Yes there is. The system is too big, and the available time for study is too small for a conclusive answer.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Yes there is. The system is too big, and the available time for study is too small for a conclusive answer.
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
If you want to try to attack anything you need to go after the feedback of the system. Only denialists that have no ability at all to do science deny the fact that increasing the amount of CO2 will raise the temperature of the Earth. The effects of certain gases on global warming was known since the 1800's.
The problem, and I did not want to admit it, is that it seems the AGW scientists are correct. So we know that we are going to warm, the only thing that is being debated at all is how much. There is a range from pessimistic to overly optimistic. The Earth has been following a course between those two extremes.
The problem, and I did not want to admit it, is that it seems the AGW scientists are correct. So we know that we are going to warm, the only thing that is being debated at all is how much. There is a range from pessimistic to overly optimistic. The Earth has been following a course between those two extremes.
Upvote
0
We know exactly what the carbon dioxide makeup of the atmosphere is.
We know the makeup of the atmosphere in the past.
We know the carbon isotope ratios in both those sets of data.
We know the carbon isotope ratios in fossil fuels.
As it turns out, the massive and sudden increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 150 years exactly matches the carbon isotope makeup of fossil fuels.
With this knowledge, it seems to me that the conclusion is obvious. Why do you fight so hard against it?
Upvote
0
It only takes a day in the lab with the right equipment to determine that increasing carbon dioxide in a gas mixture causes it to retain more heat.
Upvote
0
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 26,933
- 29,749
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'd like to see a study that links Climate Change denialists with people who deny the ToE.
I'm almost certain there's a connection somewhere in there.
I'm almost certain there's a connection somewhere in there.
Upvote
0
Nithavela
you're in charge you can do it just get louis
- Apr 14, 2007
- 30,974
- 22,659
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
Even if we didn't know anything (we do know quite a lot about this issue), wouldn't it be the more reasonable course to conserve the status quo until we know, instead of continueing to polute the world in the vague hope that it doesn't do anything bad?
Upvote
0
Wow, I thought I was just being open-minded and reasonable. Now I'm labeled with this slightly insulting word "denialist". 
Well there's a lot of conflicting science on the subject (as well as a lot of big-money interests and political power grabs at stake), but those of you who want to trade in your car for a bicycle to save the planet, I'll gladly take your fossil fuel car, 'cause mine went kaput a couple of nights ago.
Well there's a lot of conflicting science on the subject (as well as a lot of big-money interests and political power grabs at stake), but those of you who want to trade in your car for a bicycle to save the planet, I'll gladly take your fossil fuel car, 'cause mine went kaput a couple of nights ago.
Upvote
0
Wow, I thought I was just being open-minded and reasonable. Now I'm labeled with this slightly insulting word "denialist".
It is the big-money interestests and politicians who are trying to convince you that there is a lot of conflicting science. There isn't. The science is clear. The burning of fossil fuels has rapidly increased the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and it is trapping heat that would otherwise reflect back into space. The only scientific debate going on right now is how much of an impact this will have. The debate over the basic science was over quite a while ago.
Upvote
0
1
1Sam15
Guest
I have PhD in geology. I assure you I understand the scope of human history.
Interestingly enough I ALSO know that much of what we know about current global climate impacts comes from a field called paleoenvironmental research. This is how we know what impact increases in CO2 can have on temperature (from pre-human time frames). And it also helps us understand the relative impact of NATURAL climate forcings.
AND again, when you compile ALL THAT INFORMATION together, there's almost no legitimate climate science that finds human behavior to be a non-factor. Almost every climate professional seems to believe that the data point to a significant role of HUMAN ACTIVITY in the last 50 years in climate forcings.
Indeed. And once you know the issues you shouldn't keep moving forward with the bad actions.
(I do like the COMPLETE avoidance of a discussion of the ISOTOPE data...is it scary? Yeah...kinda figured. But if you find you accidentally want to discuss science as she is done, then by all means feel free to critique isotope fractionation chemistry.)
Upvote
0
Then why have the Chicken Littles been caught twisting evidence and outright lying? You shouldn't have to do that if the science is solid. You shouldn't do it at all.
Upvote
0
Again, you are buying into the propoganda being spread by big money interests and politicians.
Do you think scientists are really lying about the basic physics of carbon dioxide trapping heat in our atmosphere? This science was settled in the 1800's, for crying out loud.
Upvote
0
Who's being a denialist now? Some scientists and their socio-politcal adherents have been caught lying. Why do people lie? Because they want others to believe what they want them to believe. Again, that doesn't necessarily disprove climate warming, but we all should have reason to be suspicious.
Upvote
0
Do you think scientists are lying about the ability of carbon dioxide to act as a greenhouse gas? Yes or no?
Upvote
0
No I don't, but it's still a bit of a tricky question, because "greenhouse" is a metaphor, and I understand a bit of how atmosphere works, but a planet is not a greenhouse.
Upvote
0
It's not a tricky question at all. It is simple physics. Carbon dioxide absorbs light in the infrared spectrum. After absorbing that light it emits a lower frequency infrared photon. The trick is that the angle of emission is not the same as the angle of absorption. Therefore, carbon dioxide will absorb heat and will re-emit that heat back towards the Earth at a given probability.
This is very similar to how a greenhouse works. Glass is transparent for visible light, but it is opaque for infrared light (i.e. heat). As the inside of the greenhouse heats up from the absorption of visible light it begins to emit infrared light. The glass in the greenhouse reflects heat back towards the plants which keeps the greenhouse warmer.
Assuming that we have agreement on the simple physics, do you think that scientists are lying about the increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere over the last 200 years?
Upvote
0
Works for me. Might help just the tiniest bit to keep us all from freezing to death in this new little ice age.
Upvote
0
Basic cold, hard realities...
CO2 is a minuscule fraction of greenhouse gases on this planet and CO2 created by human activity is a tiny fraction of that. There is no sane reason to worry about C
O2.
The most major greenhouse gas on this planet by far is water vapor. For some reason, democrats don't yet seem to have gotten psyched enough yet to try to outlaw, ban, or restrict water vapor.
CO2 is an absolutely essential ingredient of our living world. Without it, every tree and flowering planet on Earth would die.
Whenever something makes no sense or cannot be followed logically, the basic principle is to follow the money ("cui bono"). Algor was going to become a billionaire with that Chicago carbon exchange and others were seeing money in it as well.
The perpetrators of this stuff have no care or concern for the common man. Assuming we actually are headed straight into a second little ice age as the Russians claim, and I would bet it that way, then shutting down our own coal industry for the glory of Gaea at this juncture would be an insane act UNLESS you goal actually was to have large numbers of people die.
CO2 is a minuscule fraction of greenhouse gases on this planet and CO2 created by human activity is a tiny fraction of that. There is no sane reason to worry about C
O2.
The most major greenhouse gas on this planet by far is water vapor. For some reason, democrats don't yet seem to have gotten psyched enough yet to try to outlaw, ban, or restrict water vapor.
CO2 is an absolutely essential ingredient of our living world. Without it, every tree and flowering planet on Earth would die.
Whenever something makes no sense or cannot be followed logically, the basic principle is to follow the money ("cui bono"). Algor was going to become a billionaire with that Chicago carbon exchange and others were seeing money in it as well.
The perpetrators of this stuff have no care or concern for the common man. Assuming we actually are headed straight into a second little ice age as the Russians claim, and I would bet it that way, then shutting down our own coal industry for the glory of Gaea at this juncture would be an insane act UNLESS you goal actually was to have large numbers of people die.
Upvote
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't everything (including transparent glass) absorb, reflect and refract light? Educate me: how is the sun's light/heat reaction with a rock on the ground different from the reaction with the gas carbon dioxide?
I said some scientists have been caught lying, which is common knowledge, and it seems like you're trying to make me look as if I said all scientists who seriously study the subject are liars. No, of course I don't think that.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
