Page 48 of 72 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast
Results 706 to 720 of 1074
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,900
    Rep Power
    10
    Post Like Stats

    Default Debate is over: Climate change not real

    It's been a good debate but it appears the CEC has settled the discussion. The newly born appreciate the world being handed off to them. Thanks Grandma. Thanks Dad!

    Quote Originally Posted by Reuters
    Trump administration tells EPA to cut climate page from website: sources

    U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the climate change page from its website, two agency employees told Reuters, the latest move by the newly minted leadership to erase ex-President Barack Obama's climate change initiatives.


    The employees were notified by EPA officials on Tuesday that the administration had instructed EPA's communications team to remove the website's climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research, as well as detailed data on emissions. The page could go down as early as Wednesday, the sources said.


    "If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear," one of the EPA staffers told Reuters, who added some employees were scrambling to save some of the information housed on the website, or convince the Trump administration to preserve parts of it.

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #706
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Ornery
    Ideology
    Conservative
    Posts
    144,640
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dantes View Post
    There is no way to prove either. It's impossible. There is not test that will prove antibiotics will cure your infection. There is only one of you and you cannot simultaneously be a test group and a control group for yourself.
    Any strain can be identified by culturing and testing as can the antibiotic sensitivity of any given strain of bacteria that infects animals.

    You either have no clue what you're talking about at all or you just don't mind embarrassing yourself repeatedly.
    Don't Blame Me I voted for Cruz! Without the 1st & 2nd Amendments the rest of The Constitution is meaningless
    THE DEFICIT

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. Likes Former Paratrooper liked this post
  6. #707
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    24,729
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    20
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    If you've ever answered it before I haven't seen it but thanks for clearing it up.

    It hasn't been demonstrated because it cannot be demonstrated because it's impossible to reach such a level in the atmosphere under conditions that would still support life on earth.

    Now... .

    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/atmosphere1.htm
    what did I just read?
    What is the determinant of how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?
    Where does he get this idea "A molecule of H2O is 50 percent more effective or efficient in absorbing radiation than a molecule of CO2" from?

    I'll admit his math is a little more sophisticated than yours but this is a far better source. Enjoy!
    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010...t_sc05400j.pdf

  7. Sponsored Links


  8. #708
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Male
    Ideology
    Get off my lawn
    Posts
    12,653
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    6
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    I don't claim to be a "climate scientist" but I certainly understand the Scientific Method and the difference in good science and dogma.

    The fact that all they can do is attack me personally while dodging the questions and hiding from the refutations of their supposed facts says it all.
    BTW...I see other people on the Web who have used the same model (MODTRAN, which incorporates HITRAN, referenced in the link you provided) and reached -qualitatively-
    similar results as I did. I say "qualitatively" because we took completely different approaches.. except that we both doubled the current CO2 concentrations to see what would happen. He calculated a delta in radiative forcing while I calculated the delta in the total energy content of the atmosphere. The fact that two different and completely independent approaches are yielding a similar story is some confirmation that we are correct. CO2 isn't causing global warming.
    "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"
    1 Corinthians 1:27-29

  9. Sponsored Links


  10. #709
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Ornery
    Ideology
    Conservative
    Posts
    144,640
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dantes View Post
    what did I just read?
    What is the determinant of how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?
    Where does he get this idea "A molecule of H2O is 50 percent more effective or efficient in absorbing radiation than a molecule of CO2" from?

    I'll admit his math is a little more sophisticated than yours but this is a far better source. Enjoy!
    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010...t_sc05400j.pdf
    There you go again.
    There is precise information on the proportions of all gases in the atmosphere except one and that one is water vapor, the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas. The water vapor component of the atmosphere varies around the Earth from near zero in the deserts, both hot and cold, to perhaps seven percent in tropical marine environments. It also varies vertically from the surface to the stratosphere. And it also varies over time.

    It is said that the global average water vapor content of the atmosphere is between one and three percent and that it varies between two and four percent, although there may not be much empirical backing for those limits. It appears that these figures publicized for the water vapor content of the atmosphere are for only the lower near-surface part. There is very little water vapor in the stratosphere, but of couse there is very little atmosphere in the stratosphere either.

    It is strange and perplexing that there are no widely available statistics on the water vapor content of the atmosphere. The spatial variation of the water vapor content is no greater than in the case of temperature.

    Focusing soley on greenhouse gases is misleading because it leaves out an even more important factor in the greenhouse effect, namely the role of clouds. Most people have observed how much colder it is at night when there is a clear sky compared to what it is when the sky is overcast. The clouds are much more effective in absorbing the thermal radiation from the Earth and radiating back down than the greenhouse gases. The greenhouse effect of the gases is the same on the clear and the cloudy night but it is much colder without the clouds. It is not obvious how to combine measures of the prevalence of greenhouse gases with the prevalence of clouds to come up with a single measure of the absorption potential of the atmosphere. There is however a way.
    Again from the same source.

    You can't refute the math so you simply attack me and try to laugh it off.
    Don't Blame Me I voted for Cruz! Without the 1st & 2nd Amendments the rest of The Constitution is meaningless
    THE DEFICIT

  11. Sponsored Links


  12. #710
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Ornery
    Ideology
    Conservative
    Posts
    144,640
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by call me ishmael View Post
    BTW...I see other people on the Web who have used the same model (MODTRAN, which incorporates HITRAN, referenced in the link you provided) and reached -qualitatively-
    similar results as I did. I say "qualitatively" because we took completely different approaches.. except that we both doubled the current CO2 concentrations to see what would happen. He calculated a delta in radiative forcing while I calculated the delta in the total energy content of the atmosphere. The fact that two different and completely independent approaches are yielding a similar story is some confirmation that we are correct. CO2 isn't causing global warming.
    While there seems to be a wealth of evidence that is correct the confirmation to me at this point is the fact that even though CO2 Levels have skyrocketed in recent years there has been no corresponding dramatic rise in temps accompanying it.

    If the theory that CO2 drives heating rather than heating driving CO2 increases primarily via increased ocean temps then as the increase in CO2 accelerated dramatically so too should have temps.

    I simply to this point have not seen the evidence to support the contention that CO2 is in any way a significant factor on global temps.

    Nothing else in our atmosphere approaches the ability of water vapor and particularly cloud cover and density to affect temperatures directly (blocking incoming solar radiation) nor in absorbing and reflecting IR reflecting back from the earth.

    The other thing we know without a doubt from direct observation is the urban heat island effect.

    Concrete and asphalt store heat all day and then slowly radiate it back out through the dark hours at much higher rates than even bare dirt much less soil covered with green plants and especially that of soil that is heavily shaded throughout the day.

    If you look at the two figures at this link where the show the difference in heat retention between areas with and without vegetation as well as high density vegetation vs low it's very striking.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...greenroof2.php

    Green plants act both via shading and through evaporative cooling to lower and moderate temperatures and the water vapor they emit increases the total amount in the atmosphere as well further moderating temperature swings.

    Unlike the theory of CO2 being a major factor in global temperatures these are actual observable and measurable contributions.
    Don't Blame Me I voted for Cruz! Without the 1st & 2nd Amendments the rest of The Constitution is meaningless
    THE DEFICIT

  13. Sponsored Links


  14. #711
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Get off my lawn
    Posts
    95,954
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by midman View Post
    As soon as it was apparent the solution was going to require a govt. major role, the wingers became apoplectic. It didn't make any difference that it was true.
    Why does it take government to proved a solution? Why cannot you and all the rest of like minded Americans (who claim to be the vast majority) slash your carbon footprint without waiting for government to tell you to?

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  15. Sponsored Links


  16. #712
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Get off my lawn
    Posts
    95,954
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reflechissez View Post
    What factual examples of this do you have? I'm not referring to any feelings you may have.
    Just go to Akusofu's web site and read the comments.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  17. Sponsored Links


  18. #713
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Get off my lawn
    Posts
    95,954
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fava View Post
    Something called the atmospheric pressure or barometric pressure. The Earth's atmosphere is filled with the gasses and water vapor caused by the hydrostatic pressure of the weight of the air. If there is no CO2, other gasses take up the available space and water vapor is the most common with a ticket to ride.
    CO2 contributes very little to atmospheric pressure. The change in the composition of the other gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere would be insignificant.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  19. Sponsored Links


  20. #714
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Get off my lawn
    Posts
    95,954
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fava View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dantes
    There's no proof that the bacteria in the cultures is the causative organism. It was brought up again by the other poster. I didn't come back to it. Now stop trolling.
    Medicine cultures the bacteria in the wound to ascertain what it is and what will combat it. Today, it is somewhat supplemented by microbiology.
    Why do these medical science posts keep popping up in this climate science thread?

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  21. Sponsored Links


  22. #715
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    24,729
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    20
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    There you go again.
    Again from the same source.

    You can't refute the math so you simply attack me and try to laugh it off.
    I refuted the math with my owns source that you ignored. You didn't answer the questions.
    What is the determinant of how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?
    Where does he get this idea "A molecule of H2O is 50 percent more effective or efficient in absorbing radiation than a molecule of CO2" from?

    Stop deflecting and don't act so childish that your feelings got hurt.

  23. Sponsored Links


  24. #716
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    24,729
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    20
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    Why do these medical science posts keep popping up in this climate science thread?
    I'm only making the point that some hypotheses are unprovable yet we will use them anyway.

  25. Sponsored Links


  26. #717
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fredonia Republic
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Classical Liberal
    Posts
    14,575
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    13
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Climate change is real and constant. What isn't real is the silly assed notion than mankind as an effect and can do anything to reverse it. Non stop blathering by the Algorists who would have the common man traveling in smart cars while they jet about in their G5s notwithstanding.

    "Society would be better off if people would mind their own business and stop using government as their agent in telling other people how to live." ~ Some fella you never heard of.

  27. Sponsored Links


  28. #718
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kingdom of Ends
    Gender
    Male
    Ideology
    Don't know
    Posts
    18,965
    Rep Power
    9
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnRandolph View Post
    What isn't real is the silly assed notion than mankind as an effect and can do anything to reverse it.
    I wish I could agree, John. I really do.

    “Morality is…the doctrine of how we may make ourselves…worthy of happiness.” — Immanuel Kant
    You can ignore politics, but politics won't ignore you.

  29. Sponsored Links


  30. #719
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kingdom of Ends
    Gender
    Male
    Ideology
    Don't know
    Posts
    18,965
    Rep Power
    9
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    Why does it take government to proved a solution? Why cannot you and all the rest of like minded Americans (who claim to be the vast majority) slash your carbon footprint without waiting for government to tell you to?
    If you think the speed limit is too high, then why don't you slow down while other people just shoot on past you?

    If you thinking looting is wrong, why don't you just not do it while others can make that decision for themselves?

    If you don't like abortion, then why don't you choose not to have one while other people are left free to do so?

    If you don't like welfare, then why don't you just not use it?

    I can go on.

  31. Sponsored Links


  32. #720
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Male
    Ideology
    Get off my lawn
    Posts
    12,653
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    6
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reflechissez View Post
    What factual examples of this do you have? I'm not referring to any feelings you may have.
    the most ridiculous post on the planet.
    "please provide factual examples that prove that people will fight to keep their jobs"
    Last edited by call me ishmael; September 14th, 2017 at 8:30 am.
    "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"
    1 Corinthians 1:27-29

  33. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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