08-09-2011, 01:31 PM | #121 |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 51
Posts: 5,373
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Are the strawmen extinct yet? This thread sure is decimating them.
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
08-09-2011, 02:11 PM | #122 |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: November 15, 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,253
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Didn't you know that they can regenerate? They're like daywalker vampires - sunlight doesn't affect them; you have to stake them and cut off their heads.
__________________
“Every tavern’s an opportunity, I say.” |
08-09-2011, 02:24 PM | #123 |
Drow Priestess
Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Micah is right--sometimes they come back.
However, I never attack straw men. I go straight for the real problems--scientists who claim that their research is completely conclusive (when, in reality, it is not) and politicians/groups who want to enact legislation binding future generations based on faulty research.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true. No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna. |
08-09-2011, 02:54 PM | #124 |
Ninja Storm Shadow
Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Why? "chin music" is good enough... Nothing wrong with scoring points that's how you can tell winners from losers... But I know having winners and losers just warps the pshycie of those not winning... So here's your participation trophy
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
08-09-2011, 02:59 PM | #125 |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: November 15, 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,253
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Do you happen to have a link for that?
__________________
“Every tavern’s an opportunity, I say.” |
08-10-2011, 03:07 AM | #126 | |
Registered Member
Iron Throne Cult
Join Date: August 27, 2004
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 4,888
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
To be fair, I looked back over all your posts in this thread to see if any of your posts actually did answer one of my questions. As suspected, it did not. You simply stated - again - that all scientists on the planet are in agreement on this issue without providing any links or data to support that continued assertion. Since your posts all say basically the same thing "Science is in agreement on this issue", I asked (not "demanded") for clarification on what parts of the issue science is in full agreement on. Any group can walk outside while it is raining and all agree on the fact that rain is falling, but that doesn't mean they all agree on what is causing that particular rain storm. So, I just asked you to clarify the points on which this full agreement exists so we could work from a common foundation. As usual, it fell to another member to actually provide even this basic piece of information (BTW, thanks for doing that, Chewie). You see, while I do question both the impact that humankind is having directly on GCC and the alleged "complete agreement" of scientists on this issue, I'm willing to look at the evidence objectively to determine how compelling their arguments are. As with any scientific research, the most common place to start is by examining the studies done by others and evaluating the conclusions reached, then look over the data and see if you agree with those conclusions. That is all I've asked, that you show the work you've studied which led to your conclusions so I can look at the same data. This is a commonly accepted practice in science. But, just like the GCC scientists, you refuse to share your own data and insist everyone just accept the fact your findings are correct unless they can prove otherwise with data of their own. Although I've known it for a long time, looking back at your posts in this thread and those in the previous discussion of this topic, it is easy to see your responses are nothing more than a shell game. You make a bold assertion without providing any proof, then claim the burden of proving your claim false falls to everyone else. When asked to provide the simplest answers on your claim, you just move the shells around a couple of times and continue making the same claim while still providing nothing to actually back it up. In this thread, Chewie stepped forward to provide the information requested. In the previous thread, it was machinehead that took the time to provide a link. When I looked over that link again, I did find something interesting at the end that I had not noticed the first time. A quote from NASA's Gavan Schmidt: "...the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist. I had wondered where your suggestion to "call scientists at the local universities and then at the non-local universities" had come from, since that is a rather odd suggestion even by your standards, but then I saw Mr. Schmidt's quote and realized where it came from. So the shell game continues with you switching the shells around while relying on others to provide any information on the subject. It's been entertaining to watch, as always, but just as with any shell game, the only winning move is to do just that - watch and not play. If you ever decide to have a serious discussion on the topic, I'll be glad to participate. Until then, I'll just continue watching your game with the rest of the crowd.
__________________
Cerek the Calmth |
|
08-10-2011, 05:02 AM | #127 | |
Jack Burton
Join Date: May 31, 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,854
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
*Puts on tinfoil hat* Re your latest conspiracy theory...what's that, like 2 in the last month or so? I prefer the first one personally, you remember...with the multiple steps in it applied to everything. That said, I could work with this new shell concept but only if I get to be a carnie. And a cool carnie, like Samuel from heroes. Not sure what to say about the text you pasted from that link other than it doesn't make you look good, lol. First, you say Machinehead posted the link from which you pasted in another seperate thread, correct? This is my first time seeing that text. Now let me see if I understand this. Because that paragraph you pasted happens to suggest something similiar to what I said to you (which isn't exactly because I said academies as opposed to colleges, and suggested a broader scope such as environmntal agencies and more so was talking about the famous scientists when I said accredited etc.) you're alluding that I somehow could not have suggested "go do the research" by myself or something to that effect, amirite? Even if it was true...explain to me what this would prove anyways? There's nothing genius in these suggestions, certainly not enough to take my cues from an article. And again even if I had read it remembered it and then copied what it said...what would be your point? Clearly the amount of time you spent connecting the imaginary dots here would have been better served by actually putting in some serious, honest work instead of getting creative with paranoia. It's a shame. Btw, where's this thread you got that from?
__________________
Still I feel like a child when I look at the moon, maybe I grew up a little too soon... |
|
08-10-2011, 05:30 AM | #128 |
Xanathar Thieves Guild
Join Date: March 17, 2001
Location: Wichita, KS USA
Age: 61
Posts: 4,537
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
I gotta have links? Why am I required to provide links? Isn't it enough that I posted it? You know, the "It's this way because I said so, prove me wrong." approach.
While my quoted response was tongue in cheek, every scenario I laid out has been put forward as a possible side affect of GCC. Did I leave out massive flooding? I did. Let's not forget that, as it's possible too. On a not so tongue and cheek side, what if what's going on now is Nature's way of dealing with it? Maybe every so often Mother Nature gets bored with the world the way it is, provides an ELE(Extinction Level Event), and starts from scratch?
__________________
To those we have lost; May your spirits fly free. Good Music: Here. Interesting read, one of my blogs. Last edited by robertthebard; 08-10-2011 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Forgot my Punctuation Mark. |
08-10-2011, 06:34 AM | #129 | |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: November 15, 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,253
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
And the first part of that comment basically summed up the gist of this thread, aside from the occassional "Mr Wizard on crack" post. I just wanted to check the source was all. I've been to a lot of CC/GW websites and it's no surprise that the tone and contents vary all over the place. I just wanted to know where you got that from.
__________________
“Every tavern’s an opportunity, I say.” Last edited by Micah Foehammer; 08-10-2011 at 11:03 AM. |
|
08-10-2011, 12:52 PM | #130 | |
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: New York
Age: 38
Posts: 4,666
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
The first place we should go to is the Carbon Cycle; how organic (CO2,fossil fuels,etc) and inorganic carbon (rock and marine shells) is exhanged with various earth systems (terrestial ecosystems, ocean ecosystems, the atmosphere, etc). By far the largest reserve of carbon is found in the ocean. The ballpark numbers changes from source to source, but usually ~39000Gt (gigatonnes!) of carbon is in the ocean. That's a huge number that I don't think anyone can mentally wrap their brain around. Soils/Vegetation (land stuff) have about 2500Gt, the atmosphere has ~760Gt. CO2 is the greenhouse gas of focus because of it's ability to trap heat, so lets focus on that. Since CO2 is an organic form of carbon, we need to look mainly at organic processes that release and fix(trap/store) CO2. I mentioned it earlier with the plant statement, but the process that fixes carbon is photosynthesis, the process that releases carbon is respiration. Microbial activity can also fix carbon, but that gets rather technical. All living cells undergo respiration; it is how they generate useful energy from sugar bonds. The main byproduct of respiration is CO2. Not all living cells undergo photosynthesis however, only plants do. Now back to your question of removing all soil/vegetation and replacing it with concrete. With terrestial (land) ecosystems there are a handful of key interactions that allow for large transfers of CO2 in terms of release and fixation. Listing the big ones: Plants: They draw CO2 from the atmosphere and fix it in their wood via photosynthesis. Soils: There is a huge amount of microbial activity in soils which result in huge amounts of respiration (certain microbes do fix carbon, but by and large soils are a net source of CO2 release, not a sink). Soils are a huge contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere (excluding humans) Humans: Obviously we release a huge amount of CO2 via burning fossil fuels. So if you replace everything with concrete, you eliminate the plants and the soil transfers of CO2. The main players in the carbon cycle at this point would be humans and the ocean, and humans would probably dominate and dramatically alter the cycle. We'd also have a lot bigger problems in the world if everything was concrete (mainly where would we get our food?) What would happen is purely speculation, obviously there would be a lot more release of carbon than fixation of carbon. Interestingly enough, we don't know whether or not terrestial ecosystems are a source or sink of CO2; there are a lot of conflicting reports that can go either way. So my somewhat educated guess would be that we would increase the levels of atmospheric CO2 by replacing all vegetation/soil with cement. Quantifying the rate of increase would be hugely important, but I would bet it would be something signficant. What would the result be if there was a lot more CO2 in the air in terms of temperature? Well some some 200 million years ago, the atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, 1000ppm+ (for reference we are around 350ppm today). That is around the time of the dinosaurs, and the earth was a much warmer place back then than it is today. Is that due to the CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes! Is it due to other factors as well? Probably! This is obviously a huge simplification of your question, as the very fact that the entire earth is concrete would probably lead to additional heating as well. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Talk about global warming, eh? | Link | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 19 | 07-16-2004 12:25 PM |
Global Warming: Who's to blame? | Avatar | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 31 | 09-03-2003 10:50 AM |
News for anyone interested in Global Warming. | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 56 | 09-27-2002 10:17 PM |
Global Warming (time to stir the pot) | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 22 | 05-16-2002 09:28 AM |
Global Warming! Please read and answer | Moridin | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 51 | 04-11-2001 08:01 AM |