|
Your point has successfully narrowed down the members of the IPCC as members of the human race.
Hmmmm... if the entire human race is in on the 'conspiracy' (e.g. even the American Society of Petroleum Geologists now concedes that AGW is happening) does that make it 'reality'? Put another way, if you believe the sky is pink, but everyone else believes it is blue... are you crazy or is everyone else? And does it matter?
Because even if the whole world is crazy and only Sissyl and a few other 'enlightened skeptics' sane... it still looks the other way around to the whole world.
Not relativity. Centripetal force. Of course, it doesn't change your mass, just your (apparent) weight.
Not for purposes of holding in an atmosphere as far as i can see. Wouldn't the extra speed throw more atmopshere OFF rather than retain it?
I am serious. I do not understand Irontruth's reasoning. At all. Please refrain from calling me crazy because of it.
|
|
Sissyl, you're arguing that all evidence against your beliefs is proof of a conspiracy... yet this conspiracy would be so vast as to encompass the entire scientific community going back over a hundred years. Every scientific organization which has looked into the subject would have to be in on the conspiracy. Common household items like television remote controls and garage door openers would have to somehow be 'faked'. Et cetera. In short, you are approaching the point of denying all of perceived reality.
Based on that I allowed the possibility that perceived reality is, in fact, a lie, and only your grand conspiracy theory 'true'... but noted that even if that were the case you would still be crazy within the framework of perceived reality.
Or possibly there is no conspiracy and you are just wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. So you are saying that because I think scientific integrity has stood aside for the political Cause roughly since the formation of the IPCC, I am denying every part of science ever done, including that part about garage door openers? Straw man much lately?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. So you are saying that because I think scientific integrity has stood aside for the political Cause roughly since the formation of the IPCC, I am denying every part of science ever done, including that part about garage door openers? Straw man much lately?
Not crazy, irrational.
You take as granted that scientific integrity is compromized and go from there, pushing aside every fact that doesn't compute into your view, yet unable to find any fact that validate your postulate.
That's the very antithesis of scientific thought : starting from a given and unshakable truth, THEN looking for facts that could somehow enable you to validate it and somehow failing to process all the others... You should really start to ask yourself if your postulate is so true.
|
|
Okay. So you are saying that because I think scientific integrity has stood aside for the political Cause roughly since the formation of the IPCC, I am denying every part of science ever done, including that part about garage door openers? Straw man much lately?
Ironically, your statement above is inconsistent with your own position. Here you claim that you only reject science since the creation of the IPCC in 1988... yet you also reject AGW, which was established scientific reality long before that date.
As to the garage door openers... the same spectographic science which was used to determine the wavelengths of radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases was also used to determine the wavelengths which would not block the signal from those garage door openers. If you reject the reality of the underlying science then you need to explain how garage door openers still work... along with TV remotes, heat seeking missiles, long distance radio signals, and a thousand other aspects of everyday life. No straw required.
I have. I have clarified my position several times, to no avail, in this thread. It strikes me, though, that in the mission statement for the IPCC is finding evidence for anthropogenic global warming. They have since looked for facts that could validate this, and somehow failed to process the others. When I object to this process, I am apparently irrational. Make up your mind.
Here in Sweden, we don't have newspapers that do not follow the party line. We don't have parties that question the official line, except on immigration. Ever since it began with a week long mangling in the swedish newspapers some years back, the only word about it has been "The AGW is True, heathens are crazy". Editorials supporting AGW are thirteen a dozen. Every newspaper has a journalist "giving the climate view", always calling unbelievers crazy. It is an unending propaganda s$&~storm. If something speaks against AGW here, we simply never hear about it. Climategate ended up in a discussion of why it is dangerous to trust data that have leaked through criminal methods. Climategate 2 was not mentioned with a single word anywhere in swedish media. We have a few retired scientists in related fields who have tried to protest about the dangers of adopting a low-energy society, and they were the targets of massive smear campaigns by said climate journalists and eco-believers.
No. Limiting the information flow is NOT an impossible concept. On the basis of this machinery, carbon taxes are being put into place, transportation taxes, and so on and so forth.
Lucky us, right?
There is always a convenient excuse. When every winter here becomes ever more murderously cold, they claimed that was weather, not climate and don't cherry pick. Sandy, apparently, though, is climate and not weather. In recent years, they have started saying that they knew all along that the northern temperatures would go down due to polar melting. When summers become colder and bleaker, they said that it was due to el Nino but that can't save us. Next summer, it was el Nina. Next summer it was the Gulf stream weakening. Next summer it was the North Atlantic Oscillation. This last summer it was fluctuations in the Jet stream. I am curiously awaiting their reasons for another cold summer. When I read reporting on the climate summits, it is exactly the same story every time. No progress, the US is blocking us from saving the planet, then the US turns around and the treaty is signed... But in swedish media, the show continues: No progress! We are all going to DIE! Click here for more on why Al Gore got the Nobel peace prize. Then Greenpeace and Miljöpartiet (our green party) holler about how nothing got agreed to for about a week. Usually, this is followed by a week of movies detailing how monstrously dangerous nuclear power is. The China Syndrome is a perennial favourite. And yet... When I dig up the treaty text, I find more than a hundred pages of text that details economic agreements about how much swedish tax money will go to various dictatorships in the third world. Any semi-official swedish website has a crowd of Believers that call anyone who doesn't agree to AGW and that we all need to live in caves (without using fire) an awful person, a DENIER, and crazy. If this is pointed out, they call you paranoid.
The latest part is, as I understand it, twofold: The IPCC had claimed that if nothing was done by the end of 2012, which it wasn't, we would ALL DIE!!!oneone! So, medially, this became a problem, and now a norwegian team found that global warming would not be quite so bad as was previously believed, there was hope, but we still needed to do everything we could to survive. Phew, good catch there. Second, there was an argument floating around that Peak Oil would solve the CO2 crisis because no more oil. George Monbiot nipped this in the bud by stating "there is enough oil to fry us all", thereby ignoring the fact that Peak Oil was a part of the argument for renewable energy for a long time. Again, lucky catch. Left unchecked, someone might get it into their heads to question what the political eco-camp really wants...
Okay. So you are saying that because I think scientific integrity has stood aside for the political Cause roughly since the formation of the IPCC, I am denying every part of science ever done, including that part about garage door openers? Straw man much lately?Ironically, your statement above is inconsistent with your own position. Here you claim that you only reject science since the creation of the IPCC in 1988... yet you also reject AGW, which was established scientific reality long before that date.
As to the garage door openers... the same spectographic science which was used to determine the wavelengths of radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases was also used to determine the wavelengths which would not block the signal from those garage door openers. If you reject the reality of the underlying science then you need to explain how garage door openers still work... along with TV remotes, heat seeking missiles, long distance radio signals, and a thousand other aspects of everyday life. No straw required.
Well, I can say your life must be an extremely interesting one if heat-seeking missiles are an aspect of your everyday life...
What Bismarck did was start up the idea of pensions. He instituted a payment given to those who were 62 and above, IIRC, at a time when average lifespan for a worker was 50-55 or so. It was also certainly not meant to be a full salary, rather they got a third of their previous salary free, so what it amounted to was a rare enough reduction in working time for a few experienced people. I find it hard to call him a philanthropist because of it, but hey, it was sort of neat.
At some point, someone in the process actually thought it was a good idea to insert this little bit of "data" into the Fourth Assessment Report.
Or at some point in the process, someone thought that it was a claim worth investigating further, and put it in their notes for something to look into. After all the claim itself is based upon actually work, it is entirely possible that the author intended to track down original research, and see if it supported the claim. Later on, they mistakenly added the claim, forgetting it was something they were going to look into, or one of a hundred other possibilities. Mistakes happen.
Not only that, but it got through the process even though a simple check on where it came from would have stopped it.
Mistakes happen. Again, the fourth assessment report is a remarkably accurate document.
Note that if it was a simple error, it would be equally likely to have gone either "direction", but, not surprisingly, it spoke of DOOM TO BEFALL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE UNLESS ACTION IS TAKEN NOW!!!!oneone!
Fundamental misunderstanding of probability.
If there are an equal number of points of data which support Conclusion A and Conclusion B, then it would be likely to go either way.
However, if there are 500 points of data supporting conclusion A, and 1 point of data supporting Conclusion B then assuming a random positioning of the study, there is only a 1/500 chance the mistake will be with the data that supports conclusion b. In this case, the volume of supporting evidence for Anthropogenic global climate change is so great that you would expect any mistakes to be made there.
Let us pretend, for a moment that your right about the even chance thing, your not, but let’s pretend all the same. Your claim that it is very convenient, is akin to you and I seeing a donut, and agreeing to flip a coin for it, and when I win the coin toss, you claiming that it is evidence of a conspiracy, because I wanted the donut and it came up heads when I called heads.
Your reasoning here is very badly wrong.
You keep claiming my position is "those evil scientists are flat out faking data to destroy Justice, Truth and the American Way of Life".
I call straw man.
The only statements I have made on the subject of your “it’s all a conspiracy” views point is this
You might not use the term conspiracy to describe it, but you do imply that the IPPC, and proponents of Anthroprogenic global climate change, have taken control of the journal process to prevent free publishing. That they are engaged in academic fraud. You imply they are engaged in defrauding the international public purse and much more besides. You do it time and again.
and
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"
So please, either cite where I supposedly said anything which can be construed as Sissyl, thinks "those evil scientists are flat out faking data to destroy Justice, Truth and the American Way of Life", or stop lying about my position.
It never was. I am saying that there are a number of politicians at the top of this movement, and since there is an extreme political interest in excuses for increasing taxes, the IPCC and other big name groups have all the backing they want... so long as they keep saying the right thing, namely "The world is DOOOMED unless we ACT NOW!!!" The politicians have done their part in this, and recruited people to various leadership positions in the climate science field, paid research positions at universities, meteorological authorities, journal boards and so on, people who were saying "The world is DOOOMED unless we ACT NOW!!!".
That might be your position, but without significant evidence to support your view, why should any of us give two hoots? Believing it to be so, does not make it so. Cite or it didn’t happen.
A surprising number of these people, politicians AND scientists, have long backgrounds in Greenpeace, the WWF, and so on.
Cite or it didn’t happen
It may well be that the science IS up to snuff. It may well be that the models ARE accurate.
There is considerable evidence that they are, though the consensus is not universal, merely very significant.
However, calling people deniers (with its clear association to Holocaust deniers)
The term Deniers gets reserved for the people who don’t provide evidence to back their position, and are shown to lie or deceive other knowingly. I don’t think I have seen anyone call you a denier, though your behaviour often pushes my opinion of you in that direction.
and screaming that everyone who thinks there are issues is paid by the Big Oil Conspiracy is not doing them any favours.
Strawman again. Please show where anyone has said that everyone who thinks there are issues is paid by the Big Oil Conspiracy
There is however, a very great deal of evidence of active attempts to pervert the academic debate , and influence public opinion with junk science. We pay attention to it because it is evidenced. By contrast, I have yet to see the slightest evidence that your alledged conspiracy exists at all.
Now, once again
Which is more likely.
A small number of very minor mistakes got through into a very complex, multiples author report on a technical issue, and where later caught by people with a vested interest in keeping their work accurate.
or
the three working group chairs, the secutariat staff, support staff and 1250 unpaid contributors conspired to intentionally add errors, which they would later reveal as false to make their work look more credible.
And you're being a bit out of time.Bismarck's reforms were in the late 1870's, Marx's period of being an activist started in the 1840's. He died in 1883.
You're missing my point.
Bismarck's reforms were in the 1870s. 50 years before FDR and the New Deal.
All those things you're talking about, that you're taking for granted now, they wouldn't exist ANYWHERE before the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.
EDIT: Took out the last part because I think we were agreeing.
Madame Sissyl,
As far as lefties on here go, I am probably the one who would be most open to the idea that there was UN funny business around climate change. I mean, I don't trust them in Libya, why would I trust them in the atmosphere?
So, I've been trying to follow along (I didn't even know what the IPPC was before this thread) and, I have to say, so far, I'm sticking with the AGW crowd.
Which doesn't mean I rule out hanky-panky on the part of the One-Worlder/UN/Commie Climate Scientists/whatever you want to call them. But, so far, doing not very much research, I haven't exactly found any of your charges to be smoking guns. For example, I notice that it is claimed that the damning quotes from Climategate were pulled out of context and I read that they were exonerated of any wrong-doing by eight independent review boards. But, maybe they're all in on it, I don't know. Also, I should note that I haven't read all of your posts, so maybe I missed something. There's a lot of crazy shiznit in this thread!
It should also be noted that I am opposed to what the IPPC does (or at least what I understand that it does). Carbon taxes? Retrogressive burden on the poor who pay a higher percentage of their income on fuel. Cap and trade permits to pollute? Are you f#$&ing kidding me?!?
As always, international proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer.
Vive le Galt!
(Also, Madame Sissyl, I think it's wicked sexy when you argue with everybody.)
Crap and tax, yay! =)
I admit I don't have a smoking gun to show you guys. If I did, I would have showed it. And I realize that the IPCC has all sorts of data to paint a very dark picture. What I do have is a gnawing sense of unease with this, which I have had since the medial hype started. I know enough of the scientific world to see what they are not saying. When I look for dissenting opinions (which I know means that blogger is being paid by Big Oil), I see others who express the same discomfort as I feel. I know enough about science to understand why someone saying "I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run", It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group", "I don't see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we're choosing the periods to show warming.", "I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.", "I am not convinced that the 'truth' is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships", "I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she think's she's doing, but its not helping the cause" and so on are Bad Things in a scientific process. Sure, it is always taken out of context, isn't it... but there is a lot of it.
Be the science as it may. My main objection is that YOU WILL NOT MAKE ANYTHING BETTER by dumping us into a new medieval stasis. The Sustainable society is a tawdry power fantasy by the would-be priesthood of the One True Church of the Holy AGW. Human society will ALWAYS change, always struggle, always meet new challenges. Denying us the use of nuclear energy "because we don't like it" is monstrous. Stripping economically healthy countries of their money to help mismanaged countries "adapt to a green economy" is a stupendously bad idea. Use what money can be spared to help those countries "adapt to democracy" instead, and you will see a far brighter world to come. We don't want to live in crushing poverty due to a few kleptocrats at the top of the s$+$ heap - why would people in poor countries if they had a choice?
Human society will ALWAYS change, always struggle, always meet new challenges.
God, I hope not.
[Checks watch]
We've been waiting for you pinkskins to check out for 13 years now...
Okay... "so long as there is a humanity..." Does that make the gobbos happier?
|
|
The IPCC had claimed that if nothing was done by the end of 2012, which it wasn't, we would ALL DIE!
Except, of course, that this is completely untrue. No such IPCC statement exists.
Sissyl, wherever you are getting your information from (if you are not just making this stuff up yourself)... they are lying to you. The fact that you accept those lies at face value, and refuse to back up any of the claims you make when challenged on them, makes you the furthest thing possible from a 'skeptic'. You are entirely credulous... of wholly unfounded conspiracy nonsense.
Yes, clinging to obvious lies and refusing to examine them critically like this makes it impossible to sway you from your fact free 'AGW is an evil conspiracy' mindset... but in such case you can't pretend to be approaching this objectively or rationally.
BTW, the IPCC mission statement has nothing to do with finding evidence of AGW. Rather, it was created to help gather information summarizing the likely effects of AGW.
You continue to insist that AGW is in question... but continue to be unable to name even one scientist who agrees with you. Think about that. You clearly have made no effort to understand the science... but you disbelieve in AGW anyway. This is an argument from ignorance... and contradicted by everyone actually knowledgeable of the subject.
I am serious. I do not understand Irontruth's reasoning. At all. Please refrain from calling me crazy because of it.
If I tell you the truth about something, does that mean I'm only doing so to establish credibility with you later so I can successfully lie to you?
Is that the only possible explanation for telling the truth by anyone?
Is that why you tell the truth to people?
I still do not understand your reasoning.
I still do not understand your reasoning.
It's not my reasoning, it's your reasoning.
I am pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.
|
It was a response to irontruth's implication that an expanding earth would have an impact on the moon. That would only occur if the expansion was from additional mass, which I think is highly unlikely in the time spans we are talking about.which means the mass of the earth didn't change that muchWhoa whoa whoa...what's this about the mass of the earth changing?
Even if the earth did expand, it would be an expansion of volume, not a change in mass.It's not just the mass, it's the location of the mass.
The primary effect that is transferring energy from the Earth to the Moon are the Earth's ocean's. If they were further away, that energy would be diminished. If there was the same amount of water as there is today, that would mean there would be significantly less land mass, which it's the tidal interaction with shallower areas that creates the friction necessary to transfer energy to the Moon. If there was less water, enough to make the landmasses look like they do today, but linked together, there wouldn't be enough water to account for tidal friction transference.
Your explanation doesn't work. Every Expanding Earth hypothesis has to ignore certain data or known scientific principles. Such as the entire field of rheology, which puts extreme doubt about Expanding Earth models.
Add in that we can calculate the size of the Earth from the magnetic signature in rocks up to 400 million years old (102±2.8% of today's size), which means dinosaurs existed on an Earth this size.
First, why would there be that much less water? Obviously the same amount of water existed, except in the possible case where the proposed meteor that struck Earth, was a comet, though even that possibility likely wouldn't increase the amount of water on that scale as you presume.
Second, look at other planets, none (that I know of, and I like, and have studied some astronomy) have the same kind of sudden drop offs like our continental shelfs, nor the kind of tectonic activity we have. Volcanic, sure, but not tectonic.
Third, we know that huge portions of current landmass was under oceans, not lakes, but oceans.
Fourth, take your water and moon argument, consider ice ages with less water. Less, if any, recession during those periods.
Fifth, the moon is tidally locked now, but it may not have always been so. Any two bodies that orbit each other will eventully become tidally locked because of gravity. Thus the moon may not have always been tidally locked.
Sixth, sketchy info, the earth 620 million years ago had a day of 21.9 hour days within .4 hours. However the estimate of gaining 1.7 ms per 100 years says that we should have had a day period of 21.08 which is .82 hours outside the bounds of the above estimate, which is double the varience. Obviously something else happened to the speed of the planet. The decelleration had to be decreased for about a total of 20 million years to get close to the above estimate. Or ther could have been a setback. Assuming this info is true. Keep in mind it wouldn't take much to have the explained effects.
In addition, based on this sketchy info, the earth would of had oceeans ,but without continents to have major affects on the tidal flows, the oceans would have been closer to tidal equilibrium, thus the moons reccession would have been slower just like your info about the moon receding slower millions of years ago. Pangea would be far less likely to produce this result.
Alternatively, if the oceans were at Tidal equilibrium, the other factors that play into equation would have the moon oscillate between min and max distances. Thus measurement could be during a time period of when the moon was temporarily receding. Was this accounted for? Can they estimate the distance of the moon without calculating from the moons current distance to verify?
So far sketchy info doesn't add up but brings interesting ideas.
Okay, I get it, you're just pontificating off the top of your head.
|
|
Third, they need to nail down the centrifugal oddity of the fact that standing at a pole doesn't make you heavier then standing at the equator. Theoretically, the cetrifugal force would be greater at the equator then at the poles, and this would be measurable as a difference in weight, of course I may have just not yet heard about it.You do weigh more. It's just a tiny effect. Approximately 0.5%
This suggested a further thought to me: Any expansion of the earth due to an increase in rotational velocity would not make it a bigger sphere, but would just flatten out the existing sphere. There is no centripetal force pushing the poles away from the center as there is at the equator.
The earth is an oblate spheroid. It is slightly flattened, but not nearly enough create the expansion you're talking about.
The Earth has an equatorial bulge of 42.72 km (26.54 mi): that is, its diameter measured across the equatorial plane (12,756.28 km (7,926.38 mi)) is 42.72 km more than that measured between the poles (12,713.56 km (7,899.84 mi))You'll note this is ~0.33%. That is the most it could have expanded due to rotation and that's assuming it started at rest.
Ahh, but you forget the lower pressure, with the pressure released adds to the effect in all direction, while centripital force applies equitorially.
Also, we are being slung around the equator at over 1000 mph, while the difference in weight is only 0.5%?
A fairground ride can completely counter my weight (spin me vertical) with less then 9 miles per hour of centripital force.
Gravity is thus at the equator negating huge amounts of centripital force, but at the poles, theoretically, all the centripital force is perpendicular to gravity. So gravity pulls with enough strength to reduce 1000 mph of cetripital force, yet doesn't have more then half a percent effect on weight? And doesn't apply centripital force with a focal point outside the planet?
|
|
Not for purposes of holding in an atmosphere as far as i can see. Wouldn't the extra speed throw more atmopshere OFF rather than retain it?
Not relativity. Centripetal force. Of course, it doesn't change your mass, just your (apparent) weight.Third, they need to nail down the centrifugal oddity of the fact that standing at a pole doesn't make you heavier then standing at the equator. Theoretically, the cetrifugal force would be greater at the equator then at the poles, and this would be measurable as a difference in weight, of course I may have just not yet heard about it.Are you getting mass and momentum mixed up, or are you under the impression that speed makes things heavier?
The last is only kinda true near light speeds. If your planet is spinning fast enough that its using relativity to gain enough mass to get 14 atmospheres of pressure... you have other problems.(like no planet..)
True, but I'm not sure how that contradicts anything said, at least recently. I wasn't talking about retaining atmosphere and even DLH hadn't brought it up in context of weight at equator/poles. I thought his contention was that we'd had a denser atmosphere in the past when we were spinning slower, but it's hard to keep track.
Technically, you're not heavier at the poles, you're lighter at the equator due to centripetal force. More atmosphere will be lost at the equator.
As far as holding the atmosphere, reducing pressure doesn't equate with absolute loss of atmospheric mass, though atmosphere is contantly be lost due to solar winds, radiation, etc, and while the extra speed would result in greater loss of atmosphere, it probably wouldn't be at an alarming speed. The atmosphere basically just got thicker in depth, but thinner in density.
Also, atmospheric loss could also be caused by other major events. An asteroid of significant size would result in a bit of loss to space while more loss to atmosphere from other things such as fire and material bonding with gases into solids or liquids. Super-volcanos could have similar effects. This type of loss would likely be too small for a single event to produce such a loss, but a few or even several of them would be significant enough to need to be accounted for in any studies on atmospheric loss and enough of them could even have greater results then loss from solar winds.
Also, atmospheric make up changes. Even with the same gases, if the percentages changed to be more of the lighter gases and less of the heavier gases could also contribute to the effect.
There are reports that there was more oxygen long ago, whether that is from higher pressure or not is unknown.
|
|
Okay, I get it, you're just pontificating off the top of your head.
I generally run off of what I have learned from various places, with logic thrown in.
If someone says, "if it goes up, it must come down" and I ask them why they think that. Satellites have gone up, some will never come back down, so obviously it is not a universal truth, even though 400 years ago every scientist would have pointed at a multitude of experiments that seem to prove it true.
What seems like truth now may in the future be debunked. The ability to easily manipulate the spread of information, and there is no reason to take any information for granted, not even the ideas I think are likely.
I do try to keep in mind may be discovered in the future, if I lived 400 years, I may have been the outcast who thought that "perhaps things could go up high enough to not come down." I would have been laughed at then for being so stupid and ridiculous, just for postulating a known falsehood, that we in modern day know to be true.
Any of my ideas are possibilities, many I believe to be more likely then current ideas. Truth can never be proven, only suspected or believed.
I see words on my screen, but I can't arrange them in any way as to make them make sense.
Oh, just another DLH post then.
*whistles*
Any of my ideas are possibilities, many I believe to be more likely then current ideas. Truth can never be proven, only suspected or believed.
Go write a book then and win your nobel prize. You'll have to make it a thread title when you do for me to notice.
I have. I have clarified my position several times, to no avail, in this thread. It strikes me, though, that in the mission statement for the IPCC is finding evidence for anthropogenic global warming. They have since looked for facts that could validate this, and somehow failed to process the others. When I object to this process, I am apparently irrational. Make up your mind.
Except it's not in their mission statement, which you should check by yourself hereinstead of believing the lines you are fed.
Again, your position is clear : it's just founded on nothing else than conspiracy crap floating around on the Internet.
You keep claiming an enquiring and open mind, but curiously are very gullible when it comes to your sources.
Here in Sweden, we don't have newspapers that do not follow the party line. We don't have parties that question the official line, except on immigration. Ever since it began with a week long mangling in the swedish newspapers some years back, the only word about it has been "The AGW is True, heathens are crazy". Editorials supporting AGW are thirteen a dozen. Every newspaper has a journalist "giving the climate view", always calling unbelievers crazy. It is an unending propaganda s+@!storm. If something speaks against AGW here, we simply never hear about it. Climategate ended up in a discussion of why it is dangerous to trust data that have leaked through criminal methods. Climategate 2 was not mentioned with a single word anywhere in swedish media. We have a few retired scientists in related fields who have tried to protest about the dangers of adopting a low-energy society, and they were the targets of massive smear campaigns by said climate journalists and eco-believers.
Yeah, Sweden seems to be a very consensual society. My sister in law is swedish, and at first didn't understand the french love for loud arguments and debate (and how we could get heated arguments at the family table without ending up ripping each other throats). She is coping now.
There is always a convenient excuse. When every winter here becomes ever more murderously cold, they claimed that was weather, not climate and don't cherry pick. Sandy, apparently, though, is climate and not weather. In recent years, they have started saying that they knew all along that the northern temperatures would go down due to polar melting. When summers become colder and bleaker, they said that it was due to el Nino but that can't save us. Next summer,...
Here you show that you don't understand climate science.
More heat at a global level doesn't mean that the thermometer will go up everywhere, all year round. It truly means that climatic events will get more and more violent, as the atmosphere accumulates more and more energy. Yes, that does mean that we can get colder winters as polar air has an easier time reaching us.
Guess what ? We do get more and more violent climatic events.
Yeah, Sweden seems to be a very consensual society. My sister in law is swedish, and at first didn't understand the french love for loud arguments and debate (and how we could get heated...
My current (completely unproven) theory is that it's a cultural development from being trapped inside homes together for months on end. Sort of a defense mechanism to prevent arguments from causing homicides during the winter months.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swedish society is problematic in many respects. Generally, swedish culture is one where being without a well-constructed house to live in during the winter months is and was death. Hospitality, basic courtesy and being able to work with others have been necessary personality traits. Then again, Sweden has a long-standing tradition of trade and importing people of wildly varying origins, so it's not as monolithic as it once was. We are still, however, a consensus society, and media and politics are quite monomanic. It's truly ugly to see it in action. And, friends, if I can take having my views ridiculed for years by the entire leadership and media of the country where I live, you do understand you aren't going to batter your views into my head either, don't you?
A few pages into this thread, I dared question IPCC and the validity of their claims. I was honest, and I did not call any of you guys crazy. I told you of my misgivings and the reasons for them. Since then, Irontruth, you and LazarX, thejeff, Smarnil le Couard, BigNorseWolf, meatrace and some others have gone more or less ballistic on me. I can take quite a lot, and this is not a big deal for me. From time to time, some of you have been quite civil, at which point I have felt there was a point to it. However, it struck me that apart from the argument about the contents of C14 in CO2, which I just answered in passing, there really has been no serious argumentation from any of you, and specifically not about the things I was discussing.
You see: I was discussing the fact that I felt that IPCC had done some rather dubious stuff, that their medial strategy in bashing unbelievers was ugly and questionable, and that the proposed solutions to the CO2 issue was more a hindrance than a help. This was, quite simply, not what you debated with me. Instead, I have had hundreds of posts about how I am crazy and paranoid, that my reasoning was inane, that I was not qualified to judge because I was not a climatologist, that IPCC was Right to the certainty of "the sun gives off light", that everything I brought up to support what I said was conspiracy crap or based on such, or demands for proof. When I did explain my thinking, I got demands for answers I had already given within 20 posts and all I had written was ignored.
You obviously have a personal stake in this, otherwise why worry about what I think, right? I do not believe I have been abusive in this discussion, if I have been then I apologize. I do not think less of any of you, and I do not wish to assign blame. It is merely that I don't feel it helps anyone that I rehash what I have already written, thereby forcing you to rehash your statements. We're going in circles, and you don't seem ready to stop it.
So I will. Even if it means our resident commie gobbo won't get more of a show. Even if it means that the climate hysterics can now claim that there is a consensus on this board, because nobody is arguing against AGW on this board anymore.
Also, please remember that not everyone can stand quite as much as I can. I am an old hand on the internet, but not everyone is. Arguing against several people at once is harsh, and people have feelings.
You did not present anything compelling about C14. I think that's part of the problem. You think you are presenting compelling evidence, but you aren't. I've even tried to find good sources that disagree with C14, because I found that bit of evidence compelling and very interest and I wanted to know the weaknesses of it. I really haven't found much at all, anywhere.
The only people complaining about C14 are creationists who disagree with carbon dating.
I did not say more than I did because I don't know enough about it. And, I have not even tried to present compelling evidence. I tried to discuss my feelings about the situation.
Congratulations, you have staked a position.
You have not presented credible evidence to back it. But I am well aware of what your position is.
Second, look at other planets, none (that I know of, and I like, and have studied some astronomy) have the same kind of sudden drop offs like our continental shelfs, nor the kind of tectonic activity we have. Volcanic, sure, but not tectonic.
Dude, this is NOT a mystery. This is not a conspiracy. This is not an unknown. "we don't know how this works, therefore GOD" is lazy thinking all of the time but it is outright inanity when we DO know how it works.
.You need to separate "I don't know something" from "Something is unknown". There is a gap between the two for anyone, but for you its even bigger. Its going to STAY that way because you refuse to learn, at all. Any information that you can't shoehorn into your preconceptions you ignore or drown in a torrent of barely pseudo intellectual gobblygook that's so convoluted YOU get lost.
Continental rock is lighter and thicker than oceanic rock.
. Oceanic crust is formed at sea-floor spreading centers, and continental crust is formed through arc volcanism and accretion of terranes through tectonic processes; though some of these terranes may contain ophiolite sequences, which are pieces of oceanic crust, these are considered part of the continent when they exit the standard cycle of formation and spreading centers and subduction beneath continents. Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust owing to their different compositions. Oceanic crust is denser because it has less silicon and more heavier elements ("mafic") than continental crust ("felsic").[9] As a result of this density stratification, oceanic crust generally lies below sea level (for example most of the Pacific Plate), while the continental crust buoyantly projects above sea level (see the page isostasy for explanation of this principle).wiki
So, if you have one thick plate next to a thin plate you get the "mysterious" sudden drop off. Piccy
As far as holding the atmosphere, reducing pressure doesn't equate with absolute loss of atmospheric mass, though atmosphere is contantly be lost due to solar winds, radiation, etc, and while the extra speed would result in greater loss of atmosphere, it probably wouldn't be at an alarming speed. The atmosphere basically just got thicker in depth, but thinner in density.
I asked you for a mechanism to explain the allegedly MUCH thicker atmosphere, because you had no evidence for it and only a tenuous argument.
You gave me a mechanism that would THIN the atmosphere.
Ginko trees pre date the dinosaurs. By everything I can find, they're the same size all the way back. They SHOULD have been bigger than sequoias by what you're saying.
|
As far as holding the atmosphere, reducing pressure doesn't equate with absolute loss of atmospheric mass, though atmosphere is contantly be lost due to solar winds, radiation, etc, and while the extra speed would result in greater loss of atmosphere, it probably wouldn't be at an alarming speed. The atmosphere basically just got thicker in depth, but thinner in density.I asked you for a mechanism to explain the allegedly MUCH thicker atmosphere, because you had no evidence for it and only a tenuous argument.
You gave me a mechanism that would THIN the atmosphere.
Ginko trees pre date the dinosaurs. By everything I can find, they're the same size all the way back. They SHOULD have been bigger than sequoias by what you're saying.
See that is what annoys me: If a plant can survive extinction of the Dinosaurs why didn't the bloody Dinosaurs?
My current (completely unproven) theory is that it's a cultural development from being trapped inside homes together for months on end. Sort of a defense mechanism to prevent arguments from causing homicides during the winter months.
Yeah, Sweden seems to be a very consensual society. My sister in law is swedish, and at first didn't understand the french love for loud arguments and debate (and how we could get heated...
Hypothesis! Hypothesis! That's a fricken hypothesis you just described!!
'Kay, I'm done now, sorry everyone had to see that . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See that is what annoys me: If a plant can survive extinction of the Dinosaurs why didn't the bloody Dinosaurs?
Because you can put a seed underground longer than you can an animal.
|
|
I did not say more than I did because I don't know enough about it. And, I have not even tried to present compelling evidence. I tried to discuss my feelings about the situation.
Ummmmm... you seem to be saying that your beliefs on this topic are based on feelings rather than evidence.
This is also what we have been saying.
So... we agree? You are deliberately being illogical and assuming that planetary physics will conform to your emotional preferences?