Global warming basically "confirmed"

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're an imbecile. CO2 transparent to visible light - its fucking clear. However, its opacity to IR is significant. Visible light strikes the Earth and is reradiated into the air at lower wavelengths - heat. This cannot pass through CO2 as easily and remains. Adding CO2 shifts the equilibrium.

[Darth Wong]

It would only make sense that YES the earth absorbs more light than it re-radiates. The whole law of physics thing. But it also absorbs less energy than originally hits the fucking planet you stupid fucktard.

What the fuck are you trying to say? If the Earth as a system absorbs more light than it re-radiates, then the laws of physics dictate that it must heat up at a rate dictated by the difference. And if you're going to dismiss the CO2 model, you're going to have to provide much more than your personal authority, since it comes from people who are far more qualified than you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're an imbecile. CO2 transparent to visible light - its fucking clear. However, its opacity to IR is significant. Visible light strikes the Earth and is reradiated into the air at lower wavelengths - heat. This cannot pass through CO2 as easily and remains. Adding CO2 shifts the equilibrium.

And there are other tace gases in our atmo as well. The issue really is how much of an imbalance there is specifically due to trace gases. I just want to see their model...

[Darth Wong]

And there are other tace gases in our atmo as well. The issue really is how much of an imbalance there is specifically due to trace gases. I just want to see their model...

Why? You have a PhD in planetology and you are therefore a legitimate peer reviewer of their work?

[Castor Troy]

I feel rather idiotic for asking this...but doesn't saying that they are correct because they are the scientists in that area an appeal to authority?

[Alyrium Denryle]

And there are other tace gases in our atmo as well. The issue really is how much of an imbalance there is specifically due to trace gases. I just want to see their model...

Why? You have a PhD in planetology and you are therefore a legitimate peer reviewer of their work?

I can find someone to explain the more complicated stuff to me... I attend a major research university and have free access to people who would LOVE to help me understand the stuff I cant look up in the massive science library.

What the fuck are you trying to say? If the Earth as a system absorbs more light than it re-radiates, then the laws of physics dictate that it must heat up at a rate dictated by the difference. And if you're going to dismiss the CO2 model, you're going to have to provide much more than your personal authority, since it comes from people who are far more qualified than you.

Jesus, I am just pointing out something that a lot of people(not necessarily these climatologists, but laypeople) tend to leave out. Not dismissing the model.

[SirNitram]

I feel rather idiotic for asking this...but doesn't saying that they are correct because they are the scientists in that area an appeal to authority?

It is, but the fallacy is appeal to irrelevent authority. Consider it thus: Would we take Einstein as being legitimate when he says something about Special Relativity? Do we assume a mechanic is correct when he tells us about a problem he's qualified to fix?

While seeing the paper might be cool, I don't beleive anyone here has nearly the training to interperate it sensibly.

[Castor Troy]

I feel rather idiotic for asking this...but doesn't saying that they are correct because they are the scientists in that area an appeal to authority?

It is, but the fallacy is appeal to irrelevent authority. Consider it thus: Would we take Einstein as being legitimate when he says something about Special Relativity? Do we assume a mechanic is correct when he tells us about a problem he's qualified to fix?

While seeing the paper might be cool, I don't beleive anyone here has nearly the training to interperate it sensibly.

Ah, ok. That explains it. Thanks.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're an imbecile. CO2 transparent to visible light - its fucking clear. However, its opacity to IR is significant. Visible light strikes the Earth and is reradiated into the air at lower wavelengths - heat. This cannot pass through CO2 as easily and remains. Adding CO2 shifts the equilibrium.

And there are other tace gases in our atmo as well. The issue really is how much of an imbalance there is specifically due to trace gases. I just want to see their model...

Man, I am sick and tired of you acting as if you're some authority on ethics, science, philosophy, or economics when you've consistently and completely demonstrated yourself to be nothing but a kid with pretentions. Even worse, you constantly say stuff which implies you lack a basic understanding of conceptual scientific principles, such as if you're putting more heat into a system than you're removing, it must accumulate heat (yet you say this is normal).

Everyone knows your head is up your ass.

[Darth Wong]

I feel rather idiotic for asking this...but doesn't saying that they are correct because they are the scientists in that area an appeal to authority?

I am not saying that they must be correct because they are authorities. I am saying that they have satisfied a much greater burden of proof for their theories than AD here has, hence their theories are far more likely to be true than his criticisms of them.

[Darth Wong]

And there are other tace gases in our atmo as well. The issue really is how much of an imbalance there is specifically due to trace gases. I just want to see their model...

Why? You have a PhD in planetology and you are therefore a legitimate peer reviewer of their work?

I can find someone to explain the more complicated stuff to me... I attend a major research university and have free access to people who would LOVE to help me understand the stuff I cant look up in the massive science library.

Perhaps one of them can help explain to you that you should do your research before proclaiming that widely accepted scientific theories are shit.

[Master of Ossus]

Problem is, this study basically limits you to only two possible explanations: 1.) The sun is getting brighter or 2.) The Earth is trapping more heat via the greenhouse effect because the warming is shown to be coming from energy originating outside the planet itself. Since the sun isn't really getting brighter, or at least not enough, greenhouse gases come down as practically the only possibly explanation.

The problem with this model is that it provides no mechanism for explaining previous climate shifts--which have been known to occur--and since we seem to be in the midst of a natural climate shift, anyway, the mechanism must be more complicated than "people make gases which trap heat." The global warming crowd would be much more convincing if they were able to quantify what portion of the Earth's climate shift is attributable to natural mechanisms and what proportion humans are responsible for.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're an imbecile. CO2 transparent to visible light - its fucking clear. However, its opacity to IR is significant. Visible light strikes the Earth and is reradiated into the air at lower wavelengths - heat. This cannot pass through CO2 as easily and remains. Adding CO2 shifts the equilibrium.

And there are other tace gases in our atmo as well. The issue really is how much of an imbalance there is specifically due to trace gases. I just want to see their model...

Man, I am sick and tired of you acting as if you're some authority on ethics, science, philosophy, or economics when you've consistently and completely demonstrated yourself to be nothing but a kid with pretentions. Even worse, you constantly say stuff which implies you lack a basic understanding of conceptual scientific principles, such as if you're putting more heat into a system than you're removing, it must accumulate heat (yet you say this is normal).

Everyone knows your head is up your ass.

Jesus do you conveniently ignore what I say? I never said that the system does not accumulate heat. would you like me to spell it out for you? Essentially what I am saying is that the system reflects heat as well as absorbs it. I am clarifying. When I say "largly balances out" I do not mean "cancels out"

Maybe I am just an inarticulate tard.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why? You have a PhD in planetology and you are therefore a legitimate peer reviewer of their work?

I can find someone to explain the more complicated stuff to me... I attend a major research university and have free access to people who would LOVE to help me understand the stuff I cant look up in the massive science library.

Perhaps one of them can help explain to you that you should do your research before proclaiming that widely accepted scientific theories are shit.

if you could point out when I did that, I will conceede.

[Straha]

I've just said it would break the laws of physics for Global Warming to be refuted. You claimed otherwise. In short, you spewed a cattleherd's worth of BS. So please, don't deny it, what you are claiming will never happen.

You're claiming that some scientist won't come out and try to refute this?

Are you kidding?

Don't put words in my mouth: You explicitely said that some scientist will "prove" global warming wrong, hence my reaction. If that is not what you intended then you should have corrected yourself.

[/quote]

Yes, exactly like some scientist just "proved" Global Warming is caused by humans now. He's pointing out that over this issue you could probably get a scientist to "prove" little green men are making the world get warmer. The fact that you are too dense to catch that is... shocking.

Furthermore, I never disagreed with the laws of physics. Quit acting like I did. Anyways, I'm not one for anal retention...

Well word speak louder than... words. Your original statement would've necessitate a violation of the laws of physics.

No it wouldn't have. Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg (I think he did too...) have "proven" that Global Warming isn't man-made before... that certainly didn't violate the laws of Physics.

[

If it's part of a natural process, as some scientists suggest, then there may be little we can do about it even if we wanted to since the natural processes behind climate cycles are poorly understood. If, on the other hand, carbon dioxide emissions are responsible then there may be something we can do, assuming that we wish to return to the basic climate shift.

Problem is, this study basically limits you to only two possible explanations: 1.) The sun is getting brighter or 2.) The Earth is trapping more heat via the greenhouse effect because the warming is shown to be coming from energy originating outside the planet itself. Since the sun isn't really getting brighter, or at least not enough, greenhouse gases come down as practically the only possibly explanation.

or 3) We really are ignorant in this area and in the future it'll look like we couldn't find our ass with both hands regarding this. Think about it, we've been recording data pertinent to this field for, what, about fifty years, tops? Compared to engineering, biology, most-physics, etc. we've got zilch info, and what little info we have was being interpretted as Global COOLING not to long ago. I also doubt any global warming "proof" based on a one degree change, we've had more serious changes than that throughout history and those were NEVER man-made, so why are we jumping all up and down over this?

[Straha]

Ghetto Edit:

Compared to engineering, biology, most-physics, etc. we've got zilch info on Global Climatology

[/i]

[Darth Wong]

The problem with this model is that it provides no mechanism for explaining previous climate shifts--which have been known to occur

Excuse me? Since when was this planet devoid of greenhouse gas-generating entities? We humans are certainly not the only ones. And in the end, what difference does it make whether we're causing it? The real question is whether it will hurt us, and if so, whether we can do something about it. The mechanism is real; no one seriously disputes that. The only question is how much effect it has, what other mechanisms are at play, etc. And even those questions are merely academic if it turns out that prolonged global warming will really harm humanity.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I feel rather idiotic for asking this...but doesn't saying that they are correct because they are the scientists in that area an appeal to authority?

I am not saying that they must be correct because they are authorities. I am saying that they have satisfied a much greater burden of proof for their theories than AD here has, hence their theories are far more likely to be true than his criticisms of them.

That I will conceede to.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The problem with this model is that it provides no mechanism for explaining previous climate shifts--which have been known to occur

Excuse me? Since when was this planet devoid of greenhouse gas-generating entities? We humans are certainly not the only ones. And in the end, what difference does it make whether we're causing it? The real question is whether it will hurt us, and if so, whether we can do something about it. The mechanism is real; no one seriously disputes that. The only question is how much effect it has, what other mechanisms are at play, etc. And even those questions are merely academic if it turns out that prolonged global warming will really harm humanity.

My unqualified opinion is that we could probably bounce back from most 'major' issues. Such as ice-cap melting causing the gulf stream to sink, thus sending northern europe into a freezer. WOuld it be pleasant? No.. but is it survivable? Yeah.

I would be most interested in seeing how climate change on that scale would affect ecosystems though.. World Wide Amphibian Decline would sure as hell progress much faster

[Illuminatus Primus]

Jesus do you conveniently ignore what I say? I never said that the system does not accumulate heat. would you like me to spell it out for you? Essentially what I am saying is that the system reflects heat as well as absorbs it. I am clarifying. When I say "largly balances out" I do not mean "cancels out"

Maybe I am just an inarticulate tard.

Point? You're WRONG. If CO2 did not have greater opacity to IR than visible light than it wouldn't be a greenhouse gas and no one would fuss. Give me a break.

Just like a greenhouse, the glass lets light in, but reradiated IR cannot escape.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The problem with this model is that it provides no mechanism for explaining previous climate shifts--which have been known to occur--and since we seem to be in the midst of a natural climate shift, anyway, the mechanism must be more complicated than "people make gases which trap heat." The global warming crowd would be much more convincing if they were able to quantify what portion of the Earth's climate shift is attributable to natural mechanisms and what proportion humans are responsible for.

Review your climatology. Cyclical patterns in climate can be tied to bouts of volcanic activity and moreover, the Earth wobbles on its axis and its orbit oscillates. This changes the duration and severity of seasons and the location of the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer. This has significant ecological impacts.

[HyperionX]

Yes, exactly like some scientist just "proved" Global Warming is caused by humans now. He's pointing out that over this issue you could probably get a scientist to "prove" little green men are making the world get warmer. The fact that you are too dense to catch that is... shocking.

If you are implie he was using sarcasm I neither got it nor do I think he ever attempted to claim so afterwards. And no, you probably can't "prove" something like little green are doing something to the weather because that will require a fallacious argument.

Furthermore, I never disagreed with the laws of physics. Quit acting like I did. Anyways, I'm not one for anal retention...

Well word speak louder than... words. Your original statement would've necessitate a violation of the laws of physics.

No it wouldn't have. Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg (I think he did too...) have "proven" that Global Warming isn't man-made before... that certainly didn't violate the laws of Physics.

Given the latest finding they would have, or at least the part about GW in general.

Problem is, this study basically limits you to only two possible explanations: 1.) The sun is getting brighter or 2.) The Earth is trapping more heat via the greenhouse effect because the warming is shown to be coming from energy originating outside the planet itself. Since the sun isn't really getting brighter, or at least not enough, greenhouse gases come down as practically the only possibly explanation.

or 3) We really are ignorant in this area and in the future it'll look like we couldn't find our ass with both hands regarding this. Think about it, we've been recording data pertinent to this field for, what, about fifty years, tops? Compared to engineering, biology, most-physics, etc. we've got zilch info, and what little info we have was being interpretted as Global COOLING not to long ago. I also doubt any global warming "proof" based on a one degree change, we've had more serious changes than that throughout history and those were NEVER man-made, so why are we jumping all up and down over this?

This is a blatant appeal to ignorance! Did read the part where said GW is more or less "confirmed" and it would break the laws of physics to be otherwise? It'll take an complete upending of science for what you claim is true to happen. Sorry, but the debate over GW that is happen right now is over. Only the argument of who's causing it is left, and that's 80-90% or so over as we are the only suspects left. Everything else such as the validity of the data or previous GW is irrelevant.

[CJvR]

Excuse me? Since when was this planet devoid of greenhouse gas-generating entities? We humans are certainly not the only ones.

I remember the UK greenhouse gas emissions dropped significantly when they exterminated all their cows. Dead cows don't fart.

[CJvR]

My unqualified opinion is that we could probably bounce back from most 'major' issues. Such as ice-cap melting causing the gulf stream to sink, thus sending northern europe into a freezer. WOuld it be pleasant?

I watched the "Day before yesterday", or whatever it's called, it was a most amusing display of the hopes and dreams of all the Watermelons in the world.

[Master of Ossus]

The problem with this model is that it provides no mechanism for explaining previous climate shifts--which have been known to occur

Excuse me? Since when was this planet devoid of greenhouse gas-generating entities? We humans are certainly not the only ones. And in the end, what difference does it make whether we're causing it? The real question is whether it will hurt us, and if so, whether we can do something about it. The mechanism is real; no one seriously disputes that. The only question is how much effect it has, what other mechanisms are at play, etc. And even those questions are merely academic if it turns out that prolonged global warming will really harm humanity.

You're right, Mike. It's difficult, though, to come up with a mechanism by which greenhouse gas levels would cyclically change to such a degree that the world's climate could be affected with only natural mechanisms.