Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #180 on: May 07, 2014, 02:00:53 AM »
If you're not willing to back your claims up, then I won't waste my time with you. I now understand why others have largely abandoned this thread, and will follow suit.

If you like to pull out quotes, that were obviously meant to discount your statements, then ask me to back them up, then you obviously have a serious lacking in fundamental reading comprehension skills. This is why we teach English before we teach science. You've demonstrated that you do not have the skills nor the ability to contribute to any discussion on the sciences. If you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion, then please, do leave.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #181 on: May 07, 2014, 02:09:33 AM »
If you like to pull out quotes, that were obviously meant to discount your statements, then ask me to back them up, then you obviously have a serious lacking in fundamental reading comprehension skills.
If they're meant to discount them, it'd be good if they made sense. If neither of us claims that there is only one possibility, then your attempt at discounting my statements was rather poor.

This is why we teach English before we teach science.
Again with the ethnocentrism. You will find that a vast minority of people have been taught English before science. You really need to work on that.

You've demonstrated that you do not have the skills nor the ability to contribute to any discussion on the sciences.
Please remember that ad hominems do not belong on this forum, as you rightly pointed out despite not knowing what the term means. If you'd like to discuss my claims, feel free to address them (after you've substantiated your own, of course). If you'd like to discuss my person, well, it's not gonna happen.

If you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion, then please, do leave.
Sorry, sweetheart, you don't decide who stays or leaves here.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 02:21:11 AM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #182 on: May 07, 2014, 02:23:49 AM »
Quote
If they're meant to discount them, it'd be good if they made sense. If neither of us claims that there is only one possibility, then your attempt at discounting my statements was rather poor.

Again, it said "badly witted comparison" which could refer to a "badly made or constructed" one. Please read the actual posts before responding

Quote
If they're meant to discount them, it'd be good if they made sense. If neither of us claims that there is only one possibility, then your attempt at discounting my statements was rather poor.

"English" does not necessarily refer to the language itself. For example: English - noun - simple, straightforward language

Usually, simple language is taught first in schools would you not agree? It's bad practice to assume definitions of words.

Quote
I know you have, but what have I done?
Please refer to above posts. Also consider that you have not made any meaningful contributions in terms of data or issues concerning AGW, rather you have simply hawked on wording which should be implicit based on the context of the statements and the nature of this discussion.

Quote
Sorry, sweetheart, you don't decide who stays or leaves here.
Do what you will, just try to keep your posts mature and on-topic.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #183 on: May 07, 2014, 02:30:31 AM »
Again, it said "badly witted comparison" which could refer to a "badly made or constructed" one. Please read the actual posts before responding
Okay, so you acknowledge your point was bogus. I'm happy now.

"English" does not necessarily refer to the language itself. For example: English - noun - simple, straightforward language
Major dictionaries appear to disagree with you:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/english_1?q=English
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/English?q=English
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/english

Do what you will, just try to keep your posts mature and on-topic.
Right back at you. So far, you've been ranting about Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes, italicisation, have been making (by your own admission) poorly-constructed arguments, and have been avoiding to back up your claims. Follow your own standard before you try imposing it unto others.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 02:37:22 AM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7114
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #184 on: May 07, 2014, 02:32:23 AM »
If you're not willing to back your claims up, then I won't waste my time with you. I now understand why others have largely abandoned this thread, and will follow suit.

Me: "Oh look, he knows!"

*clicks next page*

Me: " ::)"

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #185 on: May 07, 2014, 02:38:00 AM »
Me: "Oh look, he knows!"

*clicks next page*

Me: " ::)"
Sorry, you're right. I'm gone now. No more responses from me.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #186 on: May 07, 2014, 02:47:11 AM »
Quote
Okay, so you acknowledge your point was bogus. I'm happy now.
Congrats, you proved 2+2=4. Very impressive.

Quote
Please present a source for this claim. Major dictionaries appear to disagree with you:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/english_1?q=English
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/English?q=English
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/english

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/English
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/English
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/English?r=66

Quote
Right back at you. So far, you've been ranting about Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes, italicization, have been making (by your own admission) poorly-constructed arguments, and have been avoiding to back up your claims. Follow your own standard before you try imposing it unto others.

You brought up Star Trek. You brought up Sherlock Holmes. My "poorly-constructed argument" (again, please actually read the post) was a response to a poorly-constructed comparison you had made earlier.


Bye, thank you for your minimal contribution to this topic.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5190
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #187 on: May 07, 2014, 10:02:45 AM »

Quote
The only main source for global climate change is the sun.
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

So the question that should be asked is: has the energy from the sun increased?
If yes, is it enough to cause climate change?

This is a common misconception. Climate change suggested by AGW is not caused by heat that humans release. It's caused by the chemical properties of the gasses, such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, that allow for increased absorption of energy from the sun into atmosphere and hydrosphere. Basically, when sunlight hits the Earth, a good amount is reflected. Some of it is absorbed by greenhouse gasses, such as CO2. Without these gasses, the Earth would be much cooler than it is today.

When you increase the proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, it traps more energy from the sun. So the amount of energy from the sun is remaining relatively constant, it's simply the amount that your capturing. It would be sort of like trying to throw a ball through a hole. If you make the hole smaller, less balls you throw will get through. This would be like greenhouse gasses. The higher concentration of greenhouse gasses you have, the less energy will actually escape, and more energy will stay on the planet, leading to the planet warming.

tldr; The energy from the sun hasn't increased, greenhouse gasses are simply absorbing a large % of it.

I hope this helps.
I gotta side with PP.  You don't read post and are clearly so focused on your point that everyone is wrong.

The mere fact that I was agreeing with you when you smacked me down with a lecture on greenhouse gases THEN totally dismiss the idea of increased solar activity without evidence is just arrogance and ignorance.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #188 on: May 07, 2014, 11:06:43 AM »
Quote
I gotta side with PP.  You don't read post and are clearly so focused on your point that everyone is wrong.

The mere fact that I was agreeing with you when you smacked me down with a lecture on greenhouse gases THEN totally dismiss the idea of increased solar activity without evidence is just arrogance and ignorance.

What does your agreeing with me have anything to do with my response? It'd be the same either way. If someone tells me that Evolution (Darwin's Evolution) doesn't occur, because everything in life seems to be random, i'd give the same response to someone that said that Evolution is false because nothing in life is random. What would be addressed in both comments? Evolution is not random.

Your post suggests that AGW is caused by heat added to the atmosphere by humans. Again, this is a common misconception, which is why I addressed it in depth. The tldr was meant to discount the misconception that energy released by humans is causing agw rather than greenhouse gasses. This was a mistype.

On the discussion on if the energy from the sun is enough to cause current climate change, there are many papers describing research into whether this may be the case.

"Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950." - http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

"We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

though there's many more studies involving this if you'd like to read further into the topic, which are linked below;

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/309

Usually the data tells us that changes in energy from the sun over the past 100 years isn't enough to account for current warming.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 11:17:45 AM by HHunter »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5190
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #189 on: May 07, 2014, 08:28:53 PM »
Hold on... How do you get this:
Your post suggests that AGW is caused by heat added to the atmosphere by humans.

From this:
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

Has your reading comprehension of English not been fully developed?  Are you unable to read the contraction of "is not"?


And just to make life easy for you:
My post suggested that perhaps an increase in solar energy hitting the Earth accounted for some warming.  And indeed, you seem to agree with that while simultaniously dismissing my suggestion.  (14% is a lot.)

Why is it that you're looking at AWG as the ONLY source of climate change when you just posted several articles stating that increased solar activity accounts for a part of global climate change? 

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #190 on: May 07, 2014, 08:40:51 PM »
Quote
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

No scientist is going to tell you that human-produced heat as any noticeable effect upon the global temperatures. This is either a misconception from you, an attempt at a straw man, or simply mistaken placement.

Quote
My post suggested that perhaps an increase in solar energy hitting the Earth accounted for some warming.  And indeed, you seem to agree with that while simultaniously dismissing my suggestion.  (14% is a lot

The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.

Quote
Why is it that you're looking at AWG as the ONLY source of climate change when you just posted several articles stating that increased solar activity accounts for a part of global climate change?

Please quote me on this.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5190
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #191 on: May 08, 2014, 02:04:13 AM »
Quote
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

No scientist is going to tell you that human-produced heat as any noticeable effect upon the global temperatures. This is either a misconception from you, an attempt at a straw man, or simply mistaken placement.
Can you type back what you think I said?  I feel like you're not understanding anything I say.

Quote
Quote
My post suggested that perhaps an increase in solar energy hitting the Earth accounted for some warming.  And indeed, you seem to agree with that while simultaniously dismissing my suggestion.  (14% is a lot

The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.
Nice assumption.  Good thing we don't make assumptions in science eh?

Quote
Quote
Why is it that you're looking at AWG as the ONLY source of climate change when you just posted several articles stating that increased solar activity accounts for a part of global climate change?
Please quote me on this.
Done.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #192 on: May 08, 2014, 02:59:01 AM »
Quote
Can you type back what you think I said?  I feel like you're not understanding anything I say.

Please explain the point of this statement thoroughly: "The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale"

Quote
Nice assumption.  Good thing we don't make assumptions in science eh?

If you actually read the source, you'd find that this is actually explicitly stated in the first paragraph. Please do this. (Hint: <14% means less than 14%)

Quote
Done.
No, please find where I explicitly state that "AGW [is] the ONLY source of climate change".
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 04:12:49 AM by HHunter »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #193 on: May 08, 2014, 06:02:48 PM »
Lets just argue for argues sake.


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #194 on: May 08, 2014, 07:06:46 PM »
Lets just argue for argues sake.



It's what happens when discussions are limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy, which would amount to an argument rather than a debate. I'd rather it stay in the upper tiers. Providing and analyzing data is what I want to see here. Though questions are welcome, and encouraged. It's easy to become misinformed or confused over the issue, especially when it's so politically heated.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #195 on: May 08, 2014, 07:43:48 PM »
Lets just argue for argues sake.



It's what happens when discussions are limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy, which would amount to an argument rather than a debate. I'd rather it stay in the upper tiers. Providing and analyzing data is what I want to see here. Though questions are welcome, and encouraged. It's easy to become misinformed or confused over the issue, especially when it's so politically heated.

No, it happens when the debate becomes a pissing contest.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #196 on: May 08, 2014, 08:36:37 PM »
Discussions limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy = Pissing contest

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #197 on: May 08, 2014, 09:02:06 PM »
Discussions limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy = Pissing contest

So if this discussion involved the 'other levels' of Blooms taxonomy there would be no pissing contest?

Personally I think it's because of intellectual snobbery.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #198 on: May 08, 2014, 09:08:19 PM »
Discussions limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy = Pissing contest

So if this discussion involved the 'other levels' of Blooms taxonomy there would be no pissing contest?

Personally I think it's because of intellectual snobbery.

Definitely a valid opinion

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5190
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #199 on: May 09, 2014, 02:15:40 AM »
Quote
Can you type back what you think I said?  I feel like you're not understanding anything I say.

Please explain the point of this statement thoroughly: "The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale"
I'll try to put it in complex terms, then simple terms so you understand:
Humans produce heat.  Almost every bit of energy we use produces heat.  From power plants like coal which heat the air to nuclear plants near rivers which heat the surrounding water.  From air conditioners to cars.  We create heat.  Most of the time this heat simply dissipates into the atmosphere.  However with a dense enough location (like a city) the heat can build up faster than it dissipates.  This can result in the city having a slightly higher temperature on average than the surrounding area.  New York city is a good example of this.
However, the heat is insignificant compared to the total thermal energy from the sun hitting the surface.  Therefore, while locally it can cause a noticable impact, globally it's insignificant.

Simply put:
"The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant"


Quote
Quote
Nice assumption.  Good thing we don't make assumptions in science eh?

If you actually read the source, you'd find that this is actually explicitly stated in the first paragraph. Please do this. (Hint: >14% means less than 14%)
1. > means "greater than"
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html
2. they wrote :
Quote
Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity,we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is %5Cleq14%of the observed global warming.
Sadly the >with a tilda under is not supported nor can I find any mention of it.  My guess is that the author meant "less than or almost equal to" as the ~ usually means "approximately".

Now, do you see the difference between what they wrote and what you wrote?

Quote
Quote
Done.
No, please find where I explicitly state that "AGW [is] the ONLY source of climate change".
I have no desire to crawl through this thread.  I am simply stating an observation based on what I've read so far.