User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 89

  1. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    English has irregular spelling because each word is a reflection of its history.

    But Noah Webster was an American revolutionary who wanted to cut American English off from its roots.

    Noah was immensely influential in American education, but even he could not change the nature of English. And all he left was a vulgar form of English.

    And of course he left behind a President who told us with a straight face that the French did not even have a word for entrepreneur.
    So is it shop, shoppe or theatre?

    That's a good story, and find things as such fascinating.

  2. #72
    ..... Intricate Mystic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Any paper to support that theory?
    Yes. Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years -- Tripati et al. 326 (5958): 1394 -- Science

    Here is a news release from UCLA that talks about it:
    Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom




    I do not know if your degree in science is genuine or not, but what you just said about the "5 degrees warmer" just make me think Science is not exactly your cup of tea.

    Besides, the paper you quoted was crap, and not peer related: Another clue.

    Sorry.
    It is supposed to be in a peer-reviewed journal. Why was the paper crap?

  3. #73
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    That's what I thought. These papers all agree with the current model.

    You didn't say at all the same than what these papers said.

    So, two hypothesis:

    1/ you're guilty of sophistry...

    Or

    2/ you clearly haven't understood what the greenhouse effet is, and how it gradually manifests. You lack basic notions of physics.

    ---

    Either you're a poor student, or either you're a liar. Pick your choice.

    Why I am not surprised?


    ---

    You trapped yourself with your own references, a bit like that poor Katsuni.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  4. #74
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Intricate Mystic View Post
    It is supposed to be in a peer-reviewed journal. Why was the paper crap?
    It wasn't.

    Check it.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  5. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    That's what I thought. These papers all agree with the current model.

    You didn't say at all the same than what these papers said.

    So, two hypothesis:

    1/ you're guilty of sophistry...

    Or

    2/ you clearly haven't understood what the greenhouse effet is, and how it gradually manifests. You lack basic notions of physics.

    ---

    Either you're a poor student, or either you're a liar. Pick your choice.

    Why I am not surprised?


    ---

    You trapped yourself with your own references, a bit like that poor Katsuni.

    Considering that you devote your time to picking and cataloging flowers like a librarian. It's quite odd that you would even have a remote interest in physics.

    But then again there are a million other ass hats on the internet, such as yourself who are lacking the social and intellectual skills for a worthy exchange.

  6. #76
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sLiPpY View Post
    It's been many years since I'd taken Geology, and a google didn't yield anything quickly. But an interesting thought you have there.

    Earth's such an odd ball planet. It's surprising this rock still has atmosphere, and a magnetic field that can protect it from various things. Otherwise we'd already look like our next closest neighbor, which it is theorized initially had the opportunity for atmosphere too.

    The absence of a protective magnetic field is largely what cooked and cooled it's goose.

    I suspect the space program would have evolved more quickly and have become more advanced, with a neighboring goal in site.

    Just to find out what kind of life, might have evolved there...
    Uhm mars did have an atmosphere; an earthlike one at one point, and a magnetic field.

    The issue is that it's a much SMALLER planet, which meant it heated, and cooled much quicker.

    Mars's been a dead planet since before earth even gained the first bits of life. Whether mars ever had life though is an entirely different question. Whether it had the capacity at one time isn't really all that much in question, so much as did it actually CREATE life or does it take more than just having the right building blocks and blind luck that they fall together correctly.




    And just for the sake of clarifying...

    The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earths history, the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is much less certain, and the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the past 20 million years. During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3 to 6C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than at present, pCO2 appears to have been similar to modern levels. Decreases in pCO2 were apparently synchronous with major episodes of glacial expansion during the Middle Miocene (~14 to 10 million years ago) and Late Pliocene (~3.3 to 2.4 million years ago).
    This essentially states that, yes, CO2 was higher during times of greater warmth, until 800,000 years ago, but isn't able to be accurately measured beyond that point.

    It also states that its' actual effect is very poorly understood, and whether it was the CAUSE or the EFFECT is not known. This proves nothing, it just states that they do know that CO2 is related in some way with the effects of glacial expansion and melting, which is in turn related with global temperature.

    It doesn't show any explanation to WHOT that specific correlation is, just that they know it's related "somehow" but "we have no clue how that is as we lack information".

    More recent studies have pointed to the CO2 rise having approximately a 100 year lag time behind the actual raise in temperatures, implying that the CO2 buildup is not a cause at all, but rather, is an effect of having the glacial waters releasing additional CO2 into the oceans, and subsequently, the evaporation of said water being more frequent due to more locations being warm enough to facilitate such.

    Best bet, is that CO2 is an effect of any global warming, rather than the cause.

    If yeu'd like a more recent example, since yeu only showed back to 1880; in 1815 there was a volcanic eruption which released massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere; dozens of times more than the entire value of all of the CO2 emissions from all humans during the entirety of civilization, including the past 100 years.

    For 5 years after that massive increase in CO2 into the atmosphere... the temperature was far far COLDER than normal, rather than warmer.

    Now this's my point... there were other factors at play here; this statistic I just provided doesn't happen to mention that there was also alot of other particulate matter in the air which refracted light and prevented heat from entering into the atmosphere as efficiently.

    Statistics mean nothing; pick up a copy of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Read it cover to cover. Then stop quoting anything that looks like a chart or graph or statistic because they mean absolutely NOTHING except whot the person who made the statistic wanted it to say.

    It's not impossible, let alone even remotely difficult, to make a series of numbers mean anything yeu want them to. Just don't report all the relevant information, or toy with the shadow figure, or make estimates based on yeur predicted shadow figure, use conflicting reports but omit details that show the conflict, etc etc.

    If yeu *WANT* to find a certain answer, it's not hard to bend the reporting of the numbers to show whot yeu want. As such, the numbers themselves mean nothing.

    Whot *DOES* mean something is the methodology by which yeu attain those numbers, and how they interact with each other, moreso than the actual numbers themselves.

    In this case, it's that pretty much all the major studies done recently have shown CO2 to not be a major, if any, contributing factor to global warming, but rather, is a subsequent aftereffect perceived after such temperature increases have already occurred.

    The fact still remains, however, that climate change is definitely occurring, yeu can't deny that. CO2 may be affecting other things than the temperature which may be indirectly causing such in ways that we aren't aware of either. But it's not directly responsible for the temperature, and there's a great many other factors which play a much more noticeable role which we're neglecting, and really shouldn't be.

    Unfortunately, with how complex the ecosystem is, and how difficult it can be to ascertain which factors are indirectly adversely affecting things, and which are only having an effect at all when compounded with other things, and which aren't doing anything at all, and which are having direct but gradual or delayed effects, let alone which are even cause and which are effect in the first place, we don't even know half the factors that are applying here, and how they interact with the other factors.

    We're making the best educated guesses we can with the information we have, but it's hardly laser sight accurate.

    We know that there are major changes going on right now, and that they accelerate as they occur. Most of these things aren't even directly related to temperature increase. How many of these are having unknown indirect impacts is also an unknown.

    All I can say is that I've not read anything in the past few years that actually confirms CO2 as being a notable contributing factor to temperature; but have read many articles listing it as being a subsequent after effect rather than a cause.

    Regardless of the value of CO2, however, it's obvious that something's up, even if CO2's not involved, or if it is, it's not in the way we first thought it was.

  7. #77
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sLiPpY View Post
    Considering that you devote your time to picking and cataloging flowers like a librarian. It's quite odd that you would even have a remote interest in physics.
    It's part of the training. I also have million of other interests.

    But then again there are a million other ass hats on the internet, such as yourself who are lacking the social and intellectual skills for a worthy exchange.
    Question: Is it efficient to be social with internet trolls?

    Should you be serious, then the debate could be serious. Should Katsuni have the courage to recognize all her repeated lies and mistakes, just to start again... Or should Lateralus&co provide accurate sources in peer related reviews (something it's impossible to obtain: I know it well)... well...

    So frankly, this debate is meaningless. You know nothing, and I figure that just like Socrate, you know it very well.
    So I think you're just playing. Well, it's fun somehow.

    But for an argument, see room 12.

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM"]The principle of trolling[/YOUTUBE]
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  8. #78
    ..... Intricate Mystic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    That's what I thought. These papers all agree with the current model.

    You didn't say at all the same than what these papers said.
    I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Intricate Mystic View Post
    I agree. Scientists keep adjusting their climate models based on new findings/theories. Paleoclimatology models don't match our current climate, either. If they did, the earth should be at least 5 degrees warmer than it is now, given the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    The second link I gave, said:

    "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic science.

    C'est pareil, non?


    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post

    Either you're a poor student, or either you're a liar. Pick your choice.

    Why I am not surprised?

    ---
    You trapped yourself with your own references, a bit like that poor Katsuni.
    I'm neither a poor student nor a liar. You, however, are quite rude.

  9. #79
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Intricate Mystic View Post
    I said:

    The second link I gave, said:

    "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic science.

    C'est pareil, non?
    No that's not the same at all. You made a sophistry. And the links you gave us all agree with current models about the rise of temperature.

    You have a phase of adjustment, since greenhouse effects act in feedback loops. This means their full effect is never to be expected overnight. Heating the planet takes time... Have you any notion of what the Earth thermal inertia is, and how vast it is? That's what your link is trying to say us: that we must be ready for a very high rise of temperature during the next decades, and it would occur even if we would stop immediately to release CO2 in the atmosphere.

    So either you know it, and this means you have lied.

    Either it means you lack basic notions of physics.




    I'm neither a poor student nor a liar. You, however, are quite rude.
    At least, I'm telling you the truth.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  10. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Uhm mars did have an atmosphere; an earthlike one at one point, and a magnetic field.

    The issue is that it's a much SMALLER planet, which meant it heated, and cooled much quicker.

    Mars's been a dead planet since before earth even gained the first bits of life. Whether mars ever had life though is an entirely different question. Whether it had the capacity at one time isn't really all that much in question, so much as did it actually CREATE life or does it take more than just having the right building blocks and blind luck that they fall together correctly.
    Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I was thinking in terms of Venus, however found the info on Mars informative.

    Was it Discovery that did the planets series? The simulations of what Venus's atmosphere would have been like, before "greenhouse" gases took their toll were just awesome!

Similar Threads

  1. GLOBAL COOLING: LONDONISTAN HIT WITH ARCTIC SNOW
    By Smilephantomhive in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-14-2017, 10:18 AM
  2. NASA says fossil fuels cause global cooling
    By SearchingforPeace in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-21-2015, 11:14 PM
  3. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  4. [NT] Top Three Reasons For Why INTs Suck
    By Haight in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 773
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 06:57 AM
  5. [NF] Top 3 reasons for why NFs suck...
    By The Ü™ in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: 12-24-2008, 04:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO