Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2018, 01:55 PM
 
10,681 posts, read 6,130,621 times
Reputation: 5667

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector1489 View Post
And what about the volcanoes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I read somewhere, there was a major event, that caused an ICE AGE.
One so devastating to the global environment, the earth is still fixing itself back to normal temperature range.


Man is not going to fix, what is naturally being fixed.
Volcanos have been around for years. Then humans started industrializing.

 
Old 06-10-2018, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,208,282 times
Reputation: 21745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X View Post
Billions of people spewing emissions every day of every year for over a century won't have an effect?
No, it won't have any effect, as history has already proven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
Apparently you got your degree in physics from Trump University. Hopefully, they have finally refunded your tuition fees.
That's not a refutation of the facts, which you apparently cannot refute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
I assume you meant to write "we should NOT even exist." But either way you are wrong. You grabbed your quote from a blogger who has no science education and contradicts himself 3 times in one short blurb for the National Geographic.
It's not a blogger.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...imate-science/

https: //news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130729-runaway-greenhouse-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/

Do you you or anyone else see the word "blog" in there?

No, but you do see the word "news".

It's nationalgeographic.com/news

It is a news article, not a blog.

That's twice you've failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
You have the incredible hubris to question the credentials of Doctor James Hansen, BS Physics, PhD in Astrophysics with highest honors from the University of Iowa. From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Yes, I am questioning his credentials and I have every right to do so.

It's a logical fallacy to appeal from authority.

That's three times you've failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
His other awards and honors are too numerous to list here.
You have not claimed that Hansen's quote was falsely attributed, and you cannot, since Hansen made the quote.

That's four times you've failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
The first, primitive atmosphere was probably several times denser than what we have now, and was dominated not by oxygen, but by carbon dioxide—a major greenhouse gas. Other gases, such as molecular nitrogen, water vapor, and small amounts of carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, and trace quantities of methane, and hydrogen were also present.
That's a known scientific fact, which I've already stated and no one has refuted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
Astrophysical computer models based on the study of young stars and of star-forming regions in the galaxy strongly suggest that the Sun was much dimmer when the first
life emerged on Earth, over 4 billion years ago.
The phrase "strongly suggests" is not factual evidence.

For the sake of argument, suppose it is true, then that leaves more than 1.5 Billion years with an atmosphere of CO2, Methane and Ammonia, with no Oxygen, and no runaway greenhouse gas effect.

Let's review Hansen's quote -- which you have failed to refute -- once again:

In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "[i]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

For 1.5 Billion years when the atmosphere was CO2, Methane and Ammonia, there was no runaway greenhouse effect and for an additional 500 Million years after that, when Oxygen finally started leaching from the ocean into the atmosphere to reach the levels of Oxygen we have today, plus create the Ozone Layer, there was no runaway greenhouse gas effect.

But, we're not talking about 1.5 Billion years or 500 Million years, we're talking about an Inter-Glacial Period that last 10,000 to 20,000 years.

20,000 years is what percent of 500 Million years?

0.004%

We're expected to believe that a paltry amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause a runaway greenhouse gas effect?

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere dwarfed the amount humans could ever produce for 1.5 Billion years, and there was no runaway greenhouse gas effect.

And then for an additional 500 Million years as Oxygen leaches into the atmosphere from the ocean, and the amount of CO2 and Methane dwarfs the current amounts in the atmosphere, you still don't have a runaway greenhouse gas effect.

It's all bunk, based on really bad science, with bad computer models, and skewed data.

The whole idea of the runaway greenhouse effect was nothing more than a suggestion to explain conditions on Venus. It has never been proven that's what actually happened, but it makes a great scare tactic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
Anyone interested in the ACTUAL science as opposed to the lies and drivel marketed by Exxon and the Koch brothers can find a discussion of the above at http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/c...mosphere-2.pdf
Nothing I've said has any relevance to Exxon or the Koch brothers (whoever they are).


That's another failure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
As soon as anyone starts making over-simplified arguments in what is a complex field of science, it's a dead give away that person doesn't have the faintest idea of what they are talking about.
It's not an over-simplified argument.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has no bearing on climate, and even if humans burned every ounce of petroleum on Earth, it still wouldn't cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
Can't do it, can you? Yet you have the audacity to sit in judgement of the distinguished scientist, Dr. James Hansen.
Hansen made that quote, not me. It's in his book.

You have failed to refute the fact that he made the quote, and Hansen's claim that [i]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty." is a patently false claim, made by your preeminent and distinguished scientist.
 
Old 07-20-2018, 06:41 AM
 
Location: So Ca
26,798 posts, read 26,927,806 times
Reputation: 24900
Global warming can’t be proved or accurately charted over (such) narrow time spans, and natural weather variability is always a factor in changes we notice. But the vast majority of legitimate scientists have no doubt we’re cooking the planet, citing, among other markers, that severe heat is greater in frequency and intensity.

This led Leah C. Stokes, an assistant professor of environmental politics at UC Santa Barbara, to wonder why we in the news media often report on heat waves, wildfires, flooding and other catastrophes without making the connection to the obvious.


Climate change has come to your neighborhood, and the sizzle may never subside
 
Old 07-20-2018, 06:46 AM
 
8,196 posts, read 2,855,601 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X View Post
NASA chief says he changed mind about climate change because he 'read a lot


NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says he changed his mind on the existence of man-made climate change because he “read a lot.”

“I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot,” Bridenstine told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen. And we've done it in really significant ways.”

The former congressman from Oklahoma had long denied the scientific consensus on climate change and said in a 2013 speech on the House floor that "global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago."

In May, Bridenstine first announced publicly that he now believes human activity is the main cause of climate change.

Good on him.
He read a lot of fake new, false reports and Al Gore paid him a visit. Climate is always changing. Has been since God created the heavens and the earth, even before he created Adam and Eve.

But hey, if you can somehow tax and fine the American people over some concocted nonsense, grab onto that "cause" for all it's worth!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X View Post
Billions of people spewing emissions every day of every year for over a century won't have an effect?
Humans are using the very things that God created for the use of mankind. That doesn't destroy the earth. Stop the fear tactics.
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.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top