Watch Before The Flood Here -- National Geographic (FULL MOVIE)

[Boss]

That wasn't the intention of the point. It was to counter your suggestion that the current global warming phenomenon was a gradual, long term event.

But it IS a gradual long-term event. In 150 years the median temps have increased 1.5 degrees. That is certainly not a sudden cataclysmic event.

Where do you see periods where we did better under warmer conditions?

I'm just generally speaking with regard to living organisms. There is a reason you put your perishable food items in a refrigerator. Life generally thrives better in warmer conditions.

As you can see in the data above, human activity has changed the atmosphere's CO2 level faster and to a greater extent than "nature" (and you really need to identify for us all that you include under that rubrik) has managed to do in at least the last 800,000 years.

You've not proven this and you can't prove it. You can CLAIM it... you can THEORIZE... you can SPECULATE... but you've not proved it. Human activities certainly contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere but nature processes much of that along with the CO2 it also produces. CO2 is ESSENTIAL for all plant life. So do you or "Science" have any calculation for how many living plant cells have existed on land and in the oceans for the past 800k years? You're going to need to know that amount so you can figure out how much CO2 they have used. Since there are places in the ocean we've never explored, I would say this is quite impossible to measure. You also need to know precisely how many underwater thermal vents there are and how many there have been in the past 800k years, and how much volume of CO2 they randomly released over that time. Again... something impossible for you to know.

They are predicting severe consequences of a preventable phenomenon that will cause suffering, deaths and overwhelming costs worldwide.

I know... and you believe it. You're all a bunch of Chicken Littles.

What is going to cause real life deaths is this idiotic notion that governments can somehow provide a solution to this non-existent problem. You are going to deprive struggling 3rd world countries from vital energy resources they need in order to feed their people.... but you don't care.

 

[Boss]

You're lost. Completely lost. There's really no point debating any of this with you. You've got absolutely nothing to bring to the table.

So far, you've been completely unable to debate with me. You continue to run to your propaganda sources and regurgitate charts and graphs while crowing about popular consensus. You've shown no hard science to prove any of your outrageous statements and I have refuted them all with basic logic.

 

[Crick]

Buh-bye boss

 

[SSDD]

You're lost. Completely lost. There's really no point debating any of this with you. You've got absolutely nothing to bring to the table.

So far, you've been completely unable to debate with me. You continue to run to your propaganda sources and regurgitate charts and graphs while crowing about popular consensus. You've shown no hard science to prove any of your outrageous statements and I have refuted them all with basic logic.

So now you know crick...it is always that way with him...he is a parrot bot....

 

[Crick]

Would you like to side with Boss SID? Do you like what he says? Does he have a lock on the real science?

 

[Boss]

Would you like to side with Boss SID? Do you like what he says? Does he have a lock on the real science?

You have failed to talk about any "real science" here... all you keep doing is pointing us to propaganda outlets and crowing about popular consensus. But biased web sites and popularity contests...
ARE NOT SCIENCE!

 

[Crick]

You are correct that biased web sites are not science. The web site I most often point people at here is www.ipcc.ch. That site is very good, very throrough, very objective science.

 

[Zander]

Climate "Science" is to Science, what "Astrology" is to Astronomy.

Good luck with that!

 

[Boss]

You are correct that biased web sites are not science. The web site I most often point people at here is www.ipcc.ch. That site is very good, very throrough, very objective science.

It's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! That's their whole shtick! That's what they do! That's who they are! They are the Climate Change People! Do you somehow expect they are going to publish ANYTHING that contradicts or challenges Climate Change?

Now you just said... Web sites aren't science... but here's a website that is Science. I mean, that's basically what you said with a straight face. You were correct the first time... web sites are not science. Activist organizations aren't Science. Labels, accolades and popularity doesn't impress Science.

Hey... when it comes to legitimate science, I am fair minded. I can discuss actual scientific findings like a reasonable person. Yes, CO2 acts as an amplifier in GHG. Yes, rising levels of it cause more warming. Those are things supported by testing and observation... that's Science. But there is also the Laws of Thermodynamics, so we also know that eventually, the warming effect from more CO2 reaches an equilibrium and no more warming happens due to more CO2. That's also Science.

CO2 has been rising but we don't know that it's all due to man's activities and that's what you are trying to claim. That's a ridiculous claim that cannot be supported with Science. Nature didn't stop producing CO2 when man invented industrialization. It also didn't stop converting CO2 when man started producing it. Our environment is constantly producing and processing CO2. Science cannot calculate this because there are too many unknown and impossible to know variables. We can speculate and guess... but that's not Science.

 

[Crick]

You are correct that biased web sites are not science. The web site I most often point people at here is www.ipcc.ch. That site is very good, very throrough, very objective science.

It's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! That's their whole shtick! That's what they do! That's who they are! They are the Climate Change People! Do you somehow expect they are going to publish ANYTHING that contradicts or challenges Climate Change?

Now you just said... Web sites aren't science... but here's a website that is Science. I mean, that's basically what you said with a straight face. You were correct the first time... web sites are not science. Activist organizations aren't Science. Labels, accolades and popularity doesn't impress Science.

English much? You missed the key word: "BIASED web sites are not science"

The IPCC's chartered mission is to assess the state of science regarding human-caused global warming. Their assessment of the current position of climate science regarding this point is thorough and objective. Multiple independent surveys of published climate science show that it overwhelmingly supports the IPCC position that the primary cause of global warming over the last century and a half is human GHG emissions and deforestation. Neither the IPCC nor science in general has EVER contended that it is the sole cause - that is a denier meme.

Hey... when it comes to legitimate science, I am fair minded. I can discuss actual scientific findings like a reasonable person.

Your comments above regarding the IPCC don't support that claim.

Yes, CO2 acts as an amplifier in GHG. Yes, rising levels of it cause more warming. Those are things supported by testing and observation... that's Science. But there is also the Laws of Thermodynamics, so we also know that eventually, the warming effect from more CO2 reaches an equilibrium and no more warming happens due to more CO2. That's also Science.

Really? Could you expand on that a little bit? What laws of thermodynamics tell us that the warming effect from more CO2 will reach an equilibrium?

CO2 has been rising but we don't know that it's all due to man's activities and that's what you are trying to claim.

Really? Then you do not appear to be familiar with the science. Why don't you have a look at:
How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Education and Outreach
Modern Records of Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Carbon-13 in Methane
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations and isotope composition measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. : Carbon cycle: A dent in carbon's gold standard : Nature : Nature Research

And there are lots more.

That's a ridiculous claim that cannot be supported with Science.

The above links show that you obviously didn't check first. Always a mistake.

Nature didn't stop producing CO2 when man invented industrialization.

Of course not, though deforestation reduced its output. There was certainly no increase in natural (ie, non-human) CO2 production that could have been responsible for the observed level increases. And simple bookkeeping tells us that we produced gigatonnes of the stuff burning coal and petroleum. Where do you think all that went?

It also didn't stop converting CO2 when man started producing it.

Again, there was no increase in vegatation transpiration to have compensated for human production. The amount of flora on this planet has done nothing but decrease since the Industrial Revolution and before.

Our environment is constantly producing and processing CO2. Science cannot calculate this because there are too many unknown and impossible to know variables. We can speculate and guess... but that's not Science.

I have to disagree. You're not ready to discuss scientific findings like a reasonable person because you simply don't know them well enough. And your logic sucks.

 

[Boss]

The IPCC's chartered mission is to assess the state of science regarding human-caused global warming.

Exactly! So you're like Chicken Little showing me the Website for Intergovernmental Falling Sky Panel as PROOF the sky is definitely falling!

 

[Boss]

Really? Could you expand on that a little bit? What laws of thermodynamics tell us that the warming effect from more CO2 will reach an equilibrium?

The Second Law:
When two initially isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium with itself but not necessarily with each other, are then allowed to interact, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium. The sum of the entropies of the initially isolated systems is less than or equal to the total entropy of the final combination. Equality occurs just when the two original systems have all their respective intensive variables (temperature, pressure) equal; then the final system also has the same values.

Okay... So if it weren't for the Second Law, eventually CO2 could theoretically reach a point of amplifying the warming of the planet to the point the entire planet bursts into flames and we become charcoal. But since the Second Law is physics and it's in play, this cannot happen. Once so much CO2 has saturated the atmosphere, there is no further amplification of the warming, there can't be. The system reaches equilibrium and more CO2 simply has no further effect.

 

[Crick]

Since one of the bodies is sun and it has a mass 333,000 times that of the Earth and a surface temperature of approximately 5,000 Kelvin, we will not be charcoal when equalization occurs, we will be gas. As such, your suggestion that warming will stop before anything serious occurs is patently ridiculous.

Greenhouse gas warming will slow as levels of the various gases increase since they have a logarithmic relationship with temperature. But, again, that does not mean we will not fuck ourselves up royally doing nothing about this problem.

 

[Boss]

Since one of the bodies is sun and it has a mass 333,000 times that of the Earth and a surface temperature of approximately 5,000 Kelvin, we will not be charcoal when equalization occurs, we will be gas. As such, your suggestion that warming will stop before anything serious occurs is patently ridiculous.

Greenhouse gas warming will slow as levels of the various gases increase since they have a logarithmic relationship with temperature. But, again, that does not mean we will not fuck ourselves up royally doing nothing about this problem.

You obviously don't understand thermodynamics or the physics involved in what you're discussing. CO2 can only cause so much amplification, after which, there is no more warming being caused from amplification.

It's like acceleration in your car... You can go from 0-30 relatively quick, 0-60 takes a bit longer, 0-100 takes even longer and the faster you go the less your rate of acceleration becomes. At a point, you reach maximum acceleration and you can push the gas pedal through the floor, you're not going to go any faster. Now if you took the rate of acceleration between 0-30 and used that as your guide, you could theorize how it wouldn't take long to go faster than the speed of light... but there's physics. That rate is not constant and physics proves it.

Furthermore, the REAL problem is not going to ultimately be warming anyway, it's going to be cooling. Eventually, we will become an ice world. In the meantime, data shows that we're not actually warming to the degree estimated just a few years ago. Now, I know, I know... your little consortium who gets billions of dollars for research, swears that we ARE warming... I understand that. What you need to understand is how you're being scammed.

I personally think you DO understand it's a scam and you don't care. You're in on the scam and you just want to ride the ride as long as you can. This is nothing but an attempt to shake down capitalists. We may be warming, we may even be causing some of the warming, but the planet is resilient and will correct itself over time. It has done that for over 4 billion years and it's not suddenly going to stop. To the degree we can reverse some phenomenon that is happening, we can't even control hurricanes and droughts. If we completely stopped ALL industrialization and nature pitched in and cooperated by not creating natural phenomenon, over thousands of years we MIGHT be able to affect the climate. But at what cost? And what will we have actually prevented? In the grand scheme of things, not much.

In addition, those who are in charge of this little shake down scam don't really have a solution. A company being forced to pay a carbon offset tax is not having any effect on the climate whatsoever. GHG is not suddenly going to look down from the heavens and say... Oh, look.... they got Shell Oil to pay $100 billion in taxes, I guess we can stop warming the planet now!

 

[Crick]

I took two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer(non-equilibrium thermo). It's rather obvious from this conversation that you've had none.

The logarithmic nature of the greenhouse effect, not the second law, will slow greenhouse warming as levels rise, but we will be in serious trouble long, long before that point.

I and the vast majority of the world's climate scientists know that this is NOT a scam, that it is quite real and that it is a threat. If you think you're smarter than ten thousand PhDs... well, you've got bigger problems than trying to convince me.

 

[Boss]

Again, you are resorting to an appeal to popularity here. You want to crow about 10,000 PhDs (which you don't have) and that's supposed to prove you have Science to support your nonsense.

I've repeatedly challenged your science and you always revert to the ad populum arguments of how many supposed scientists agree with you. If you had the educational background you claim, it seems like you would be able to show me actual science to prove these points but you haven't and you can't. All you can do is point me to a website that is devoted in promoting the myth of AGW and arguing ad populum.

Now, I have investigated this extensively. Every science study I've encountered is filled with speculations and supposition. There is no solid scientific evidence to prove your theories valid. In the absence of this, you attempt to cobble together bits and pieces of things that are true and juxtapose those with your notions that man is responsible through his activities. It's sort of a "smoke and mirrors" approach and that's why I reject it and speak out vociferously against it. After further investigating, I find the people who are behind all of this are anti-capitalist socialists who seek to destroy capitalism. You're NOT interested in Science and when you make statements like "the debate is over" and "it's proven science" this tells me that you've actually abandoned Science altogether.

 

[Crick]

It's completely obvious that you haven't investigated squat.

The world is experiencing stratospheric cooling globally. The only known cause for that is greenhouse warming. Do you have some other explanation for it.

People who complain that science is full of "speculations and supposition" don't understand the very basics of science. And those thousands of scientists that accept AGW as valid are from all corners of the globe. If you want to claim that you "find" they are all "anti-capitalist socialists", then you've shown yourself to be a liar on top of technically, grossly incompetent to discuss these issues.

 

[Boss]

It's completely obvious that you haven't investigated squat.

The world is experiencing stratospheric cooling globally. The only known cause for that is greenhouse warming. Do you have some other explanation for it.

People who complain that science is full of "speculations and supposition" don't understand the very basics of science. And those thousands of scientists that accept AGW as valid are from all corners of the globe. If you want to claim that you "find" they are all "anti-capitalist socialists", then you've shown yourself to be a liar on top of technically, grossly incompetent to discuss these issues.

I don't really care if you don't believe me, I didn't say it to impress you. I understand science completely, it's those of you who think science has proven something conclusively who don't seem to comprehend it. Particularly those of you who think arguments ad populum are valid science.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the "97% of scientists" claim has been debunked. Only about 0.3% of scientists who've submitted studies state they believe man is predominately responsible for AGW. A lot of them admit it's possible... some say we need more studies... but it's a fallacy that 97% say it's all man's fault. Yet.... here you are, parading that fraudulent statement around like it's Science.

Now, let's go back to your comment about greenhouse warming.... of course there is greenhouse warming happening.... this has been happening for 4 billion years and is a vital part of our ecosystem. We have experienced periods when it happens more and periods where it happens less.. and we've seen evidence of this long before man even walked the planet. So you take this fact of life and present it as if this is some new phenomenon that man is causing and it's simply not.

 

[Crick]

If you think Legates (the source of your utterly absurd 0.3%) is valid, but that Verheggen et al, Powell, Cook et al, Lefsrud and Myer, Farnsworth and Lichter, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, Bray and VonStorch, STATS and Oreskes (all the scientists who found greater than 90% acceptance and didn't have to get their work published where the staff had no knowledge of statistics or climate science) are incompetent liars, you've established your own technical incompetence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Boss]

If you think Legates (the source of your utterly absurd 0.3%) is valid, but that Verheggen et al, Powell, Cook et al, Lefsrud and Myer, Farnsworth and Lichter, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, Bray and VonStorch, STATS and Oreskes (all the scientists who found greater than 90% acceptance and didn't have to get their work published where the staff had no knowledge of statistics or climate science) are incompetent liars, you've established your own technical incompetence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I don't know about those people but I think you're an incompetent liar. Once again, your argument devolves into an argument ad populum. You don't seem to be comprehending that's not Science. It simply doesn't matter if you find 10 million people who believe something... that's not a science argument. We can keep on going around and around with this but as long as you are presenting nothing but lists of people who agree with you, you're not presenting any science.