Oh man, this thread is AMAZING!
|
I do believe I stated somewhere, that those emmission estimates used to be reversed. They used to estimate volcanos in the billions, while recent reports estimate millions.
Yes, I missed it amongst the other insanity, but you had previously said;
"I also heard the volcanos put out billions, rather then millions of tonnes, though I'll be back later if I find it again."
and
"... sometimes I hear that volcanos are a magnitutde more then humans, and sometimes I hear the opposite, the later is more common nowadays, but what happened to all the prior reports of volcano emmisions in the billions of tonnes?"
The simple answer to 'what happened' to those estimates of massive volcanic emissions is that they never existed as anything except lies and distortions. Hence your inability to "find it again".
All claims to that effect I have seen rely on citing the distant past (when volcanoes were much more active), failing to distinguish between CO2 emissions and all volcanic aerosols (vaporized mountainsides are indeed heavy, but dirt is not CO2), or vast numbers of invisible underwater volcanoes that magically transport their CO2 directly to the atmosphere rather than producing a deep ocean spike in carbonic acid as logic would require.
Commentary from the 'evil conspiracy to claim volcanoes emit less CO2 than humans' - 1234
It is easy to find respected neutral scientists and organizations (e.g. the United States Geological Survey) who say and provide research showing that volcanic CO2 emissions are comparatively tiny. Claims to the contrary come exclusively from global warming 'skeptics' with a record of deceit.
So, I had posted a link to a leaflet my comrades had written and Madame Sissyl was kind enough to point out the typos I had already noticed. So I sent an e-mail to my comrades saying "what up, dog? Fix this shiznit!" but, alas, they didn't. So, when the day came, I refused to hand out leaflets that made us look like dummies and instead volunteered for banner-holding duty, although, alas, it didn't show up in any of the photos.
|
Like most of the rest of your understanding of science, I don't think the books are saying what you think they're saying.
Even elementary schoolbooks say the plates fit at only 96-98%. This isn't exactly secret knowledge.What does that even mean anyway?
If the plates don't fit together, what's in between them? Nothingness? It doesn't even make sense.
Of course they're moving, so there are the sea rifts where they're spreading and the subduction zone where one slides under another. Is that what's meant by only 96-98%? What does that have to do with the earth expanding?
If it's just the continents that don't fit, that doesn't mean a thing. The continents aren't the whole plates. In fact they're mostly multiple plates.
More importantly, why am I even talking about this kind of kook "science".
The expanding earth thing was a theory back before the '60s when we figured out subduction zones. Then it was a valid theory. We know more now. It's nonsense.
Actually, have you noticed continental shelfs? If you take away everything lower then a continental shelf you end up with several pieces that fit together perfectly on a smaller globe. Subduction zones exist now (theoretically), but that doesn't mean they always have. They also don't explain how the middle of a continent could be under a sea as current models only have mountain ranges as raising in height not entire continents.
I haven't heard of any other theories that account for how the continental shelf was made. Which the shelf fits with geology of the continent giving no indication of where the ocean edge should be until this giant and sudden drop off. Using current idea, the shelf could only be created the same way as a mountain range, but the shelf doesn't follow the pattern for it.
But if the planet got hit by an asteroid, and sent spinning faster, the faster spin would increase the size, while the asteroid would likely have cracked the planets crust, thus the expansion of the planet would have these floating plates of crust and the water would recede into the low spaces and cool the magma into rock, but at a lower depth then previous crust. This would be how oceans used to be over the middle of several continents but isn't anymore, continents didn't rise out of the ocean.
And considering the size of a planet, 10 - 15 minute speed increase actually makes more sense then a full hour. (Referencing the 24 hour and 11minute rythem posted by Irontruth, interesting, I find it weird that one could see a rythem by controling the lights without affecting the rythem. That would indicate that we don't take cues from the light, which would in turn indicates that our control of lights shouldn't have disturbed earlier tests. Stuff to consider anyway. Now to find actual science journal entries instead of public interest. Maybe they should try maintaining one light level during the entire period.)
Actually, have you noticed continental shelfs? If you take away everything lower then a continental shelf you end up with several pieces that fit together perfectly on a smaller globe.Like most of the rest of your understanding of science, I don't think the books are saying what you think they're saying.
Even elementary schoolbooks say the plates fit at only 96-98%. This isn't exactly secret knowledge.What does that even mean anyway?
If the plates don't fit together, what's in between them? Nothingness? It doesn't even make sense.
Of course they're moving, so there are the sea rifts where they're spreading and the subduction zone where one slides under another. Is that what's meant by only 96-98%? What does that have to do with the earth expanding?
If it's just the continents that don't fit, that doesn't mean a thing. The continents aren't the whole plates. In fact they're mostly multiple plates.
More importantly, why am I even talking about this kind of kook "science".
The expanding earth thing was a theory back before the '60s when we figured out subduction zones. Then it was a valid theory. We know more now. It's nonsense.
No, no it doesn't.
Subduction zones exist now (theoretically), but that doesn't mean they always have.
It doesn't just happen "theoretically".As always in these conversations the people spouting the nonsense use theoricially incorrectly, please use the term hypothetically instead, it's meaning is at least closer to what you mean than theoretically). We can observe subduction occuring in numerous locations around the world. It might not be able to look at it, but we have measured it through indirect instrument based method.
They also don't explain how the middle of a continent could be under a sea as current models only have mountain ranges as raising in height not entire continents.
We are watching the Tibetan Plateau rise up as the Indian subcontinent slams into eurasia , and it is about 1000 km form the coast. Large chucks of it is sedimentary rock that was formally seabed from the before the collision started.
The rest is just utter nonsense.
Okay, folks: Ceres, the (by far) largest asteroid of the solar system, indeed the one that was the reason to coin the term asteroid, has a diameter of 952,4 km. The state of Texas has a width of 1065 km, and a height of 1270 km. Since we are discussing asteroids, I am baffled by your claim that a rock the size of Texas is "absolutely tiny". Are you suggesting extrasolar rocks might come visit, BigNorseWolf?
As far as i know, Ceres and the other "big league" asteroids are sitting nice and snug in the asteroid belt. Lucky us.
(You were asking what would make this thread to crumble into insanity : here we are ! Asteroids accelerating our spin? Guess they politely always pass us spinwise...)
Dark man, stop for a second. Breathe.
You keep throwing out false ideas. we show that they're false. Instead of changing your position you keep trying to keep your position by throwing out yet more false ideas.
The next step is where you argue in a circle, using the ideas that we've shown are false 3 pages ago to bolster the false ideas that you're trying to spout now. Seen it a thousand times.
You need to stop and reflect on the parts of your views that don't fit with reality, and admit that they DON"T fit with reality.
I haven't heard of any other theories that account for how the continental shelf was made.
We really need to sit you down with some Nova specials sometime...
In areas where some of the tectonic plates meet are vents of magma. The magma comes up and solidifies, forming new crust. It pushes the existing crust away from the vent as it forms. Thats why say, south america and africa fit together so well: they used to BE together but they've drifted apart. The entire Atlantic ocean still has that "new rock smell" for being geologically young.
Ahah, found it Divergent Boundary
Oceanic trench
Lazarx: thanks! Didn't know estuaries geologies were nearly that precise
I predict a nuclear exchange, within the next twelve years.
Directly caused by Twitter.
There is also one in Italy, which is allegedly close to erupting (meaning withing the next 5000 years or so).
How big does a Supervolcano get. I see a Crop mark for one occupying most of the Island of Borneo.
This is the largest known eruption. If you read down, a few scientists have a theory that it may have contributed to the last ice age. Not that it caused it, but sped up the process/made it slightly colder than it would have been.
Further making the concept that volcanoes are causing global warming seem far fetched.
|
|
In areas where some of the tectonic plates meet are vents of magma. The magma comes up and solidifies, forming new crust. It pushes the existing crust away from the vent as it forms. Thats why say, south america and africa fit together so well: they used to BE together but they've drifted apart. The entire Atlantic ocean still has that "new rock smell" for being geologically young.
You have no idea what I'm talking about.
Of course the magma comes up and makes new rock! That's what I said!
Look at the continental shelf, it is a sudden drop, it isn't the top of mountains, it is a cliff, but is around every continent. Imagine, an egg. The egg has a hard shell then under that is a thin membrane. Imagine the shell cracked and the inside membrane gets larger like it's being filled with air, the shell is no longer large enough to cover the membrane, the parts of the membrane get hard where it comes out from under the shell.
This theory holds that pangea was the entirety of the earths surface, then the earth's insides expand and the water flows into the cracks, cooling the magma before it reaches as high as the continental height. Thus you get the sea floor, and why the sea floor is so much deeper then the continents. As the earth expands the plates shift away from each other (in general the magma currents in the mantle can push them together in some places like the indian sub-continent).
Subduction, has nothing to do with this process, it may be a result. (We know the mountains are growing, whether rock is equally being shifted down is a theory, a likely one, but a theory)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Subduction, has nothing to do with this process, it may be a result. (We know the mountains are growing, whether rock is equally being shifted down is a theory, a likely one, but a theory)
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
Seriously, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
To say something is a theory, is the highest form of praise there is for an idea, it means it is the best explanation available for what we see, and is almost certainly not wrong, with very high degrees of certainty.
You use it to imply that an idea is somehow shaky. "It is only a theory." but such an implication shows a profound ignorance of science.
In the words of United States National Academy of Sciences
"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have no idea what I'm talking about.
In areas where some of the tectonic plates meet are vents of magma. The magma comes up and solidifies, forming new crust. It pushes the existing crust away from the vent as it forms. Thats why say, south america and africa fit together so well: they used to BE together but they've drifted apart. The entire Atlantic ocean still has that "new rock smell" for being geologically young.
That makes two of us.
Look at the continental shelf, it is a sudden drop, it isn't the top of mountains, it is a cliff, but is around every continent.
Which makes sense because the continent is multiple plates piled up.
Imagine, an egg. The egg has a hard shell then under that is a thin membrane. Imagine the shell cracked and the inside membrane gets larger like it's being filled with air
By what mechanism is this growth taking place?
This theory holds that pangea was the entirety of the earths surface, then the earth's insides expand and the water flows into the cracks, cooling the magma before it reaches as high as the continental height. Thus you get the sea floor, and why the sea floor is so much deeper then the continents. As the earth expands the plates shift away from each other (in general the magma currents in the mantle can push them together in some places like the indian sub-continent).
This is from what... creation "science" ?
In areas where some of the tectonic plates meet are vents of magma. The magma comes up and solidifies, forming new crust. It pushes the existing crust away from the vent as it forms. Thats why say, south america and africa fit together so well: they used to BE together but they've drifted apart. The entire Atlantic ocean still has that "new rock smell" for being geologically young.You have no idea what I'm talking about.
Of course the magma comes up and makes new rock! That's what I said!
Look at the continental shelf, it is a sudden drop, it isn't the top of mountains, it is a cliff, but is around every continent. Imagine, an egg. The egg has a hard shell then under that is a thin membrane. Imagine the shell cracked and the inside membrane gets larger like it's being filled with air, the shell is no longer large enough to cover the membrane, the parts of the membrane get hard where it comes out from under the shell.
This theory holds that pangea was the entirety of the earths surface, then the earth's insides expand and the water flows into the cracks, cooling the magma before it reaches as high as the continental height. Thus you get the sea floor, and why the sea floor is so much deeper then the continents. As the earth expands the plates shift away from each other (in general the magma currents in the mantle can push them together in some places like the indian sub-continent).
Subduction, has nothing to do with this process, it may be a result. (We know the mountains are growing, whether rock is equally being shifted down is a theory, a likely one, but a theory)
The problem is that most earth-expansion hypothesis date from before the discovery of subduction zones. The expanding earth hypothesis doesn't accurately account for subduction, which we know exists, therefore it isn't a plausible explanation for what is going on.
Best evidence, rocks on the Earth's surface have been exposed to the same amount of gravity for the past 400 million years at least, with a variable of less than 0.8%.
The Moon has been under the same gravity (and thus the same size) for 4 billion years.
heh heh......
fbook friend o mine: "The revolution will be televised."
me: "eff t.v. I'll just watch the good bits on Youtube."
|
|
What is there about expansion of the planet that prevents subduction? It might imply that subduction is recent, or perhaps had halted at point until the expansion of the planet started the plates shaking again.
@BigNorseWolf
The increase in the planets rotation increases centrifugal force which counteracts and reduces the effective gravity and thus the matter on earth expands since it isn't being compressed under the same pressure it used to be under.
Also, where do you get the crazy idea of plates piled up? And even if that happened somehow, why do they line up so perfectly? Not only with other continent plates, but with the plates above and below?
Thank you spanky that explains a lot
I have a friend who is a phd candidate in paleontology, who told me "I don't know shit about Marxism, and I need to go pick up a book in order to be less ignorant of stuff."
So, thumbing through Das Kapital, and vigorously reading about "the labor theory of value," (up to then, I just accepted that Marxism was a load of bunk like somebody might accept that......Creation Science is a load of bunk), I concluded that this major tenet of Marxism was indeed bunk, and I found the whole thing ironic; this economic equivalent of Creation Science being upheld as some sort of legitimate theory. By a damn phd candidate, for f@++'s sake!
So anyway, I don't know how long our current model of civilization is gonna hold together. Depends upon how soon, if ever, we can diversify our population center by adding a moon base; maybe a Mars base or two.
So I tole them to go read some Milton Friedman.
"the labor theory of value," (up to then, I just accepted that Marxism was a load of bunk like somebody might accept that......Creation Science is a load of bunk), I concluded that this major tenet of Marxism was indeed bunk,
I haven't read Milton Friedman, and most likely never will, but the labor theory of value, bunk or not, is also a major tenet of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
Friedman is as near a fantasist in the field of economics as you get.
So I tole them to go read some Milton Friedman.
Marx is actually fairly awesome. While he may have got a lot wrong, his critique of capitalism is eerily accurate.
Marxian economics is no less accurate a model than Newtonian physics, really. You can't fault it, because its the start of something not the apex of the field. They're both luminaries.
Marxian economics is no less accurate a model than Newtonian physics, really. You can't fault it, because its the start of something not the apex of the field. They're both luminaries.
Wow, someone on the paizo message boards who doesn't see the word marx and suddenly start acting like their wearing a red jumpsuit and are being asked by friend computer if they are communists :D
Marx is really just starting to be taught again in academia. I can't say I've read as much as I'd like as of yet. I read the Communist Manifesto in high school though.
As long as you see him for what he is, a highly intelligent analyst and social commentator reacting to the industrial revolution--the biggest social adjustment in human history this side of the neolithic revolution--and not as a prophet or messiah.
Frankly I think he's about as important to the study as economics as Adam Smith. And sociology: I think his sociological theories have held up better than his economic ones. I think you'll find there are many around these parts that feel much the same way.
What is there about expansion of the planet that prevents subduction? It might imply that subduction is recent, or perhaps had halted at point until the expansion of the planet started the plates shaking again.
Subduction happens with continental drift. An expansion hypothesis can 'accept' continental drift, but it does not require it. Expansion does not itself explain continental drift, it assumes it is something else that is going on and irrelevant. Therefore Expansion does not explain the whole.
This is also why more recent expansion theories have attempted to add continental drift and subduction to their explanations, but it still becomes a more complicated explanation that relies on too many factors with no evidence.
Plate tectonics more accurately describes the Earth and everything we've been able to find in the geologic record.
Also, an Earth the current size with a Pangea continent more accurately fits the acceleration of the Moon's orbit.
There's physical evidence to support this as well, called tidally laminated sediment. They're able to analyze sediment that's millions of years old and calculate how fast the Moon was receding from the Earth to within 3mm per year, 1.95cm±0.29cm per year, compared to today's 3.82±0.07.
If the smaller Earth didn't have oceans, there wouldn't be a tidal transfer of energy from the Earth to the Moon, which is what causes the Moon to recede.
What is this "millions of years" nonsense. The earth was created no more than 6 thousand years ago and YOU CANT PROVE OTHERWISE!
The world is six thousand years old. We know this because in the field of young Earth creationism, there is NO peer reviewed scientist who thinks differently. There is a consensus, and seriously, if you are not a young Earth creationist scientist, you are not qualified to criticize the YEC hypothesis.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The world is six thousand years old. We know this because in the field of young Earth creationism, there is NO peer reviewed scientist who thinks differently. There is a consensus, and seriously, if you are not a young Earth creationist scientist, you are not qualified to criticize the YEC hypothesis.
Very droll.
Except, of course, that AGW does not rely on argument from (highly selective) authority. It is established by repeatable scientific experiments and observations. This has been explained previously. You remember... all those questions you refused to respond to?
BTW, if the Earth is only 6000 years old... how is it that there are trees with more than 6000 annual growth rings? Do trees predate the Earth? Oh wait... that book says they don't. Hmmm. Maybe Winter used to happen twice a year. And light didn't always travel at the same speed so things more than 6000 light years away can actually exist... and carbon isotopes didn't always decay at the same rate... and whatever other nonsense needs to be made up to protect sacred delusions.
I predict a nuclear exchange, within the next twelve years.
Directly caused by Twitter.
Well, at the current rate, I'm guessing:
President A: Batman on Ice rocks
President B: lolno
CNN: Multiple nuclear launchs have been detected all across the world. This is it, folks.
President A: I like hot-dogs with ketchup
President B: wtf mustard only
CNN: Multiple nuclear launchs have been detected all across the world. This is it, folks.
President A: Soccer sucks
President B: no u suck
CNN: Multiple nuclear launchs have been detected all across the world. This is it, folks.
President A: Hello veryone
President B: lol howdoItype
CNN: Multiple nuclear launchs have been detected all across the world. This is it, folks.
The world is six thousand years old. We know this because in the field of young Earth creationism, there is NO peer reviewed scientist who thinks differently. There is a consensus, and seriously, if you are not a young Earth creationist scientist, you are not qualified to criticize the YEC hypothesis.
Same thing, again.
Everybody is entitled to criticize AGW. A lot of people are trying hard, and received loads of money to do so.
The trick is, they must come with better arguments than "I don't believe it, and you are all part of a conspiracy!" to be seriously considered.
Speaking of which, we are still waiting for answers from your part. Have you no facts or arguments to present us about your opinion and claims? If you don't have any, doesn't it tell something about them (your opinion and claims)? How can you be so convinced of their rightness, if you have nothing more tangible than gut feelings to support them?
Marx is really just starting to be taught again in academia. I can't say I've read as much as I'd like as of yet. I read the Communist Manifesto in high school though.
As long as you see him for what he is, a highly intelligent analyst and social commentator reacting to the industrial revolution--the biggest social adjustment in human history this side of the neolithic revolution--and not as a prophet or messiah.
Frankly I think he's about as important to the study as economics as Adam Smith. And sociology: I think his sociological theories have held up better than his economic ones. I think you'll find there are many around these parts that feel much the same way.
[Yawn]
Vive le Galt!
So everyone who criticizes AGW is being paid by Big Oil to do so? Sorry, I can't take you seriously if you can't back that up with evidence. And when you whine about a conspiracy to discredit AGW, it's again difficult to take you seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So everyone who criticizes AGW is being paid by Big Oil to do so? Sorry, I can't take you seriously if you can't back that up with evidence. And when you whine about a conspiracy to discredit AGW, it's again difficult to take you seriously.
*Facepalm*
It isn't just that it is the oil industry is funding contrairian research, it is the way in which they are funneling money to it.
The george c marshall institute, The Cato institute, Heartland institute, and others.
These groups and many of the scientists they fund, (such as fred singer), have a history producing sceptical research, on a number of subject, always favouring which ever business is funding them this year. They have collectively been on the loosing side of tobacco, acid rain, CFCs and more.
Unlike the evidence less conspiracy you repeatedly posit, this one has evidence.
Yeah. Come back when you have outgrown this inane conspiracy idea. Why would big oil do this? Because they like to mess with people. Sorry. It is just too unrealistic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Come back when you have outgrown this inane conspiracy idea. Why would big oil do this? Because they like to mess with people. Sorry. It is just too unrealistic.
Because oil companies make large profit. The longer we continue to dither about acting on climate change, the longer the oil companies will continue to make very large profits.
Individual executives within said companies receive bonus based upon profitability and share price.
It costs them very little to fund research, compared to the ongoing gains of continued business as normal.
This is not far fetched. It is not some wacky conspiracy theory, it is a documented fact that other industries and political causes have used exactly this tactic in the past. And all ther evidence of both current behaviour and financial actions both major oil companies and these think tanks suggest it is happening again.
And seriously, those who think that "evil IPCC has taken control of the peer review process, and CRU engaged in academic fraud, but weren't censured for it", should be careful what they call an Inane conspiracy idea.
Edit:Doesn't hurt that companies select for Psychopathic traits in their leadership.
|
|
So everyone who criticizes AGW is being paid by Big Oil to do so?
Nope.
Most of them are just dupes who believe things told to them by people who were paid by 'Big Oil' and other interested parties.
Why would big oil do this?
Why would companies that sell oil try to discredit science which says burning oil is harmful to the environment?
You really can't puzzle that one out on your own?
Yeah. Come back when you have outgrown this inane conspiracy idea. Why would big oil do this? Because they like to mess with people. Sorry. It is just too unrealistic.
You're worried about the IPCC, which is supposed to receive billions of dollars (but doesn't). But you're not worried about oil companies which DO receive billions of dollars, huh.
Sooooo... big oil is a conspiracy... and you point me to the Exxon Mobil page above, which states that while EM is the largest oil multinational... but its production and reserves are only a small percentage of world production, smaller than many national oil companies. Phew. I was getting worried there. And this relatively small oil producer is supposed to be the BBEG of the climate wars, while said states (that produce far more oil) are the hope of the world with their objective, non-profit outlook and resprct for scientific results even if these results cross their own interests? Grow up.
The truth is, of course, that no matter who you listen to, they will tell you what benefits them. Read this until you understand it. This is for your own good.
If you say that EM's interest is evident, then maybe uncounted billions the world over in various stripes of carbon taxes could be reason enough for the interGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change to fix up a few numbers, eh? Especially since the nations of the world keep being the biggest actors on the oil market.
Earlier, you were pointing at the money that the IPCC receives (except it doesn't) as being a potential danger.
Why is the amount of money that oil companies receive (or countries for that matter) not a legitimate point then?
If I were to accept your earlier point that $10 billion is enough money to control the world, why would $40 billion not be a concern as well? Especially when that $40 billion is actually real, when the $10 billion has never materialized.
|
|
If you say that EM's interest is evident, then maybe uncounted billions the world over in various stripes of carbon taxes could be reason enough for the interGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change to fix up a few numbers, eh? Especially since the nations of the world keep being the biggest actors on the oil market.
Setting aside the 'evil UN conspiracy to make the nations of the world wealthier'... how would the IPCC "fix up" numbers?
As I have explained before... the IPCC does not conduct any actual scientific research. The research, with 'the numbers', comes from scientists around the world. Ergo, if the IPCC changed numbers they would not match the scientific papers cited as the basis for those numbers.
Please try to understand how things work so that your conspiracy theories can have some semblance of coherence. In this case you need to blame the 'evil scientist conspiracy' for faked numbers... not the IPCC.