|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..30..57..84..111..138~139~140~141~142..159..175..191..207..223..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Sep 27, 2016, R.S. wrote: Yes, I do agree CFC's were a major cause and that's why they were banned in 1996. And that is why the ozone is slowly restoring itself. But yet even though data shows the ozone IS restoring itself, GW is happening? The article here: https://weather.com/science/environment/......ing-nasa suggests that, "But according to some scientists, the restoration of ozone over Antarctica might have negative effects on global warming." Uh oh? What to do know? Even though the ozone hole is becoming smaller this is having a negative effect on global warming? Hm. Just shows you there is no definitive science that can precisely explain the complex system of NATURE and the galaxy systems. Again, does that mean we shouldn't do anything to do our part as citizens to reduce pollution? Absolutely not! But I don't agree that we have to start buying and selling Carbon Credits regulated by the government in order to use our grills and BBQ outside!
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 28, 2016, RNK wrote: So then you DO agree (contrary to your previous assertion) that man and our actions CAN influence nature and our complex atmospheric system. So then I take it you also agree that smog in LA and China is due to human-induced pollutants in the atmosphere. Now you're getting it! 
Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Ummm no smog is not man made. It is caused by raccoons. Duh
Errt ummm urban raccoons .
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 28, 2016, R.S. wrote: Unfortunately you are NOT getting the main point. There is NO definitive evidence, as there was with the CFC studies, proving that Catastrophic events sre going to happen because of emissions OTHER than CFC's. CFC's is a totally different subject with a totally different effect. Heck, even the study says that since the ozone has become smaller it's effecting GW! LOL! So no relationship between the two whatsoever. And looks like according to GW fanatics that we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't! Clearly contradicting themselves. And again, not one GW catastrophic past prediction has come true! Not one! And again, if you think studying 100 years of data (part of which the earlier part of the 100 years of data using real-time monitoring instrumentation that were not to the precision/accuracy as we currently have within the past 50 or so years) is enough data to blame humans for something that is questionable and not definitive then you obviously do not get it. RNK
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 28, 2016, RNK wrote: You went through all my posts?! Wow! I'm impressed. And yes, still, you had missed it. And on the other hand, you know what, I had only mentioned it once. Here towards end of the quoted post you find me telling "I am no science guy." And I actually thought I had mentioned it more often, because I have been also telling, that I have no new solutions and that I am no genious etc. I have been putting myself down here so much that I thought it was evident, but good that you went all detective on this matter and wanted to be clear. So, now we are clear. I had stated it, but only directly once. I like this fact checking atmosphere! You are going all Hillary on me. 😊 which is good and I recommend everybody else also to always share their information sources. Like RNK has done. He has told us that he uses this as his information source: www.wnho.net And he also argumented his case with information that can be found here: http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/here......-warming And then we know where he gets his information and everybody can evaluate for themselves how scientific and trustworthy his arguments are when they are based on these information sources. Quote:
On Sep 1, 2016, Gorlzax wrote: |
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
Oh. Ok. So you have no science background. Thanks for the clarification. I am sorry, I thought I read that you stated you did have a science background. But knowing this makes your stance more clear to me.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 28, 2016, RNK wrote: Yes, when I say that I do not have any formal education in science, I mean what I say. You see how confusing and how very much of unnecessery work you do to both of us, you going through all my posts and me having to reply to you, when you don't actually read what I write. 😊 Good that I am now clear to you. Just as you are to me with your "scientific" information sources. Cant help myself, have to put them here once again: http://www.wnho.net/ http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/here......-warming If you are, like you claim, "a science guy", and these two links truly are the best information sources you can find to help argue your point of view, well then, for once I have to be kind of glad that you havent studied with tax payers money. Assuming youre an american, of course. Still, Good that we are now both more clear to each others! |
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 28, 2016, RNK wrote: These contradictory quotes are in your own words... Humans CANNOT influence nature/the atmosphere: Quote:
So yes, you are correct that I believe man and our actions are not a stronger influence than nature and our complex atmospheric/solar system we reside. Humans CAN influence nature/the atmosphere: Quote:
Yes, I do agree CFC's were a major cause and that's why they were banned in 1996. And that is why the ozone is slowly restoring itself. So which is it - can humans affect nature/the atmosphere or can he not??? We're not talking about GW here - just trying to establish whether or not humans can affect nature/the atmosphere. Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
Look up the word significance.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 28, 2016, R.S. wrote: No. From the insignificant amount of data we have on GW and from the reported data, right now a conclusion cannot be made that Humans are causing Global Warming.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts
|
"So how do scientists know that today’s warming is primarily caused by humans putting too much carbon in the atmosphere when we burn coal, oil, and gas or cut down forests?
There are human fingerprints on carbon overload. When humans burn coal, oil and gas (fossil fuels) to generate electricity or drive our cars, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, where it traps heat. A carbon molecule that comes from fossil fuels and deforestation is “lighter” than the combined signal of those from other sources. As scientists measure the “weight” of carbon in the atmosphere over time they see a clear increase in the lighter molecules from fossil fuel and deforestation sources that correspond closely to the known trend in emissions.[2,3] Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen. For a computer model to accurately project the future climate, scientists must first ensure that it accurately reproduces observed temperature changes. When the models include only recorded natural climate drivers—such as the sun’s intensity—the models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. When human-induced climate drivers are also included in the models, then they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans.[4,5,6] When all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the dramatic accumulation of carbon from human sources is by far the largest climate change driver over the past half century. Lower-level atmosphere—which contains the carbon load—is expanding. The boundary between the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the higher atmosphere (stratosphere) has shifted upward in recent decades. See the ozone FAQ for a figure illustrating the layers of the atmosphere.[6,7,8] This boundary has likely changed because heat-trapping gases accumulate in the lower atmosphere and that atmospheric layer expands as it heats up (much like warming the air in a balloon). And because less heat is escaping into the higher atmosphere, it is likely cooling. This differential would not occur if the sun was the sole climate driver, as solar changes would warm both atmospheric layers, and certainly would not have warmed one while cooling the other." Reference and more infornation from here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci......j9RhpurV Please RNK, share also your sources for your argument. I am really interested to know. How have you came up with the conclusion that "From the insignificant amount of data we have on GW and from the reported data, right now a conclusion cannot be made that Humans are causing Global Warming." |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
You say natural changes alone can't explain it, but is that a fact?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 29, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: First of all, I don't say it. I referenced and quoted the analysis of scientists and secondly, did you read the whole paragraph? If you did, I'm not sure what more would you like to know about that argument, to make it a fact for you. "Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen. For a computer model to accurately project the future climate, scientists must first ensure that it accurately reproduces observed temperature changes. When the models include only recorded natural climate drivers—such as the sun’s intensity—the models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. When human-induced climate drivers are also included in the models, then they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans.[4,5,6] When all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the dramatic accumulation of carbon from human sources is by far the largest climate change driver over the past half century." I can try to find more information for you if there is some aspect of this argument that you feel needs more clarification. |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. That means that global temperature gets warmer and warmer on average after an ice age for thousands of years in warm period like the one are in today. It is therefore then that we have global warming and sea level rises as a result. That warming has nothing to do with mankind’s actions. The interglacials and glacials coincide with cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit just as the seasons are to do with the Earths orbit. The orbits of the planets in in the solar system and the sun are not caused by mankind. The ever moving and changing planets change Earth’s climate. That will continue, whether you like it or not and no matter how hysterical you get. No matter how much you climate hysterics exaggerate man’s contribution with your artificial computer models and your Nostradamus like but accurate predictions or whatever you do it will not change reality. The only thing that you climate hysterics will change is the political system. In that respect there is little or no doubt that you will get the future you want.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 29, 2016, tommy wrote: I don't feel very hysterical so you must mean somebody else. And it would be awesome if you could let us know to what you base your point of view. I mean is this what you said just your opinion or where have you gathered this information. Thanks! And as a reply to your argument: "Objection: Today’s warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age. Answer: This argument relies on an implicit assumption that there is a particular climatic baseline to which the earth inexorably returns — and thus that a period of globally lower temperatures will inevitably be followed by a rise in temperatures. What is the scientific basis for that assumption? There is no evidence of such a baseline. The climate is influenced by many factors, which change or remain stable in their own ways. The current understanding of the Little Ice Age is that it was likely the result of a decrease in solar irradiance combined with an increase in volcanic activity, blocking additional sunlight. The LIA was also not particularly well synchronized globally, affecting different regions at different times. Scientists are aware of no century-scale pattern in solar output or volcanic activity, so there’s no reason to expect a reversal of those changes. As it happens, solar output did increase somewhat in the early 20th century, which did contribute to warming at that time. However, that’s not behind current warming. Another problem with appealing to a natural recovery from the LIA is that temperature has now risen to levels higher than the assumed baseline climate. So even if some recovery were to be expected, why have we now exceeded it? This argument has problems similar to the more general “it is part of a natural cycle” argument." And then I give you a reference to where I got this: http://grist.org/climate-energy/we-are-j......the-lia/ Please do the same with your replys. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
To be fair doesn't the entire "global climate change" argument rely on the idea that there is a "norm" that is being deviated from?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
It does not really matter how you climate hysterics feel because it is only the action that really matters. You are such a climate hysteric that above you openly called for global governance to save the world from the farcical threat that is catastrophic man made global warming. They have got you so scared of this invisible threat that you are will give up your sovereignty, so hysterical that you are willing to give them trillions to save you. We find you hysterical, whether you feel or not. It must be really frustrating as a climate hysteric to not have your beliefs taken seriously by the society that you are terrorizing. You must feel like Jihadist; Just how many people do you have to kill around here to be taken seriously?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 29, 2016, RNK wrote: Stay focused. Remember, I said we're not talking about GW here - just trying to establish whether or not humans can affect nature/the atmosphere. So... which of your two contradictory statements are correct? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18038 Posts
|
After pork and beans my son affects the atmosphere.
  
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..30..57..84..111..138~139~140~141~142..159..175..191..207..223..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 28, 2016 02:47 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.17 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|