Page 3 of 3

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:11 pm
by pietrko
You were imprecise on purpose to make your case look better instead of completely wrong.

No I did it beacuse I don't consider Darwoth and this forum to be the place for discussions which are 100% serious, also substituting CO2 for pollution didn't make my case wrong (which was USA produces a lot of CO2 and Darwoth says *****).

You also fail to account for the US's vast forests which absorb a fair amount of our CO2 emissions.Are you aware that 1/3 of our land area is forest and rising?

True, but so do other countries.

Meanwhile in Africa and other heavy jungle areas, they're burning their trees down in vast swaths. Additionally, we are actively decreasing our carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions all on our own, no Paris Treaty or even government regulation needed, it's just more profitable to pollute less.

True, yet Africe is nowhere near West levels.

Just look at Methane, a much more potent 'greenhouse gas' than CO2.

True, but it 200 times less of it in atmosphere and its production have different dynamics.

Which papers, exactly?

"Real" ones, as I've told you, recent week this (Nature)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Argo_array

Real scientific papers are targeted to experts in the area and will be tough to understand if you aren't actually in that field yourself.

I read only papers that I can understand (the ones with colorful pictures and monosyllabic words) and are not boring (they must mention my name or be less than one page or I lose focus).
Very true, I'm no expert however I have a degree in theoretical physics and I do understand a fair amount of what I read. Also, I have a few papers of my own (Physical Review) and I know to a degree how research & publishing process works. This in turn allows me to understand some negative phenomena that make science less credible.


Also, ship flotillas have been proven to be very unreliable for ocean temperature measurements as the ships themselves produce so much heat. Buoys are much more accurate, but have been largely disregarded as they don't show any temperature rises happening in the oceans in the last ten years and global warming advocates can't have that

For case of Argo the temperature is measured 1000m to 2000 meters under the surface (please check paper for measurement methodology). I don't see any physical mechanism that could transfer heat (and disturb the measurement )from moving ship to moving probe that are separated by at least 1km of water.

that would be it.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:50 am
by TotalyMeow
Your link doesn't go to the full article. Nice way to be "right", I guess.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:07 am
by Judaism
So there seems to be consensus that we are in a moment of temperature boost.
If you look at the given data, from here:
Image


You clearly see that the increment of the past century is easily spotted. The increment seems quite unnatural to me atleast.
Now obviously the temperatures have been way higher in the earth's life time and we know very little about our own little planet to entirely rule-out possibilities. Nevertheless given the population boost:
Image


It is an easy assumption to make, as humans do in fact add carbon to the atmosphere. The question is whether nature can deal with the surplus or not. I think its very unlikely that we will reach disastrous levels any time soon but even if we would reach such levels, nature probably will resolve this one way or another.

So whatever low-measures the Paris climate suggested would had little impact in its totality. Let alone a single country such as the USA. (14.34%% of the CO2, with 4,6% of the world's population)
As an egocentric move, its fully understandable that countries would pull back out of expensive agreements. It however might backfire in terms of technological advances or lead towards yet another shift.

Acting quick on matters such as climate change might be very important, we have almost reached consensus regarding the matter. Around 98% of the scientists do agree as of right now. The small remaining gap needs to be won over, there really cannot be counter-arguments left alive regarding such important topics. But once there is a consensus, the climate objectives should be taken much more seriously.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:22 am
by pietrko
TotalyMeow wrote:Your link doesn't go to the full article. Nice way to be "right", I guess.


Unless you have account on researchgate you won't be able to download it everything you want.
But in many cases you're able to get full pdf.

I will gladly sent it to you, pm email.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:26 pm
by MarpTarpton
Why can't you people have debates without belittling eachother every single time? Is being right that important?

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:37 pm
by Dallane
MarpTarpton wrote:Why can't you people have debates without belittling eachother every single time? Is being right that important?


you people...... what exactly do you mean "you people"?!?!?!?!?!?!

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:53 pm
by Heffernan
MarpTarpton wrote:Why can't you people have debates without belittling eachother every single time? Is being right that important?


*each other :P

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:39 pm
by Reviresco
What I'm really wondering is whether the the physiological effect of temperature on aggression factored into the DC shooter's actions.

Source: berzferd.cerm/did-dropped-icecream-cone-cause-DC-shooting

Discuss.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:31 pm
by Taipion
Reviresco wrote:What I'm really wondering is whether the the physiological effect of temperature on aggression factored into the DC shooter's actions.

Source: berzferd.cerm/did-dropped-icecream-cone-cause-DC-shooting

Discuss.


We don't need to discuss that,

it's as obvious as is gets!

Ofc does increased heat lead to an increase in agression, just look around:
- middle east, high temperatures, war
- afrika, high temperatures, war
- south america, high temperatures, war

And the other side is obvious, too, or have you seen any war or even violence in cold countries/regions like canada, siberia, island, scandinavia, greenland, north/south poles, .... ?!

Really, not worth a discussion at all.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:46 am
by saltmummy
MarpTarpton wrote:Why can't you people have debates without belittling eachother every single time? Is being right that important?

On the internet, it is that important.

Whether climate change is real or not is a null issue when you don't care. Planets fine, humans are just uncomfortable/inconvenienced, no reason to worry/waste money. ***** "green" chocolate chips.