Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 214

Thread: In Case You Doubted the Global Warming Consensus...

  1. #1
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default In Case You Doubted the Global Warming Consensus...

    ... You could be on to something.

    The most commonly reported statistic about the purported consensus on anthropogenic climate change is the 97% number. I've been reading about this statistic for a while and done some of my own investigation into how this conclusion came about. There have been a few different studies saying that agreement among climate scientists is nearly unanimous. A closer look at the methodology for the studies supporting this supposed consensus reveals a methodology that's utterly ridiculous or laughable. Some of the studies amount to a database search for specific keywords and recording the number of papers that result from that search. This method is something like googling and recording the number of hits. In other cases, like one I'm linking below, the author of the study delegated responsibility for the content of the study to a bunch of other people who could easily have biased the result.

    Link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...a-real-survey/


    In case you were wondering about the other studies concerning the supposed consensus, check out this link: http://www.populartechnology.net/201...efuted-by.html

    So, in conclusion, the "consensus" about global warming isn't really much of a consensus. The reason why we don't hear much about the true lack of consensus in media is that many people involved in the scientific process have been corrupted by easy and plentiful government funding, provided that the scientists who accept that funding toe the line that politicians and social activists want. It's a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship: the politicians get to impose regulation that impedes social mobility, individual freedom, and gain more power for themselves, and the scientists who prostitute themselves for the cause get recognition for "fighting the good fight" and boatloads of money.

    Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...te-denial.html

    Link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wi...rticle/2608456
    Last edited by Aramas; 01-01-2018 at 12:02 AM.

  2. #2
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I believe in global warming as the evidence is clear that it is happening. However, I'm unsure about anthropogenic global warming. Is it the main cause, a secondary cause or are there several causes behind it? I think that is where the debate lies and it is nice to see articles that propose the idea that the scientific community is more divided than we think.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  3. #3
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I believe in global warming as the evidence is clear that it is happening. However, I'm unsure about anthropogenic global warming. Is it the main cause, a secondary cause or are there several causes behind it? I think that is where the debate lies and it is nice to see articles that propose the idea that the scientific community is more divided than we think.
    Nir Shaviv of Hebrew University and Jan Veizer of Ruhr University proposed the idea that galactic cosmic ray flux was the ultimate driver of long-term climate change. I'll try to link the paper here so you can read it.

    Link: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimber...hanerozoic.pdf

    And here's how I found out about the above claim:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...T0ayWTT48EFXIs

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I saw anything we could actually do to prevent it than maybe I would care more about the topic but even our very best efforts don't put a dent in the problem so...

  5. #5
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rat200Turbo View Post
    If I saw anything we could actually do to prevent it than maybe I would care more about the topic but even our very best efforts don't put a dent in the problem so...
    It's true. Cutting emissions to what the dominant narrative says is necessary would end up resulting in the end of modern life. That would probably cause massive instability and widespread death, destruction, and chaos.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    mass sterilization is probably the best solution but nobody will accept that.

  7. #7
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rat200Turbo View Post
    mass sterilization is probably the best solution but nobody will accept that.
    It's already happening anyway. Look at the decline of male testosterone levels, sperm count and sperm health.

  8. #8
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Face reality. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Emission rates far exceed the reabsorption rate. This will and is causing warming. It is physics. Contolled studies have proven that CO2 has such properties, but climate studies are much more complex. They aren't perfect and it is fine to criticize the methodology. Better studies will yield more accurate results, but the earth is warming. Physics predicts it, studies strongly support it.

    Just because one doesn't like the facts doesn't mean it isn't true. This is why the fossil fuel industry feeds misinformation into the media, to misinform the public, so shit doesn't get fixed. They don't care about the future of civilization. They want $.

    Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today, civilization would collapse, and the earth would continue to warm. The CO2 would take centuries to be reabsorbed. But, since we aren't stopping, it is just going to be that much worse.

    Renewable energy can slow the effects down and prevent a collapse. Eventually we will run out of fossil fuels to burn anyways.

    Humans will adapt and survive. Many species will go extinct, but some may flourish and new species will be created. Life will go on. This is all just a blip in the history of life on this planet.

  9. #9
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    Face reality. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Emission rates far exceed the reabsorption rate. This will and is causing warming. It is physics. Contolled studies have proven that CO2 has such properties, but climate studies are much more complex. They aren't perfect and it is fine to criticize the methodology. Better studies will yield more accurate results, but the earth is warming. Physics predicts it, studies strongly support it.

    Just because one doesn't like the facts doesn't mean it isn't true. This is why the fossil fuel industry feeds misinformation into the media, to misinform the public, so shit doesn't get fixed. They don't care about the future of civilization. They want $.

    Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today, civilization would collapse, and the earth would continue to warm. The CO2 would take centuries to be reabsorbed. But, since we aren't stopping, it is just going to be that much worse.

    Renewable energy can slow the effects down and prevent a collapse. Eventually we will run out of fossil fuels to burn anyways.

    Humans will adapt and survive. Many species will go extinct, but some may flourish and new species will be created. Life will go on. This is all just a blip in the history of life on this planet.
    Face reality. CO2's power as a greenhouse gas is far exceeded by that of water vapor, which is eminently more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. This is physics. Physics predicts it, and studies strongly support it -- unless the studies were funded by the government.

    Just because one doesn't like the facts doesn't mean it isn't true. This is why the scientific establishment funded by the government feeds misinformation to the media -- to keep the grant money gravy train rolling. They don't care about the future of civilization. They want more $

    We don't have to stop burning fossil fuels. Civilization will be fine as long as we don't let government ruin it.

    Renewable energy is a child's playingthing. None of the renewable technologies in existence are robust enough to handle current energy demands.

    "Humans will adapt and survive. Many species will go extinct, but some may flourish and new species will be created. Life will go on. This is all just a blip in the history of life on this planet."

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Global warming might be happening, but even among the scientists who say it is, what they say is that they are certain that humans are the main cause of the temperature rise, so really what they are saying is that the temperature will increase anyway regardless of human activity, just that humans are a part of the increase.

    I'm inclined for the model that is supported by historical observations, that temperature of the earth varies naturally; it goes in cycles.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...cause-warming/

    Here are some facts:
    *Global temperature increased 1900-1940 when human CO2 activity was negligible.
    *Global temperature decreased 1940-1970 theorized due to sulphates released by aerosols and volcanoes, which reflects sunlight (heat), particularly the Mount Agung eruption http://science.sciencemag.org/content/194/4272/1413. Volcanoes are natural occurrences.

    Also major issues are:
    The recording of the temperatures. British and US ships historically used different recording methods https://www.newscientist.com/article...perature-blip/ Today, areas which are already warming the most are monitored, and not the temperature neutral areas. This means that the data scientists are working on cannot be relied upon, regardless of the methods applied to the data.

  11. #11
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarper View Post
    Global warming might be happening, but even among the scientists who say it is, what they say is that they are certain that humans are the main cause of the temperature rise, so really what they are saying is that the temperature will increase anyway regardless of human activity, just that humans are a part of the increase.

    I'm inclined for the model that is supported by historical observations, that that the temperature of the earth varies naturally, it goes in cycles.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...cause-warming/

    Here are some facts:
    *Global temperature increased 1900-1940 when human CO2 activity was negligible.
    *Global temperature decreased 1940-1970 theorized due to sulphates released by aerosols and volcanoes, which reflects sunlight (heat), specifically the Mount Agung eruption http://science.sciencemag.org/content/194/4272/1413. Volcanoes are natural occurrences.

    Also major issues are:
    The recording of the temperatures. British and US ships historically used different recording methods https://www.newscientist.com/article...perature-blip/ Today, areas which are already warming the most are monitored, and not the temperature neutral areas. This means that the data scientists are working on cannot be relied upon, regardless of the methods they apply to the data.
    Your first paragraph is a bit confusing. Do you mean that humans are not the main cause? If not, your paragraph seems self-contradictory the way it's phrased.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Your first paragraph is a bit confusing. Do you mean that humans are not the main cause? If not, your paragraph seems self-contradictory the way it's phrased.
    What most scientists say, something like 95% is that humans are the main cause of global warming. So what that means is that the earth is warming anyway, but that scientists think humans are contributing to that warming. In other words: They think the temperature is increasing but it's not caused by human activity alone.

  13. #13
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarper View Post
    What most scientists say, something like 95% is that humans are the main cause of global warming. So what that means is that the earth is warming anyway, but that scientists think humans are contributing to that warming. In other words: They think the temperature is increasing but it's not caused by human activity alone.
    Did you even read my first post?

  14. #14
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    There was a discussion about Global Warming recently. Lots and lots of posts, lots of contributors, many points of view, much evidence brought to bear. I don't think anyone changed their minds.

    Funny how that works.

    As for looking for a consensus, I don't think you can even get one with respect to the question, "Is the Earth flat?"

    Which was also a discussion here recently. Much debate, much evidence, same result.

    There is an effect called the 27% Crazification Factor, which states that 27% of the population is basically batshit crazy and will believe anything. Anything at all, the crazier, the better. Whenever you find more than 73% of a group agreeing on something, you can be certain you are not looking at a representative section of the population.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Did you even read my first post?
    The studies you linked are by semi-professionals, 'Anthony' as he's called is a retired TV meterologist. The reality is that the overwhelming number of scientists at the United Nations say that, "it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century"

    Here's a list of other studies, not just the one carried out by John Cook, who by the way isn't a climate scientist either but a cognitive scientist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

    The debate isn't about whether most scientists agree, the debate is about if the data they are using is useable, which was the main thrust of my post, that and also to question how much of an impact man is having on any warming. You're right to think that a lot of the promotion of global warming being anthropogenic might be caused for political and business reasons.


  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    There was a discussion about Global Warming recently. Lots and lots of posts, lots of contributors, many points of view, much evidence brought to bear. I don't think anyone changed their minds.

    Funny how that works.

    As for looking for a consensus, I don't think you can even get one with respect to the question, "Is the Earth flat?"

    Which was also a discussion here recently. Much debate, much evidence, same result.

    There is an effect called the 27% Crazification Factor, which states that 27% of the population is basically batshit crazy and will believe anything. Anything at all, the crazier, the better. Whenever you find more than 73% of a group agreeing on something, you can be certain you are not looking at a representative section of the population.
    Most people like the idea of a pandora's box. My own opinion is that global warming is probably happening, but that mans impact - anthropogenic - is over-estimated and over-stated.

  17. #17
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've read that most TV meteorologists don't believe in global warming.

    This has got to be due to their solid grounding in Atmospheric Physics and the many peer-reviewed research papers they've written on the subject.

    One interesting fact is that most Americans did believe in global warming, until an advertising campaign funded by the Koch Brothers (who own some of the most polluting industries in America) set about discrediting scientists and sowing the seeds of mistrust and doubt.
    Every additional year that they can dump their waste into the public stream is another year of profit.

    Jay Gould said it best: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I've read that most TV meteorologists don't believe in global warming.

    This has got to be due to their solid grounding in Atmospheric Physics and the many peer-reviewed research papers they've written on the subject.
    Let's not forget the cutting edge climate computer program simulations they're constantly producing in between commercial breaks.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyway for the debate, it's a fact that most scientists agree that climate change is real, but what i'd like to know is a more definitive answer on how much is man made, ie anthropogenic, and how much is natural.

  20. #20
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it make sense that if you burn up old fossil you end up with more carbon in the atmosphere than what is natural for this time. but how that effect so there are more catastrophic weather idk how

    https://climate.nasa.gov/system/reso...1116-768px.jpg

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also this thread has made me read about meteorologists training and entry level qualifications, thanks for that.

  22. #22
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarper View Post
    The studies you linked are by semi-professionals, 'Anthony' as he's called is a retired TV meterologist. The reality is that the overwhelming number of scientists at the United Nations say that, "it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century"

    Here's a list of other studies, not just the one carried out by John Cook, who by the way isn't a climate scientist either but a cognitive scientist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

    The debate isn't about whether most scientists agree, the debate is about if the data they are using is useable, which was the main thrust of my post, that and also to question how much of an impact man is having on any warming. You're right to think that a lot of the promotion of global warming being anthropogenic might be caused for political and business reasons.

    Which studies I linked are by semi-professionals? The popular technology post I linked responds to most of the main studies listed in the Wiki link you replied with about the Surveys on climate change consensus.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Which studies I linked are by semi-professionals? The popular technology post I linked responds to most of the main studies listed in the Wiki link you replied with about the Surveys on climate change consensus.
    Dude, I can't keep spoon feeding you, you're supposed to be ILI - a T type.

  24. #24
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    it make sense that if you burn up old fossil you end up with more carbon in the atmosphere than what is natural for this time. but how that effect that so there be more catastrophic weather idk how
    Catastrophic weather is a function of the amount of heat in the atmosphere. More heat means more energy for higher winds, more evaporation means more rainfall, etc.

    The greater heat in the air comes from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 acts sort of like a blanket, which lets sunlight in but does not let heat out.

    Here is how CO2 and methane do this. Most of the energy that hits the Earth comes from the sun in the visible band of the spectrum. The amount of energy from the sun in the ultraviolet and the infra-red is much less than what strikes the earth in the red-blue bands.
    The air is transparent to sunlight in the red-blue band. Sunlight comes right in and warms the oceans and the ground.

    Everything that is warm radiates infra-red radiation. This is why infra-red cameras can see heat sources (including people, who look like light bulbs in the the infra-red). The heat sources radiate their heat outward, just like a fire does, and almost all of this heat ends up going straight back up into space.

    However, the air is not entirely transparent in the infra-red. Some gases appear black at those wavelengths, and CO2 and methane are among those gases. The more CO2 there is in the air, the blacker the air gets in the infra-red, and the less transparent the air becomes.

    When the air becomes black, the heat from the oceans and the land, which normally would have just radiated back into space, instead hits this black blanket of air and stays close to the ground and heats the air, which results in higher air, land, and ocean temperatures, and bigger and bigger storms.

    Imagine an airport terminal. People come in at a steady pace, like sunlight. Normally, they leave through the doors at an equally steady pace (back onto space). However, let's add something which slows their exit from the terminal. Perhaps it is Homeland security or something, whatever. The result is that more people get stuck in the terminal (higher temperatures) until they can fight their way out the doors. Same number coming in, same number eventually leaving, but more people are stuck inside the terminal and as they bounce off each other, they are much more upset than they were before.

  25. #25
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarper View Post
    Dude, I can't keep spoon feeding you, you're supposed to be ILI - a T type.
    Trying to win without having to fight eh? And bringing Socionics types into this lmao.

    Also, about that IPCC:

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29...ing-87796/amp/

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Trying to win without having to fight eh? And bringing Socionics types into this lmao.
    You don't even understand my postion, which is that my query is how much of global warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural. If you're wanting me to hunt through any more of your links than I already have, and then present arguments to counter-act any arguments in the other links you've provided, all the while you don't even understand my own initial post or my reason for being on this thread, then you're crazy.

  27. #27
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Adam Strange make sense, not the people and airport terminal but the rest xd

  28. #28
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarper View Post
    Anyway for the debate, it's a fact that most scientists agree that climate change is real, but what i'd like to know is a more definitive answer on how much is man made, ie anthropogenic, and how much is natural.
    I think this pretty much nails the crux of the matter. Global warming is obviously happening so they should prove it without a shadow of a doubt that it is anthropogenic.

    If they had the science down pat and figured out exactly how much of it is based on anthropogenic causes and how much of it isn't then we can leave this an open and shut case.

    Hearing faulty statistics like 97 percent of climate scientists agree it is man made is misleading as it's a faulty figure repeated ad verbatim mindlessly when the reality is most scientists are not sure of how much of it is man made or not.

    The failure to do this is what leaves some people skeptical. I know CO2 can cause global warming, let's see how much of it is actually man made and how much of it isn't.

    The fact that you cannot even debate this subject without ridicule by most people and that you are automatically pigeon holed into a broad ridiculed category demonstrates how effective the propaganda has been.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  29. #29
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarper View Post
    You don't even understand my postion, which is that my query is how much of global warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural. If you're wanting me to hunt through any more of your links than I already have, and then present arguments to counter-act any arguments in the other links you've provided, all the while you don't even understand my own initial post or my reason for being on this thread, then you're crazy.
    What I'm trying to point out is that the studies you mentioned as part of that Wiki link are the very same studies that one of my links serves to rebut. In essence, you just posted a different set of references to the same studies and said you were right about the issue of consensus.

  30. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    What I'm trying to point out is that the studies you mentioned as part of that Wiki link are the very same studies that one of my links serves to rebut. In essence, you just posted a different set of references to the same studies and said you were right about the issue of consensus.
    Then stop linking to conspiracy sites and instead refer to mainstream scientific position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...#Non-committal - if you want to refute it, then please do it yourself and don't expect me to read through websites that you've just spent a few seconds googling.

  31. #31
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarper View Post
    Then stop linking to conspiracy sites and instead refer to mainstream scientific position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...#Non-committal - if you want to refute it, then please do it yourself and don't expect me to read through websites that you've just spent a few seconds googling.
    Argument from consensus/authority. You're trying to say that because an opinion isn't a dominant one, it doesn't deserve to be heard. If you're not willing to take the time to read the links I've posted, why are you bothering with this thread?

    I checked the link you just posted and it's not even relevant to your own post. You also didn't bother to provide context.

  32. #32
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So all the stuff we are burning in our cars and such is apparently 130,000 TWH/year. Collectively. Im not entirely sure what that equals but it be a big bonfire i bet. Like a few active volcanoes perhaps?

    https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels/

  33. #33
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    @Adam Strange make sense, not the people and airport terminal but the rest xd
    The airport terminal comparison was a stretch, because I didn't want to get into the increase of radiative power as the fourth power of temperature, thermal equilibrium, and scattering coefficients. But the comparison is not actually wrong, and so is not the worst analogy.

  34. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Argument from consensus/authority. You're trying to say that because an opinion isn't a dominant one, it doesn't deserve to be heard. If you're not willing to take the time to read the links I've posted, why are you bothering with this thread?
    And arguing with a website written by a 'retired TV weatherman' and the other one 'a computer scientist' is not going to convince me.

    Anyway, at least for myself, http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1246924

    I was able to take some data from reputable sources and synthesize it to create some credible questions. There's nothing interesting to me to just link weird websites then tell me to ignore the IPCC, 34 national science academies, the US research council, the Australian S&T, the UK Royal society, along with many others just because some guy published a blog that you linked and are obsessing over.

  35. #35
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    The airport terminal comparison was a stretch, because I didn't want to get into the increase of radiative power as the fourth power of temperature, thermal equilibrium, and scattering coefficients. But the comparison is not actually wrong, and so is not the worst analogy.
    Ya its good. I just dislike crowded terminals I guess.

  36. #36
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    So all the stuff we are burning in our cars and such is apparently 130,000 TWH/year. Collectively. Im not entirely sure what that equals but it be a big bonfire i bet. Like a few active volcanoes perhaps?

    https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels/
    It's a lot of energy. Here's how to think about it.

    http://www.science20.com/the_hammock...tprints-180610

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    It's a lot of energy. Here's how to think about it.

    http://www.science20.com/the_hammock...tprints-180610
    What bugs me about global warming is the steps taken to counter-act it. For instance, at my place of employment, paper towels in the toilets have been replaced by hand driers. Well, I suppose this is more about protecting the environment than global warming, but it all seems related, ie trees aren't cut down which helps global warming, the trees and paper towels aren't transported by air and road preventing the use of fossil fuels. But then I think, what if I want to wash my face in the toilet, I can't do that now because there's no paper towels to dry my face.

    Surely, the electricity the hand driers use aren't good for the environment, and, a more useful thing to do would be to turn off the companies logo outside the building that's lit up 24 hours a day, or turn it of during the day and just leave it on at night.

  38. #38
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Cutting down trees are not necessary bad for the carbon since they pick up carbon from the atmosphere. They are basically made out of carbon. So the sum there is zero.

  39. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    Cutting down trees are not necessary bad for the carbon since they pick up carbon from the atmosphere. They are basically made out of carbon. So the sum there is zero.
    I thought they ate carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and gave out oxygen. So therefore helped with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

  40. #40
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarper View Post
    I thought they ate carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and gave out oxygen. So therefore helped with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    Ya, they eat the carbon from the atmosphere and when they die they eventueally turn into oil that get down in the ground or Co2 again if they burn. But if you grow a tree and burn it down the net sum of Co2 in the atmosphere is 0.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •