor or a social/political science major to understand what fascism is. Hemingway formulated the definition so that it would be clear to any nurse or a construction guy.”

    That’s why you are trying to spin not anything else but this clear and simple definition.
     
  24. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Would we be worse off acquiring more perfect knowledge in order to be able to build a habitable structure anywhere on Earth, regardless of Man's input to climate change?
     
  25. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is as bad now as I pointed in my previous post. We would be A LOT worse off acquiring more perfect knowledge in order to be able to build a habitable structure anywhere on Earth, regardless of Man's input to climate change.
     

Share This Page