Reaper

Gee, I wonder what type of cranks are being screened

Ok everybody, lets stop the thread for a second here before everyone starts bashing and cussing each other around. This, as we all know, is a very sensitive topic socially and politically. But, those issues have absolutely nothing to do with the science. It cares very little on the biases and feelings that people may have on it. As such, what we are trying to evaluate here is the validity of the counter argument. We are in no way trying to ostracize the opposition in anyway, but rather to get them to support their counter arguments. Now that is out of the way, let us now continue the debate like calm rational people here. =================================== You said that human contribution to climate change and/or global warming is not proven, which flies in the face of what I know to be true. Humans do indeed have a significant effect on the climate and the atmospheric content of the atmosphere. And how do we know this? Well, lets put aside climate for now and talk about physics and chemistry, for it seems as if a lack of understanding of this fundamental topic is proving to be very detrimental to our understanding of the world around us. Ok, for starters, lets take a greenhouse gas molecule like, say, carbon dioxide: Take a good look at it. Let it sink in. Ok, now that particular molecule can absorb mostly infrared radiation. Now, how does it do this. Well, when a beam of infrared radiation strikes that molecule, it causes it to vibrate. It is then released , where the particular beam now has less energy. It moves on, where it would either strike the ground or will hit yet another greenhouse molecule. As it turns out, all greenhouse gases have this property, absorbing different wavelengths of course. Now, lets take a look at a chart which displays what exactly the sun emits: (SOURCE: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm) As you can see, the sun emits mostly visible light, infrared radiation, and UV radiation. 43% of it is visible light in particular, BUT the atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light. About 7-8% of it is UV, and about the same amount of it is infrared, both of which is absorbed by the atmosphere before it hits the ground. These may seem like small numbers, but they are pretty significant given the amount of energy that hits Earth on a daily basis. Now, lets get back to this carbon dioxide molecule here. Because it has this intrinsic property, that means it can retain heat and consequentially raise the temperature (which by the way is a measure of the average energy). Our atmosphere may contain less than 0.04% of it in our atmosphere, but as we can see this small amount is more than enough to heat the planet up to allow it to have a temperate climate. And, given the trillions upon trillions of tons of gases that make up our atmosphere in total, 0.04% isn't that small a number. Now, you may ask, what is the point of all this. Well then, because of this property, and given the BILLIONS of tons of greenhouse gases we are dumping into the atmosphere (among other things) every year, we know for certain that we do, indeed, contribute to climate change to some degree. And, we also know that we are releasing more and more greenhouse gases every year too, more so than the year before that. The only thing that is being debated here is to what extent that we are contributing to global climate change, and how exactly this climate will change, and more specifically what it means for us humans. So far, all evidence points to the idea that we may very well be the primary driver of climate change and are causing anthropogenic global warming. Unless genuine evidence to the contrary were to be found, we have to use the best we've got, as you said earlier before, however negative or positive that may be. And this isn't about points of view, its about getting some facts straight and using valid scientific data. And believe me, I know what those sites are like (sites that promote only ONE viewpoint); we are doing no such thing here. On the contrary, I'd have to say that this is one of the most forgiving and open-minded sites there is. Because of this and other arguments, I now know why the opposition is false, as opposed to having seeds of doubt planted before. SkepticLance is free to bring up any viewpoint or interpretation he wants, but until he provides valid scientific data his claims will have no validity. Yes, I did catch those thank you very much, and as far as I can tell those have been thoroughly debunked on other earlier posts. Please try again. Now this is a genuine example of logical fallacies if I ever seen one. More specifically, this is an ad hominem and a non sequitur. First, Lomborg doesn't claim to be a trained scientist, and second, just because he isn't a scientist doesn't mean that he is not allowed to write scientific literature. After all, Al Gore wasn't a scientist either, does that mean he wasn't allowed to present an Inconvenient Truth? I can list loads of people who weren't scientists, and have written great scientific literature. The difference between Al Gore and Lomborg, from what I can tell, is that Al Gore presented valid data, while Lomborg did not. And second, just because someone has different points of view or are ignorant of (or don't understand the significance of) certain facts doesn't mean they are stupid. That is just a baseless insult and comments such as this have no place on a science forum. Actually, some of these models do assume that we start using more sustainable methods. I don't have time to actually show you all of them right now, but I found one projection that assumes that in 2100 it is expected that more than 40% of the world's total power supply will come from nuclear or other renewable resources. However, it is also expected that the population will be over 11 billion. And that's just one such projection.

Genuine error? The margin of error includes all the known significant variables. There are only so many compounds in Earth's atmosphere that contribute to global warming or global cooling (or rather, there are only so many compounds in the atmosphere, period). Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?

He could have said that, but that doesn't mean that he could avoid doing so. If you were in that position, would you claim to have a choice? I guess he could have... The U.S. could have also surrendered without a fight too... I don't want to have a semantic battle here, but you cannot honestly tell me that this is considered consent with a straight face here. For example, lets bring up a scenario. Your the president, and then all of the sudden, China declares war on you. And, they refuse to negotiate a peace or avoiding war. Are you really going to say "no we won't fight you because you don't have our consent", or not mobilize your forces. It would seem to me that you don't really have a choice.

Not proven?! We know exactly how much greenhouse gases is being dumped right into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, and we know how much of it is being absorbed back into the CO2 cycle (or other cycles/processes). This isn't so much about arguing points of view or alternative theories as much as it is about SkepticLance not keeping his facts straight, or providing sources, or both! For those of you unaware, here is a link showing trends from 1750 to today: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm I don't think anyone here is arguing that this sort of thing is inevitable. The models only assume the status quo, and they predict many scenarios, not just one. We only hear about the worst case scenario because that's the only one that will actually get people to pay attention . Plus, in the future, the population of the planet will be much larger. Just think about how that would strain things; more people means more resources. IMO, I think iNow is doing just fine. It isn't his fault that the opposition doesn't have any adequate counter arguments. Oh, and for the record: Measurements usually have a less than 0.5% margin of error (meaning plus or minus a few tenths to a few hundredths of a degree). Whatever margin of error there is, probably won't make much of a difference. Climate isn't nearly as chaotic (and therefore far more predictable) as weather. ================================================= I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here, but I keep saying that climate models ARE NOT STATISTICAL. They are based on the known laws of physics.

Depends on how you define consent in this context. It's not so much that he willingly fought back but that he really didn't have much of a choice.

Hitler declared war on the U.S. shortly after Pearl Harbor was bombed.

As a person who is fluent in English, don't worry about it, I don't understand the phrase either.

I'm fairly sure we fought World War II without the president's consent. The president can issue the veto, but Congress can overturn if more than 2/3 of it vote for the law again. The way it works is this: 1.Congress proposes law 2.President approves/veto's it. 3. If accepted, it's reviewed by the courts. If not, then it goes back to Congress and is reviewed; if they vote in favor for it again, then the veto doesn't work. At least, that's how it works in theory.

Competitively or just casual play? I like competitive chess, and as such I'm a rated player.

Are you even aware of how small the uncertainty or the magin of error is in these climate models? I'll give you one guess....

To add to this about satelites, we should also be able to view its gravitational effects. If the Earth was expanding, we would have to have had fix the orbits of the satelites once every few months or so. ======================================== Other than that, I kind of find this whole idea silly. The Earth is a solid object and is very dense. Unless the Earth had less mass back in the day, I don't see how this could be possible.

Fred has been banned now, so you don't need to reply to him anymore. Move along, nothing to see here ================================================ Anyways, think tanks. What about them?

We've already given you the accepted definition of entropy. Your the one who doesn't accept it. If you don't believe us then there is nothing more we can do to help you.

Troller is looking for a response...ANY response, and he will chum the waters with complaints, insults, compliments, and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...ANYONE, will take the bait. Generally quite harmless - practices a form of catch and release. Nonetheless, he can upset the delicate ecology of a discussion forum. Once a forum becomes aware of his presence, however, all feeding activity ceases and Troller must move on to more promising waters.

I hypothesize that this thread will be locked in a few hours.

Really! That's quite a simplification given the rather large list of things I provided that came directly as a result from the Apollo landings. And that is just small list of technological advances (meaning I have not listed them all), I have yet to provide scientific ones. No, not really. While there will be a lot of people that will feel good about this, there is a great deal more to it than just national pride.

Why, so that they wouldn't be able to identify what exactly you changed? Yes you are. That is one thing you got right !

Really? I thought he was talking about the invisible organ in my room .

You know, something just dawned on me. Just think about this for a second; how much of a pathetically sad loser would atomikpsycho have to be. He/she takes the time to get a new email address, sign up for an account, just so he/she can post spam topics all over the place, which can be deleted in 2 seconds or less in any case. You'd think people actually have better things to do with their time. I kinda feel bad for this guy now; having to resort to this just so that it could, for a few moments, delude him/herself that they are someone important... ================================= Oh, and can a mod or admin make it so that every time one writes the word "atomikpsycho" on this site, it would automatically supply the link to http://atomikpsycho.justgotowned.com ?

Well, what exactly is its intention or its implications then. Maybe it's just naivety on my part, but I don't see anything wrong with this resolution. So far, I haven't really seen anything that would suggest that this is something to be genuinely worried about. There is a difference between saying "I like/hate Christians" vs "We will arrest/prosecute anybody who is/isn't one".

I don't know what exactly the intentions were in making this document (nor do I really care), but I can tell you that it probably took up far less time and resources than most other projects (military or otherwise) or maintaining public facilities usually take up. As silly and maybe useless as the resolution is, they're just words on a sheet of paper. I don't know about you guys, but there really is nothing to be worried about, unlike other activities that the government takes part it (Trident missiles anyone?) Actually, the apollo programs did a little bit more than that

Welcome back Fred! Is there anything about this that you would like to discuss? Like, how this could affect later local weather (not climate) prediction models, or anything global warming related, or what this implies for the people who live in the southern and tropical regions where this effect takes place, or what exactly?

The way I solved the problem, was by unplugging myself from the internet in my own dorm room.

I know that this occured a little while ago (like 2 years ago), but still, remote controlled humans are AWESOME! It works via Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation and it was developed in Japan. pretty much, you wear headphones and you can steer human being with a remote. Ideas for use involve video games to medical uses for restoring movement in limbs. Oh, and here's a experiment done a little while ago where they steered blindfolded humans remotely (Subscription is needed though): http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060807/full/news060807-3.html Here's a video on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0E9llkZIU So, when do you think I'll have my very own remotely controlled human ?