U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2019, 12:08 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
5,014 posts, read 4,538,124 times
Reputation: 10751

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Um, do you even have a clue what Arrhenius said?

No, you don't.

Which part of "immediate" do you not understand?

Do you need a dictionary definition?

Immediate: occurring or done at once; instant.

The Arrhenius equations are immediate reactions, not 50 years from now or 100 years from now.


I would suggest that you read Arrhenius's original paper before you go around pretending to be an expert on physical chemistry and the kinetic rate of chemical reactions in regard to electrolytic dissociation.

Arrhenius worked out mathematical models correlating the effect of increase and decrease of CO2 levels in the atmosphere on the earth's temperature and came to the conclusion that halving or doubling the atmospheric CO2 levels would result in a decrease or increase, respectively, of the earth's temperature by 5–6 °C.

He successfully argued that changes in atmospheric CO2 were responsible for the ice ages and by inference, he predicted warming of the earth's temperatures due to increased CO2 emissions, thereby publishing the first quantitative report on global warming, the greenhouse effect.

You don't need to take my word for it, read what Arrhenius had to say for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2019, 12:58 PM
 
12,340 posts, read 3,121,492 times
Reputation: 5833
I thought Left wingers were atheists yet they all belong to the Church of Climate Change
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 01:03 PM
 
5,974 posts, read 3,241,289 times
Reputation: 3493
Quote:
Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress View Post
I thought Left wingers were atheists yet they all belong to the Church of Climate Change
Its hard to really understand the logic behind this comment.

Religious beliefs are not based on research and data gathered by scientists. Its like calling someone a 6ft midget..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 01:05 PM
 
3,611 posts, read 1,062,813 times
Reputation: 2217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
He successfully argued that changes in atmospheric CO2 were responsible for the ice ages and by inference, he predicted warming of the earth's temperatures due to increased CO2 emissions, thereby publishing the first quantitative report on global warming, the greenhouse effect.
..and we had ice cores in 1896
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
31,072 posts, read 20,487,659 times
Reputation: 8664
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
I don't need Greg Fishel to ask simple questions that anyone claiming to have a valid scientific theory should be able answer off the top of their head without a ridiculous appeal to authority.

The manner in which measurements are taken and the level of confidence that can be placed in those measurements is fundamental to any theory involving a relatively small temperature change.

The fact that these measurements were not collected in all the places where warming is now alleged to have occurred is my first clue that the Ts aren't crossed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
The "appeal to authority" is not ridiculous. In fact it is the whole crux of my (and Fishel's) argument: All of you armchair scientists on this forum are not qualified to judge whether AGW theory is valid. You are not qualified to assess the level of confidence in their measurements and whether it is sufficient. I have a PhD in Biochemistry, and I am not qualified to judge anything about climate science. When the vast majority of experts in the field agree on AGW theory, I don't assume they are right, but I assume they are far more likely to be right than a bunch of yahoos on City Data.

I agree that your appeal to authority is the whole crux of your argument, and that is why you don't have a borrowed leg to stand on.

Anyone can ask a simple question.

Not everyone can answer a simple question.

I have asked simple questions.

If there were any "science" behind your theory, the answers to my simple questions would take one of two forms.

The first is the presentation of verifiable factual information that clearly demonstrates a consistent cause and effect relationship.

The second is the honest admission that the relationship between the cause and the effect isn't consistent and more research needs to be conducted.

Since this is pseudoscience, you opted to double-down on your appeal to authority.

Well, of course you did...there is nothing else for you to do.

FTR, the reason I ask the questions is because I already know the answers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
29,275 posts, read 15,918,157 times
Reputation: 11805
Quote:
Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress View Post
I thought Left wingers were atheists yet they all belong to the Church of Climate Change
Their views are based on faith.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
31,307 posts, read 32,180,285 times
Reputation: 12815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X View Post
Its hard to really understand the logic behind this comment.

Religious beliefs are not based on research and data gathered by scientists. Its like calling someone a 6ft midget..
I understand that it is nothing but a troll post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,481 posts, read 14,572,318 times
Reputation: 16708
Quote:
Originally Posted by movedintime View Post
Correct.
Scientists (if you agree with them) claim the earth has gone through 5 ice age cycles. We now, are simply still coming out of the last ice age.

Wow, you are really confused.


We are not coming out of an Ice Age and we won't be for another 23 Million years at least.


46 Million years ago every square inch of Earth was triple-canopy tropical rain forest with an average global temperature of 94°F. That includes Alaska/Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia.


As the Antarctic Plate moving on a north-east trajectory enters the Antarctic Circle, the climate starts to become cooler and drier, and the rain forests start dying off.


By 26 Million years ago, Antarctica is fully in the Antarctic Circle and the good news is its north-easterly movement pushed the South American Plates northward to collide with the North American Plate and create the Panamanian Isthmus.


Why is that good news? Because that cut off the ocean currents that used to flow between North America and South America. That prevented a full-on Snowball Earth.


As a result, this Ice Age is punctuated by periodic warming.


Initially, Glacial Periods lasted ~40,000 years and Inter-Glacial Periods about 12,000-15,000 years.


Then, 600,000 years ago, you have the Mid-Pleistocene Event --and no one is sure exactly what happened --- and Glacial Periods are suddenly lasting 80,000 years to 120,000 years and Inter-Glacial Periods as long as 30,000 years.


It's not unusual to have warming and cooling trends within an Inter-Glacial Period.


For example, one Glacial Period ended and it warmed, then cooled, then warmed, then cooled, then warmed again and then it was right back to the regularly scheduled full-on Glacial Period.


This Inter-Glacial Period has had warming and cooling trends, too.


In fact, average global temperatures were much higher than now and the British Isles were infested with mosquitoes.


For centuries, people in the British Isles suffered from Malaria, which really sucks.


Then you have the mini-Ice Age or Little Ice Age whatever you want to call it and it killed off all the mosquitoes in the British Isles, so everyone is doing the Happy Dance.


Average global temperatures could easily warm up like they were some centuries ago and the British Isles could be infested with mosquitoes again, but now we know how to control mosquitoes and the spread of Malaria and we have effective drugs for Malaria.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 02:14 PM
 
16,834 posts, read 14,373,599 times
Reputation: 20744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
Of course, you agree! I've yet to see you share an original thought. All you do is Google a meme that supports your notions (misguided as they may be) and then you quickly post it here as if you've had a life-changing epiphany.

YOU had to quickly find something, ANYTHING to counter this:


Post #2 shredded you and your fool in a single sentence.

SO SAD YOU
There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles on anthropogenic climate change published in the last 150 years that Michael Mann had nothing to do with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 02:17 PM
 
16,834 posts, read 14,373,599 times
Reputation: 20744
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
How do you know how fast or slow the climate changes? How does anyone know other than through flawed theory?
Flawed theory? You accept modeling in the stock market, in epidemiology, in chemical synthesis, or literally dozens of other fields of science yet when it comes to climate modeling suddenly the theory is “flawed”. Hypocrisy in the extreme.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top