Cold sun rising

|| || [christmas presents]

Hmmm.. Ok, I just don't remember it. My first recollection of it being a talked-about issue came in the late '60s.

So clearly global warming isn't anything new, and as such can hardly be blamed on mankind.

Well, yes and no, in large enough amounts anything can be accurately described as a pollutant.

Of course, CO2 has been, according to science, quite a bit higher in the past so even that may be a result of largely natural events and while man's contribution is certainly a part of that, it could be a case of pouring a glass of water in a pond during a downpour and claiming that glass of water caused the flooding. Indeed natural sources of CO2 far exceed those produced by man. Further a number of natural sinks of carbon are impacted by increasing temperatures. As the temperatures increase they NATURALLY release their carbon store as CO2. A particular case in point is the permafrost. It is a natural store of a massive amount of carbon, but ONLY while it remains frozen. Once temperatures increase enough to start the melt they naturally reinforce the entire process. Oh, and climate history tells us that it WILL get warm enough to do so, even if we totally remove man from the picture. It's a cycle. It gets cold, it gets warm, it gets cold again. To suddenly suggest that this particular cycle is suddenly governed by man's activities is silly. At most, we may have changed the timing by a few centuries. To much is unknown about the whole process, and we know so little about the actual process. It's like picking 12 frames out of a movie and 100 frames at random from all of the movie that has already been shown, and claiming we know exactly how what the rest of the movie will be.

It is simply enough to know that NO model or prediction produces anything but an infinitely increasing global temperature even though we know that has never occurred even in similar events in the past.

And at this point you demonstrate you're not willing to discuss the issue, but rather go with battling cites even though YOU refuse to support your claims with them.

Oh and your 'cite' doesn't support your claim.

Try again when you're willing to hold a reasoned discussion.

Try it again once you understand how science actually works.

Scout wrote on 2015-11-16 18:00:

This one surely is man-made. Humans never had such large population and such great ability to extract and consume so much fossil fuels at such a fast rate.

If that's true, on a global scale global warming is a good thing.

That's where I figured you'd go. Bad choices, Scout. Every one of those theories is still valid and in use every day -- within their realms of relative velocity, size, and time.

You've just demonstrated the sophomore's view of science. Furthermore, you picked a handful out of hundreds, which reinforces my point. And, finally, there is no "constantly" about it. General relativity has been used for most of a century, and it's still unknown how quantum theories will be resolved within general relativity's realm.

You should try to understand how science works. Complete overturning of theories, as I said, is extremely rare. For the most part, it's a building upon them.

Try explaining the lift of an airplane wing with anything that has "superceded" classical mechanics.

Just Wondering wrote on 2015-11-16 20:12:

Not so much a good thing for animals which have adapted to cooler temperatures, and not so much a good thing for people who live near coastal waters. The Netherlands will disappear into the rising sea water.

Animals cannot adapt so fast so there will be a great die-off (for example, white polar bears will be wiped out because they cannot evolve fast enough to have darker fur to hunt on ground instead of ice and snow). And humans are now everywhere so there won't be a chance for new species to evolve and emerge. That means there will be a lot less biodiversity in the future.

That's a fine speech. The only trouble is, you have no evidence to support it.

Just Wondering wrote on 2015-11-16 20:38:

This is the first time our planets had such animal like us humans beings that can alter the earth's natural environment so quickly and in such a grand scale. There is no precedence, and of course there is no evidence.

I do hope this know-it-all syndrome isn't catching.

So we can expect you to drop out and let the adults finish this in an orderly and polite manner?

As for CFC's I have some in a warehouse that is registered for it..We now use mostly HCFC's. The blends are not as good as the outlawed stuff, but it does the job and at much higher pressures. The stuff used in Nuclear Generating plants is special..Same stuff used to cool Nukes in the Military.

Nope! The FEDs did.. The fine was/is $25,000 for any event of loss to the atmosphere. $10,000 for turning in offenders. Do try and be honest..In this case, the Mormon lad was correct. We even had a diminimus loss law, that was rescinded.

I have made many correction to Wiki. foad

Actually there was and also a deep fear of nuclear winter, When Mt St Helens Erupted a few years back, many crops did not yield well due to loss of sunlight. When Krakatoa Erupted the entire world had climate change for a few years. And it sure as Hell was not Global Warming. What Rabbit hole do clowns like you egress?

And you are a puny small minded, big mouthed runt that pisses its britches when a real confrontation takes place. Are you also Homo?

Where I live we have Climate change.. 4 time a year. You just keep on drinking that Kool-Aide!

On 11/16/2015 11:37 AM,MYTHER Rudy Puked out:

Then why don't they sit down in Scientific Forum and debate with real Scientists?

And why do they need a damned near illiterate fool like you to defend them?

MYTHER Rudy's denial is based purely on ideology, not on facts and not on science.