I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Temp Refusing To Follow AGW Predictions [Pic+]

Hits: 7204 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: Science | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Friday, April 05, 2013 8:38:27 PM
As I suspected, no answer.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Monday, April 01, 2013 9:11:21 PM
So I found this
http://tinyurl.com/cfa3ltt

Which I assumed was an April fool until I followed the link to a pear reviewed paper which stated that cooler, denser, water floated to the top.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Monday, April 01, 2013 8:41:15 PM
Sorry, as a physicist, I need to know.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Monday, April 01, 2013 8:40:31 PM
So, what else is heating the earth?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, April 01, 2013 8:31:13 AM
"So you agree that all global warming is caused by the Sun and that we are talking about things that cause the earth to cool?"

Of course I don't agree that "all global warming is caused by the Sun." You are continuing to confuse global solar input (the energy radiated to Earth in terms of light and heat) and global warming, the INCREASE in temperature the Earth has recently experienced. Per Merriam-Webster: "Global warming: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures...."

If you are either unable to understand or unwilling to accept what the definition of global warming is, it is not possible for us to discuss global warming.

Earlier you had suggested that we should probably agree to disagree and I now concur. I am sure that both of us have better things to do than to circle endlessly in a conversation that is unproductive.

Take care and I'll see you 'round the website.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:45:58 PM
So you agree that all global warming is caused by the Sun and that we are talking about things that cause the earth to cool?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Sunday, March 31, 2013 6:11:22 AM
I would certainly agree that the Sun is virtually the sole provider of the Earth's heat. I wouldn't, however, describe the Sun as the "controller" of Earth's temperature due to the massive role the greenhouse effect plays, as can be seen by the contrasts offered by our neighboring planets, Venus (runaway greenhouse effect) and Mars (virtually no greenhouse effect).

As I said in my last post, we need to be in agreement as to what is meant by "global warming," the recent INCREASE in the Earth's temperature over the last 100 years. Are we in agreement with that definition?

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:34:25 PM
So you are now denying that the Sun is the major force in controlling the earth's temperature?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013 2:07:53 PM
An-egg, I thought we were discussing global warming, which by definition is the INCREASE in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years or so. The Earth's uptake of solar energy, what might be called global solar input, is a separate but related matter. I'm hoping we can agree here on the difference between the two because having a discussion about global warming would otherwise be all but impossible.

So, yes, let's get that fundamental covered. Are we agreed as to what is meant by "global warming"?

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013 12:04:00 PM
You don't seem to understand. You said that the Sun wasn't behind global warming.

Anything else we discuss is concerned with the rate at which the earth cools, by re-radiating energy from the Sun. The only thing warming the planet in any measurable way is the Sun.

Remember, the fundamentals.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:01:56 AM
(Cont'd)

I've been saying I'd like to address the fundamentals with you, and your willingness to believe the Sun is behind global warming points to a bit of a gap in knowledge about the whole endeavor.

I have to ask: You really thought that with thousands of climatologist, planetary scientists, and physicists working the issue of AGW and writing and critiquing papers, none of them thought to ask, "Maybe this warming is caused by the Sun?"

This is one of the very first things that was looked at as a possible cause, and it's re-examined at every IPCC conference.

But the AGW "skeptic" blogs, Fox News, and others, seize upon this possible explanation as if it's something that's never occurred to anyone before. "Aha! They FORGOT about that!" ~sigh~

I'm leaving on a trip for the holiday, but should be back by late Sunday evening if you want to discuss further. Have a good Easter.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:52:56 AM
(Cont'd)

How is this possible if the planets are heating? you ask. A lot of things other than solar radiation determine how warm a body is in our solar system: its reflectivity, its position in an elliptical orbit, the mixing of gases on its surface caused by storms--and, yes, the greenhouse effect.

Here's a graph charting the level of energy being released by the Sun and the warming Earth has been experiencing. You'll note that since about 1960, the Sun has been in a steady or declining state. While Earth has been warming.



(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:46:11 AM
@An-egg: Sure. Let's put to rest this "It's the Sun" myth (which I hear time and time again). You are familiar with the inverse square law of radiated energy, I'm sure. You halve the distance to the source (i.e., divide by 2), and you get a four-fold increase in energy (2 squared). We observe this every day when moving closer to a light source, like a table lamp.

Pluto (recently declassified as a planet, but still a recipient of solar energy all the same) is warming slightly. A-ha! You say, See: It's the Sun! Not so fast: Mercury, which is our closest planet to the Sun, isn't warming at all. If the warming of Pluto (and Earth) was being caused by the Sun, Mercury should be virtually on fire. Yet it's temperature is unchanged.

But as I've already stated, this whole train of thought is off the tracks. We *know* how much energy the Sun is releasing: we have satellites that measure it. And for 35 years, it's been decreasing.

(Cont'd next post)

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:24:15 AM
"The myth that the Sun is behind global warming is what's behind the "Warming Planets" canard."

Really, you have evidence that something other than the Sun is warming the earth in any meaningful way?

Let's address the fundamentals.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, March 29, 2013 8:18:19 PM
(Cont'd)

As I've been saying, I'd like to address the fundamentals with you. And the best way I know how to do that is to describe the situation as you understand it. This is not a trick. Not a trap. Okay? Let's both put aside the insults.

Here's how I think you see it:

"Global Warming is an infant science, a pseudo-science, really, that was started recently by a small group of elitist "scientists." For the past decade or more, none of their predictions have been accurate and it's becoming obvious that global warming is a big hoax to allow the government to tax us more and control our lives. The people responsible for this never share their data with the public and they're dishonest. When their emails were recently uncovered and it was found they were trying to "hide the decline" of global temperatures, it was all exposed for the fraud it is."

Have I got that right? Anything you'd like to add?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, March 29, 2013 8:12:54 PM
An-egg, I have no "fervor," as you call it. I thought it might be worthwhile if I gave you a little background on the subject and you can do whatever you want with it, even use it to attack AGW more knowledgeably if you want.

I'd prefer to do this by addressing the fundamentals first, but since you're complaining I'm not answering questions, I'll answer your latest (about global warming; I see no point in us going into the Laws of Motion).

The myth that the Sun is behind global warming is what's behind the "Warming Planets" canard. In fact, Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and Uranus is actually cooling. But regardless: the Sun has recently been COOLING. For the past 35 years, the Sun and the Earth climate have been moving in opposite directions (Sun cooling, the Earth warming).

(Cont'd next post)

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Friday, March 29, 2013 7:48:47 PM
So here we go. You claim to understand, here are a few questions:

What happens to an object if you apply a force to it?

(next after your answer.)




An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Friday, March 29, 2013 7:29:55 PM
I am afraid that we will have to agree to differ as your understanding of science doesn't allow for dissenting views.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Friday, March 29, 2013 7:28:13 PM
You don't seem to get it. I was once on a train with a Christian Fundamentalist who wanted to convert me, he banged on and on with no real answers.

Look at your zeal.

Look at your fervor.

You believe that you can convert me because I don't understand the true way.

You believe that I am uninformed, however there are many other reasons for global warming. The sun and the warming of all the solar planets for one.

You don't answer any of my arguments, because in your eyes I am the prol, simply because I am an unbeliever.

Look back over the thread, I presented arguments that you didn't dispute or if you did then you simply said that they were invalid, I read your article and you said that you didn't want to go there (cherry picking).

Were you formerly a Jehovah's Witness who has found a new calling?

Your faith is admirable, your openness to criticism less so.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, March 29, 2013 4:17:08 PM
Hi, there. (I guess it doesn't make sense to label these posts @Squrlz and @An-egg because I'm 99.9998% certain we are the only two people still clicking on this thread. Anyway.)

So, no, you're not really getting it, and I'm not being insulting there in saying that. Do you have time for a back-and-forth discussion here? Do you have an hour? That's probably all that's needed. I'm not sure I want to launch into the topic if it's going to be done in 1,000 character teaspoons every 24 hours. That's why I was suggesting you call; but no worries, we can do this in text here. I'd just like to be able to have a sustained conversation.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Friday, March 29, 2013 3:48:34 PM
It cut off one word, and that word was

right?

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 866 Posts
Friday, March 29, 2013 3:47:53 PM
"All too often, what happens is that a reporter, hostile to the topic, presents some smaller picture of the whole and either distorts it or misinterprets it, as is the case with this *Mail* story."

You see, here is my problem. The data is the data. If somebody with an opinion contrary to your own uses a different subset of the data than the subset that you choose to use to come to a different conclusion, that doesn't make that person wrong.

Having a different opinion on the cause of any global warming that may be taking place doesn't constitute a misconception.

This is exactly why I said that it was like a religion.

As far as I can see the two crimes that the Mail article is guilty of are not properly crediting the source of the data used and disagreeing with your high priests as only they are allowed to interpret any data for the poor common man who is too stupid or lazy to understand it on his own.

That's what you were saying,

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:05:00 PM
(Cont'd)

I was thinking about this exchange of ours this morning, and it occurred to me that you were very likely to leave the discussion having learned little that you didn't already know. That would be a huge pity, and I think I have myself to blame.

I was so condescending in my early responses that it created an adversarial tone that we have yet to recover from.

From your earlier comments and questions, I can see that you harbor a lot of misconceptions regarding the science of climate change. That's no surprise: Fox News and other outlets spend an enormous amount of energy to skew the public's perceptions and they have been very successful at it.

I'd like to teach you a little more about the topic tonight. I doubt it would take all that long: I'm not an expert, only a fairly well-read member of the public. You can use the information however you see fit--even to argue more effectively against AGW.

Thoughts?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:58:20 PM
@An-egg: Here's the thing: Climate change is not easy to understand. It's a complex topic, built upon a lot of physics and statistics and most of the public doesn't have the ability or interest to assimilate what's in the scientific papers that are published on the topic. All too often, what happens is that a reporter, hostile to the topic, presents some smaller picture of the whole and either distorts it or misinterprets it, as is the case with this *Mail* story. If you look at the papers that were published, and how the data in them is often distorted, or misinterpreted, I think you'll find that the popular press, particularly the conservative popular press, is the side that has committed the overwhelming majority of instances of cherry picking.

But I'd like to put aside the whole issue of cherry picking. Quite honestly, I think we have more important things to discuss.

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:19:55 PM
@An-egg: You're still with me here; that's awesome. I'm in a diner on an iPhone. I'll be back in my office in 30 mins and I'll respond at length then.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.