Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [FOB] New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[FOB] New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Page 13

post #121 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
It's not an appeal to authority, though. If someone says "I know this stuff, trust me, and this is what I think" that's an appeal to authority. But if someone says "Ok, I'm an expert, but here's my data, and here's my analysis, and here's my reasoning, and here are my predictions that were proven correct - work it out yourself, run your own experiments and simulations, replicate my results" - and hundreds of researchers came to the same conclusion, that's no longer an appeal to authority, that's demonstrated science.
Yeah, empirical data like the made up stuff from East Anglia??? GW isn't science, its a cult. The true trend-setters are the guys willing to go against all of this madness.

Let me ask you this: Were we not in an ice age 10,000 years ago? How on earth do you think temps got to where they are today (hint: It wasn't the automobile)? Do you really believe that the climate we have currently is the only climate the earth will ever have? Finally, do you really believe man has the capacity to force the earth to remain in this climate indefinitely.

Get back to me when you and all your "experts" have answers for those questions...
post #122 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizzareRide View Post
Carbon is only 0.035 percent of our atmosphere, even if this increased by 100%, it's still pretty insignificant.
I can give you 5 reasons why your comment was silly:

1) water vapor makes up anywhere from 0-4%. I'm assuming you've heard of rain, snow, clouds, etc.? Water vapor, at best, is 100 times more abundant. To put this in perspective: imagine for every 100 cloudy days, instead of the clouds being composed of water vapor, they are made up of pure CO2.

2) Most of the co2 is in the troposphere (lowest part, where the weather happens, where we get our air from) because it's denser than air. The levels of CO2 are far more concentrated in the air we breathe and in the rain that falls. Furthermore, there are also different concentrations of CO2 in different areas. It turns out that there are higher concentrations in areas with humans...so it's like a double-whammy: greenhouse effect and terrible air quality!

3) Our atmosphere is actually .039% CO2. You're using an outdated figure. That's a 15% increase in the last few years.

4) While the .039% is scary, the fact that it's going up exponentially is why we have films, and dozens of books, and hundreds of articles, and thousands of scientists being paid millions of dollars about this subject.

5) The glass of an average-sized greenhouse could be .03% of it's total volume. (okay, this one was just to fill the quota).
post #123 of 327
I have never believed this stuff anyways.
Hasy-E
(19 items)
 
Westy-EP
(14 items)
 
NP8153
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-6700HQ Intel® HM170 Express Chipset NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX 1070 GPU with 8GB GDDR5 16GB Dual Channel DDR4 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
SAMSUNG 850 EVO 500GB M2 HGST Travelstar 1TB 7200RPM  Windows 10 Pro 64-bit 15.6" 1080P IPS with G-SYNC Technology 
Keyboard
Color illuminated keyboard 
  hide details  
Reply
Hasy-E
(19 items)
 
Westy-EP
(14 items)
 
NP8153
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-6700HQ Intel® HM170 Express Chipset NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX 1070 GPU with 8GB GDDR5 16GB Dual Channel DDR4 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
SAMSUNG 850 EVO 500GB M2 HGST Travelstar 1TB 7200RPM  Windows 10 Pro 64-bit 15.6" 1080P IPS with G-SYNC Technology 
Keyboard
Color illuminated keyboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #124 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomboy View Post

I'm going into a good hard science field so I don't make stupid accusations like a lot of people, so I can actually push humanity forward and fix these problems.
Good luck getting listened to, nobody listens to actual scientists anymore, if they say anything they're shot down for being a minority, good luck getting funding too, unless you say what your financial backers want you to say you lose your funding.

Its because of people like you that true scientists get nowhere nowadays unless its in quantum physics.

Please accept my 15 year in advance I told you so.

PS - no really sincere good-luck.
CRAY lite
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
phenom II X4 955 asus M4A79T Deluxe AMD 790FX 460 OCZ Platinum 4GB 1600mhz 
Hard DrivePowerCase
G.Skill Falcon 64GB (SSD) OCZ StealthXStream 700w Antec 902 
  hide details  
Reply
CRAY lite
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
phenom II X4 955 asus M4A79T Deluxe AMD 790FX 460 OCZ Platinum 4GB 1600mhz 
Hard DrivePowerCase
G.Skill Falcon 64GB (SSD) OCZ StealthXStream 700w Antec 902 
  hide details  
Reply
post #125 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by quentin View Post
I can give you 5 reasons why your comment was silly:

1) water vapor makes up anywhere from 0-4%. I'm assuming you've heard of rain, snow, clouds, etc.? Water vapor, at best, is 100 times more abundant. To put this in perspective: imagine for every 100 cloudy days, instead of the clouds being composed of water vapor, they are made up of pure CO2.

2) Most of the co2 is in the troposphere (lowest part, where the weather happens, where we get our air from) because it's denser than air. The levels of CO2 are far more concentrated in the air we breathe and in the rain that falls. Furthermore, there are also different concentrations of CO2 in different areas. It turns out that there are higher concentrations in areas with humans...so it's like a double-whammy: greenhouse effect and terrible air quality!

3) Our atmosphere is actually .039% CO2. You're using an outdated figure. That's a 15% increase in the last few years.

4) While the .039% is scary, the fact that it's going up exponentially is why we have films, and dozens of books, and hundreds of articles, and thousands of scientists being paid millions of dollars about this subject.

5) The glass of an average-sized greenhouse could be .03% of it's total volume. (okay, this one was just to fill the quota).
And yet the study that you are commenting on just concluded that CO2 does not have the super-greenhouse effects alarmists were predicting. My, so very surprising...

By the way, did you know the biggest contributor to our planet's greenhouse effect is in fact water vapor? Yeah, I guess we should classify that as a pollutant as well....
Edited by Majin SSJ Eric - 7/28/11 at 9:29pm
post #126 of 327
OCN. Where everyone is an expert on any and every topic.
post #127 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post
And yet the study that you are commenting on just concluded that CO2 does not have the super-greenhouse effects alarmists were predicting. My, so very surprising...
Duckie already established that the writer has its own agenda. It's called bias. I don't go to the NRA to get gun stats, I don't talk to GM to learn more about automobile related accidents. Get some objective stats on your side before you post again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post
By the way, did you know the biggest contributor to our planet's greenhouse effect is in fact water vapor? Yeah, I guess we should classify that as a pollutant as well....
You seem very proud about your ignorance on this subject. Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it turns out that water has all sorts of benefits (such as keeping us, and every other living thing on this planet alive). Water vapor isn't responsible for the piss-poor air quality we have in developed countries. It isn't responsible for smog, and acid rain, blah blah blah. Look up the word pollutant.

You're saying that because water vapor is a bigger contributor to greenhouse gases our CO2 emissions don't matter?
post #128 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by quentin View Post
Water vapor isn't responsible for rain,


It kinda is.
CRAY lite
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
phenom II X4 955 asus M4A79T Deluxe AMD 790FX 460 OCZ Platinum 4GB 1600mhz 
Hard DrivePowerCase
G.Skill Falcon 64GB (SSD) OCZ StealthXStream 700w Antec 902 
  hide details  
Reply
CRAY lite
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
phenom II X4 955 asus M4A79T Deluxe AMD 790FX 460 OCZ Platinum 4GB 1600mhz 
Hard DrivePowerCase
G.Skill Falcon 64GB (SSD) OCZ StealthXStream 700w Antec 902 
  hide details  
Reply
post #129 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by quentin View Post
Duckie already established that the writer has its own agenda. It's called bias. I don't go to the NRA to get gun stats, I don't talk to GM to learn more about automobile related accidents. Get some objective stats on your side before you post again.


You seem very proud about your ignorance on this subject. Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it turns out that water has all sorts of benefits (such as keeping us, and every other living thing on this planet alive). Water vapor isn't responsible for the piss-poor air quality we have in developed countries. It isn't responsible for smog, and acid rain, blah blah blah. Look up the word pollutant.

You're saying that because water vapor is a bigger contributor to greenhouse gases our CO2 emissions don't matter?
Oh, so a study with actual scientific evidence goes against your dogma and you attack it for bias? Ok, acolyte of Global Warming established. Nothing else to see here people. move on....
post #130 of 327
The study is written by a guy who's an outspoken global warming denier and he works for a company who basically professionally does PR campaigns for bad things, like saying smoking isn't really a health risk and oh global warming don't worry about that.

It's interesting that you criticize us for using the bulk of the scientific consensus, hundreds of papers, mountains of research, and declare us "global warming acolytes" - and then one guy, a dedicated global warming denialist, on the payroll of an organization basically dedicated to doing public relations work for harmful things - suddenly this is real science and we can ignore all the rest of that stuff and just this one article - which you don't understand nonetheless - settles this matter. Comically hypocritical.

And yes, I already said that the earth does go through heating and cooling cycles. Over thousands of years or longer. And if we had a general climate change over thousands of years, we could easily transition gradually for it. But the problem is that we've greatly accelerated it. Now the timescale is tens of years instead of tens of thousands. It will happen at a faster pace than civilization can compensate for it.

Even subtle changes like 1c can have dramatic effects. Having the average temperature change by 1c will change what crops will grow where. It can cause the sea levels to rise, and most of the world's most populated cities are on the ocean. We have our society set up in such a way that these effects, even as modest sounding as a degree or two, would have huge implications. More heat globally means more energy in the air - weather becomes more violent. The temperature rise doesn't affect things uniformly - the climate is a complex interaction of various factors. Prevailing currents and winds can change. Some dry places can become wet - some grasslands can become deserts. Fields that used to grow corn may not be able to anymore.

If all of this stuff was happening on the scale of 10,000 years, it wouldn't be a big deal, it would be gradual enough that we could transition. But can we remake the very nature of our world - where we farm, where we have cities, etc. in the span of decades?
Edited by SenorBeef - 7/28/11 at 10:10pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k @ 4.6 Extreme4 p67 1070 Gaming X 4x4 ripjaws X 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
850 EVO, 6TB Hitach/WD Xigmatek Aegir Win7 Shimian 27" 1440p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec TP650 HAF 922 G400s (RIP 518) Puretrak Stealth 
Audio
Soundblaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k @ 4.6 Extreme4 p67 1070 Gaming X 4x4 ripjaws X 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
850 EVO, 6TB Hitach/WD Xigmatek Aegir Win7 Shimian 27" 1440p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec TP650 HAF 922 G400s (RIP 518) Puretrak Stealth 
Audio
Soundblaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [FOB] New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism