Global warming and the end

[Biblewriter]

Sidestepping your thread obligations again? You made a certain assertion a few pages back about the Arctic ice. I'm wondering how scientific those assertions really are?

I was simply replying to your (very typical of liberals) false accusation that the Tes party is anti-science.

As to my "thread obligations," these exist entirely in your imagination. I have proved my points again and again in this thread, and you do not have the ability to understand the proof. As to the thickness of the Arctic Ice, I do not need a "scientist" to tell me what I can personally remember. But since you are not old enough to remember it, read "Natilus 90 North," the story of the 1957 voyage of the United States nuclear submarine Natilus to the North pole, including her breaking through the ice to the surface so she could send the top secret radio message "Natilus 90 north."

You have simply ignored the unquestionable truth that 100% of your
"information" comes from people who have a vested interest in public acceptance of global warming alarmism, for they get their entire incomes from that sane false alarmism.

I have contended for many years with pseudo-scientific hogwash being sold to us by the "scientific" community. And it has all been the same. All dissenting voices are shouted down as "anti-scientific," while those that advocate the currently popular "scientific" views are held up as authorities whose word cannot be questioned.

Nothing can be truly called "science" until it can be tested and demonstrated to be unquestionable fact. And that testing must include honestly facing all the facts, not just those that seem to justify the current consensus. This is what the pseudo-scientists refuse to do.

 

[eclipsenow]

I was simply replying to your (very typical of liberals) false accusation that the Tes party is anti-science.

As to my "thread obligations," these exist entirely in your imagination. I have proved my points again and again in this thread, and you do not have the ability to understand the proof. As to the thickness of the Arctic Ice, I do not need a "scientist" to tell me what I can personally remember. But since you are not old enough to remember it, read "Natilus 90 North," the story of the 1957 voyage of the United States nuclear submarine Natilus to the North pole, including her breaking through the ice to the surface so she could send the top secret radio message "Natilus 90 north."

You have simply ignored the unquestionable truth that 100% of your
"information" comes from people who have a vested interest in public acceptance of global warming alarmism, for they get their entire incomes from that sane false alarmism.

I have contended for many years with pseudo-scientific hogwash being sold to us by the "scientific" community. And it has all been the same. All dissenting voices are shouted down as "anti-scientific," while those that advocate the currently popular "scientific" views are held up as authorities whose word cannot be questioned.

Nothing can be truly called "science" until it can be tested and demonstrated to be unquestionable fact. And that testing must include honestly facing all the facts, not just those that seem to justify the current consensus. This is what the pseudo-scientists refuse to do.

You heard it here first everyone: from Biblewriter's own mouth. I'm not a scientist, and he is. That's why he doesn't read modern peer-reviewed journals, respect the best evidence of modern science, trust the best measurements of ice volumes from modern satellites, or even believe his own eyes when he sees the Arctic melting on the news. It's all a conspiracy! Makes sense?

Dude, maybe you need to take a long holiday and go SEE the Arctic next summer. For yourself. Maybe you'll believe your own eyes, unless they're in on the conspiracy as well?

 

[eclipsenow]

Nothing can be truly called "science" until it can be tested and demonstrated to be unquestionable fact. And that testing must include honestly facing all the facts, not just those that seem to justify the current consensus. This is what the pseudo-scientists refuse to do.

Dude, ever hear of P1, P50, and P95 in oil geology 101? Ever seen how many hundreds of millions of dollars are pumped into constructing exploratory ocean oil rigs based on a probability? It's science, but they don't know how much oil is really there until they explore. But the probability system gives them enough confidence to invest $500,000 a day rental fee in having a rig go drill.

Or, does science deal with hypothesis or not? Are hypothesis not a part of science? No, they're not considered 'laws of nature' yet but they are an essential part of the SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOUR when trying to brainstorm a new solution to a problem. I've read scientists saying this is the most enjoyable part, often done while enjoying a port and chewing the fat with friends.

Then there's the testing, and confirmation. You've already agreed that CO2 traps heat because of all the physics testing that has been done on CO2. Then it's a matter of tracing where all that extra energy actually goes. That's the more complex part: the first part is just physics and maths.

If you really want to review the guidelines for their terminology, here they are.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

It's one of the most complex systems to understand, but the fact that we can show how CO2 traps heat, how much more there is in the atmosphere, and the difference in heat trapped is quite clear. Where that heat goes is a much longer story, involving the ocean cycles and various atmospheric mechanisms, etc.

But, as a creationist, you'd just rule half of planetary science out of court in your faulty presuppositions, so I don't expect your to change your tired old thinking on this subject.

But it is just sad when you lecture me for being scientifically uneducated and then go and quote the Arctic ice is recovering myth.

 

[Interplanner]

Here's the peer articles collected at Prager Radio:

The Dennis Prager Show

 

[Biblewriter]

\Are hypothesis not a part of science? No, they're not considered 'laws of nature' yet but they are an essential part of the SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOUR when trying to brainstorm a new solution to a problem. I've read scientists saying this is the most enjoyable part, often done while enjoying a port and chewing the fat with friends.

Then there's the testing, and confirmation.

What you do not seem to understand is that until the testing and confirmation has been completed, it is not science. This is not theory. It is not a presupposition of a creationist fanatic. Is is the simple definition of the scientific method.

Anyone and everyone who is a real scientist knows this. The only ones who do not know it are the "Readers Digest" or "Popular Science Magazine" type of fan of "science," who does not have any idea what constitutes real science.

I am through with this nonsense. Go ahead, rave on. Froth at the mouth and drink your Kool-aid. Over and out.

 

[eclipsenow]

Here's the peer articles collected at Prager Radio:

The Dennis Prager Show

Imagine if I just submitted a climate website, and said "Disprove all that!" Could you please find the relevant paragraph of the relevant article, and submit something relevant to the Arctic ice, glaciers, or global temperature: something that actually contributes to the conversation?

Otherwise, just debunk all these peer-reviewed replies to Denialist memes will you? There's a good chap.
(PS: Seriously, this is a great site that summarises the peer-reviewed replies to Denialist memes and is run by a Christian guy who's also a scientist. He gets lots of others in to write on specialty areas though).
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics ranked by popularity

 

[dfw69]

Eclipse will global warming threat cause the fall of major manufacturing companies by laws being pass? Will we one day see the end of cars weapons tanks ect ect ?

 

[eclipsenow]

Eclipse will global warming threat cause the fall of major manufacturing companies by laws being pass? Will we one day see the end of cars weapons tanks ect ect ?

Cars, city design, and jobs.

Cars: If we really take global warming seriously (and all manner of other public transport, health, and welfare concerns as well) then we'll probably not be car-less, but maybe car-disciplined? I can see a time when we'll mostly drive full Electric Vehicles for our city driving (which are already able to cope with 95% of our driving habits) and maybe belong to a car-club for hiring a petrol or hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for longer drives. Tesla motors has a battery-swap option! You drive in, and robots unscrew the car battery and then plug in a fresh one. (For a price. Their electric car charging stations are FREE if you can wait and have a coffee for half an hour. That's highway charging only. Most of your charging would be done at home).

City design: there are a variety of ways we can comfortably, beautifully, and profitably make cities D&D... Dense and Diverse. That is, instead of everyone driving from suburbs where they sleep to places where they work and play, why not move everyone in together nearer the things they do and enjoy? Watch is: it's only 3 minutes of funky fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJt_YXIoJI

Jobs: will change, but there are new energy solutions and money opportunities in all of this. We can prevent the worst of climate change and also find some new businesses in adapting to some of the horrors that are coming. This stuff has been studied by smarter people than myself. But we've got to get started.

 

[dfw69]

Cars, city design, and jobs.

Most classes would probably be all for it... But the tycoons ? Well they will loose a bundle of dough

Do you think people in high places will have to force the businesses to comply to possible new laws enforced?

 

[eclipsenow]

What you do not seem to understand is that until the testing and confirmation has been completed, it is not science. This is not theory. It is not a presupposition of a creationist fanatic. Is is the simple definition of the scientific method.

Anyone and everyone who is a real scientist knows this. The only ones who do not know it are the "Readers Digest" or "Popular Science Magazine" type of fan of "science," who does not have any idea what constitutes real science.

I am through with this nonsense. Go ahead, rave on. Froth at the mouth and drink your Kool-aid. Over and out.

Mate, what do you want tested? We can test CO2 in a lab. Again and again and again. Every time, it gives us a consistent Radiative Forcing. Every, single, time. Get it?

More CO2 = more warming. Get it?

We're SEEING it happen. Get it?

I'm sensitive to your plight. You've had a whole lifetime of believing in certain end times doctrines, and certain political persuasions, only to have the world turn out different to your Dispensationalist predictions and then there's this 'communist' climate change thing! It's downright disturbing. I get it. But it's also real. It's inconvenient. It doesn't sit well with total free market politics. But that doesn't mean it's communist either! There's a vast spectrum of policy between those 2 absolute positions. If you measure these things by tax / unit GDP, America is only 1% less 'communist' than Australia, yet we have universal basic health care guaranteed for all Australians! We've had better than Obamacare for decades now. The only thing not free on our healthcare is dental and plastic surgery! Most stuff you *need* to get done to recover is free-ish.

So stop posting unscientific, unverifiable lies about the Arctic ice recovering, and just accept the fact that global warming is real. It's not the end of your political worldview. Heaps of fairly conservative people accept climate science. They fit together quite well. There are other energy sources and ways to run society without fossil fuels.

 

[dfw69]

Mate, what do you want tested? We can test CO2 in a lab. Again and again and again. Every time, it gives us a consistent Radiative Forcing. Every, single, time. Get it?

More CO2 = more warming. Get it?

We're SEEING it happen. Get it?


BTW, You're the one who's foaming at the mouth as you keep threatening to leave this conversation once and for all. And then come back. And post more unscientific, unverifiable lies like the Arctic ice recovering! How's your response to that going, by the way?

Is it possible that haarp is being used to warm up the atmosphere to create global warming for a specific agenda? To bring us into a new world order where capitalist idealism becomes a thing of the past ?

 

[dfw69]

** (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering)

Aren't they doing this now?... Painting the skies white for climate engineering?

They say that it's a mixture of aluminum and other substances... but it is not helping to cool the climate but actually heating it up ....because the particles that are being sprayed by planes high in the atmosphere don't reflect gamma rays ....but allow them to get through and trap them underneath the particles ...making the planet hotter

 

[eclipsenow]

Is it possible that haarp is being used to warm up the atmosphere to create global warming for a specific agenda? To bring us into a new world order where capitalist idealism becomes a thing of the past ?

Nah, there's no where near enough energy. It's a conspiracy theory: nothing more.

 

[dfw69]

Nah, there's no where near enough energy. It's a conspiracy theory: nothing more.

Uh huh ... Well what if they are able to produce that energy ?

Last I heard there was 5 haarp built ... Could be more now...

Let me ask you this ... How much energy will it take?

Haarp claims to beam billions of elf waves watts into the ionosphere

 

[eclipsenow]

Uh huh ... Well what if they are able to produce that energy ?

Last I heard there was 5 haarp built ... Could be more now...

Let me ask you this ... How much energy will it take?

Haarp claims to beam billions of elf waves watts into the ionosphere

No. I'm rather bored by this Haarp conspiracy theory. It's out there with 'The Moon Landing was faked' and 'Chemtrails'.

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What really is starting to alarm me is the guillible easy-believism that is afflicting American Denialist memes. It seems American's would rather believe anything than the climate evidence smacking them in the face. It's all a conspiracy... just like the moon landing. That was faked don't you know?

 

[dfw69]

No. I'm rather bored by this Haarp conspiracy theory. It's out there with 'The Moon Landing was faked' and 'Chemtrails'.

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What really is starting to alarm me is the guillible easy-believism that is afflicting American Denialist memes. It seems American's would rather believe anything than the climate evidence smacking them in the face. It's all a conspiracy... just like the moon landing. That was faked don't you know?

The moon landing was fake
Chemtrails could be spice
Haarp exist

But you want to throw me into a conspiracy pile .. Ok

Not all conspiracy theories are false

 

[dfw69]

Well back to my original question... How much production will be needed to be cut back

Oil drilling ?
Will planes production cease ?
Jet fuel ?
What about military production?
Ships?
All engines ?

How far does it need to go?

 

[eclipsenow]

Well back to my original question... How much production will be needed to be cut back

Oil drilling ?
Will planes production cease ?
Jet fuel ?
What about military production?
Ships?
All engines ?

How far does it need to go?

1: Haarp: tell me how much extra heat energy they can trap in the earth's atmosphere in Hiroshima nukes. Is it 1 nuke per year? 1 per month? How much?

2: Tell me how many Hiroshima nukes worth of heat global warming traps. Is it 1 nuke per year? 1 per month? How much?

3: Tell me why you're insisting we cannot make engines or planes or ships in a low CO2 manner? You do understand that it's the burning of fossil fuels that is adding to the carbon problem, right? You do know that there are alternative, clean energy sources that we can switch to as we run today's modern, hi-tech society? (But with much more effective, trendier, beautiful and more humane city plans). A mix of clean baseload nuclear energy and renewables can do the job: and provide jobs. Indeed, a massive roll out of clean energy jobs could just save America.

Today's Gen3.5 reactors like the AP1000 are safe, modern reactors that *would not* have failed under the stresses of the Fukushima tidal wave. They're good. And their nuclear waste is the perfect fuel for tomorrow's Gen4 reactors!

Generation 4 reactors like GE's S-PRISM will 'breed' up nuclear wastes into higher fuel cycles which lets them 'eat' nuclear waste.
PRISM (reactor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The S-PRISM is just one type of IFR. IFR's also burn waste.
Integral fast reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, waste = fuel! Nuclear waste is no longer a problem, but is THE solution to the world's energy needs and global warming crisis. We could run the world for 500 years on just today's nuclear waste! Just today's nuclear waste is worth $30 trillion dollars simply because it could run the world for centuries. America's nuclear waste could provide their country with total energy independence within 12 years (at a cost of $1.75 trillion) and forever free them from concerns about imported oil, while giving them somewhere between 500 to 1000 years worth of fuel for FREE!
Total energy independence in 12 years | BraveNewClimate

Then once the world has burned all today's waste, we'll probably have fusion or space solar or something even more exotic. If not, the rest of the land reserves of uranium (and thorium) could run the world for 50,000 years, and add in uranium from seawater, and we could run the world for a billion years!

There are far more dangerous wastes than nuclear waste, such as wood smoke which kills 3.5 million people a year!
Nuclear Waste Part 2: The nuts and bolts of waste | BraveNewClimate

SAFETY? These nukes have passive safety physics even Homer Simpson could not break, can be situated far away from large population centres and can even be built underground for extra safety.

James Hansen is a fan. He described the global warming problem to us. He also described the solution. "Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid | BraveNewClimate

 

[eclipsenow]

The moon landing was fake
Chemtrails could be spice
Haarp exist

But you want to throw me into a conspiracy pile .. Ok

Not all conspiracy theories are false

Ha ha! I just re-read your post, and there is some truth here. Chemtrails are not chemtrails, but just ordinary contrails. And yes, they do have a mild reflective capacity. They ordinarily reflect a tiny bit of the incoming sunlight. After all aircraft were grounded by 9/11 climate scientists noticed the temperature going up a fraction, just for those few days. It was a tiny blip, but enough to measure against the background 'noise' of daily fluctuations. So there you go.

(Chemtrails are not real. There's no scientific evidence for them, and I'm about as keen to go back into that Scientology-like la la land as I am Haarp land).

 

[eclipsenow]

I was simply replying to your (very typical of liberals) false accusation that the Tes party is anti-science.

As to my "thread obligations," these exist entirely in your imagination. I have proved my points again and again in this thread, and you do not have the ability to understand the proof. As to the thickness of the Arctic Ice, I do not need a "scientist" to tell me what I can personally remember. But since you are not old enough to remember it, read "Natilus 90 North," the story of the 1957 voyage of the United States nuclear submarine Natilus to the North pole, including her breaking through the ice to the surface so she could send the top secret radio message "Natilus 90 north."

BTW, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not scientific but anecdotal. It's a historical fact that the Skate went through the ice in 1958, but why?

Because 'leads' happen, even in pre-warming 'normal' climates. Arctic ice is constantly in motion, and stresses from wind and even the rotation of the earth can crack it open, and create 'leads'. These cracks can be a couple of metres through to hundreds of metres wide. This is all normal, even in the 1958 when the Skate, not the Nautilus, broke through the ice at the North Pole. (If you're going to use an anecdote instead of science, at least try to the get the story right. There's more at the Skate wiki here).

The USS Skate in August, 1958.

Now what this story DOES NOT give us is any science. It's history. But as far as science goes, this is what we call an anecdote. It's about as scientific as sticking your head out the window and saying "Wow, today sure is cold. Maybe there isn't any global warming?" Or even looking at the sun rise and set and concluding the sun moves around the earth. It's that bad.

What you need to prove is that the total sea ice volume then was roughly the same as today's to show that there's really no problem today. Or better, that the sea ice has vastly increased over 1958. But every scientific agency we investigate shows otherwise. The multi-year thickness is down, down, down. What Denialist's do is cherry-pick the data they want and scream "LOOK! This month the ice is GROWING! Isn't that amazing as it totally disproves climate change!"

Denialist's are either really not very informed at all, confusing annual 'seasons' with something that takes decades to measure like 'climate'. Heads up: there's also this thing called 'weather' guys. You might want to buy a dictionary! But I think this is not sheer stupidity, but a sinister and intentional misdirection put out by Denialists. And to think some here swallowed it!

Now, back to reality...