2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. I did have a point. You can tell that because I SAID that I had a point AND what it was.

Just to remind you here it is again.

[quote]My point, which you are far to stupid to grasp, is that due to the movements of the
continents and the significant change in the suns average power output in the VERY
distant past. We can't make comparisons wit ...[text shortened]... rison.

That is my point. Which you are too stupid to apparently even notice, let alone grasp.

500 million years ago temps were very high, then they dropped and bottomed out at about 450 million years, then rose to a peak at almost 400 and fell to the Permian Glaciations at 300 million. These are very wide swings in temps from very high to very low.

You and humy have blinders on or something. Temps were very high 500 million years ago. They were not low like now, so your solar output doesn't make sense in this context. All you have accomplished is obfuscation. It is like you are just trowing a bunch of factors in the air and saying:
"I don't have to figure out which specific factors caused it, I have a science degree. You figure it out. Scientists don't have to include details of their theories. Go prove a negative. That is how science is done. Oh, and remember you are too stupid to question me so shut up! I'm busy watching Bill O'Reilly. Shut up!" 🙄

Originally posted by humy
so not only you've got the extreme arrogance to believe that you are another Leonardo da Vinci, I take it you've got the extreme arrogance to you are another Einstein and Einstein himself would have agreed with you?; -you? a nobody with no science credentials that has constantly demonstrated stupidity? not even any of the top scientists here would think ...[text shortened]... u are a coward", to scientists that are far more intelligent than you or I are your great works?

"you? a nobody with no science credentials that has constantly demonstrated stupidity?"

Did I say I had no science credentials? What are the first 3 letters in assume?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
500 million years ago temps were very high, then they dropped and bottomed out at about 450 million years, then rose to a peak at almost 400 and fell to the Permian Glaciations at 300 million. These are very wide swings in temps from very high to very low.

You and humy have blinders on or something. Temps were very high 500 million years ago. They wer ...[text shortened]... ber you are too stupid to question me so shut up! I'm busy watching Bill O'Reilly. Shut up!" 🙄

Your problem... well one of many problems... is that you do not pay any attention to what other people say.

Solar energy output [luminosity] was LOWER millions of years ago.
This is a simple function of how stars work. This is a fact.

This is one of the MANY differences between the climate system then and the climate system now.

Others include completely different locations for the continents.

Different axial tilt.

Different types, numbers, and distributions of plant and animal life.

etc etc.


The combinations of these factors [and more] determine the climate at any given time.

Many millions of years ago these factors were all different than they are today and for 'recent' history.

What that means is that if you look at climate response to [for example] CO2 levels 400 million
years ago. The response is unlikely to be the same as the response today.

Thus, to counter YOUR post in which YOU stated that there was an ice age with CO2 levels of 2000ppm
I pointed out that the climate then is not directly comparable to the climate now because a whole bunch
of these underlying factors have radically changed since that time.


I am not trying to prove or condense a massive field of study into one argument, and I am not trying
to deal with your Gish Gallop of arguments all at once either.

I am simply rebutting and refuting one claim you made by showing that it is not valid.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Your problem... well one of many problems... is that you do not pay any attention to what other people say.

Solar energy output [luminosity] was LOWER millions of years ago.
This is a simple function of how stars work. This is a fact.

This is one of the MANY differences between the climate system then and the climate system now.

Others include ...[text shortened]... ither.

I am simply rebutting and refuting one claim you made by showing that it is not valid.

You are wrong. I pay attention fine. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't pay attention. I do think you don't pay attention to my writing though. I'll post this graph on e more time so you can see for yourself what the temps were like 500 million years ago and how far they dropped 300 million years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

I never doubted that solar output varied over long periods of time. I doubted that is enough of a factor to explain the ice age 300 million years ago and I still do.

The other factors you mention are not enough either in my opinion. Milankovitch cycles happen every 100,000 years. It doesn't match the temp swings from that time period. Continental drift affecting ocean currents is a bit weak too. There were no glaciers at the poles back then.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"

Did I say I had no science credentials?

You certainly don't have to. It simply couldn't be more plainly evident from your posts. I have absolutely no problem at all with someone merely having no science credentials. What I have a problem with is with someone having no science credentials arrogantly condescendingly and insultingly giving ignorant stupid lectures about science to people esp to those that DO have science credentials. I am not a dentist and know next-to-nothing about dentistry. When I go to my dentist, I don't condescendingly lecture him on dentistry as if I know better than him and shout at him "you are a coward" (what you called one of us here) just because he doesn't agree with my opinion.

rhetorical question:

Do you have science credentials?

Don't bother to answer that: your usual refusal to answer this question proves to us what we already know by very simple deduction; you clearly don't. No assumption required; just simple deduction; If you had any science credentials worthy of mention here, you clearly would have already said.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are wrong. I pay attention fine. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't pay attention. I do think you don't pay attention to my writing though. I'll post this graph on e more time so you can see for yourself what the temps were like 500 million years ago and how far they dropped 300 million years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ...[text shortened]... oo. There were no glaciers at the poles back then.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

You evidently do not pay any attention whatsoever.

The other factors you mention are not enough either in my opinion

I was not trying to explain the past climate.

I was trying to explain to you why direct comparisons with the past climate are invalid.

Therefore you shouldn't expect or demand that my explanation explain things it was never
intended or required to.

You spam out wild assertions and 'facts' in a never ending stream of unsorted conciousness
producing a Gish Gallop of arguments and never sitting still long enough to ever deal with
any of them.

I am dealing with one solitary point of dispute, and one point only.

My arguments will thus ONLY pertain to that one point and arguing that they don't deal with any
other points you might feel need dealing with is merely to demonstrate the fact that you are not
paying any attention and are making no attempt whatsoever to make reasoned argument.
Because you never do anything different.


My point. Yet again. Is that the climate system in the past was significantly different from that
of today. And that temperatures associated with CO2 levels past [at most] a few tens of millions
of years ago are no longer any good guide for temperatures we might expect with CO2 levels
today. Relevant factors including, but not limited to, continental drift, long term solar energy output
increase, changes in flora and fauna type number and distribution.

You have not coherently responded to this point. [Or as far as I can see understood it]

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I didn't claim that there was a correlation between increased solar output and higher temps."

Then remind me, what was your claim? What is increasing output of the sun supposed to help explain? You were making some sort of point, right? Didn't you bring this up to explain why there was an ice age 450 million years ago during high CO2 levels? I still ...[text shortened]... d explaining it? It seems to me that is all you have accomplished. Do you even have a point?????

Not sure which ice age you are talking about but there was one about 700 million years ago called 'Snowball Earth' where most of the planet including the oceans were covered with ice.

They also propose a reason why it ended: Phosphorous, from the mountains the glaciers ground down, made its way to the sea and was a nutrient for blooms that allowed vast tracts of algae and such to form and that is what ended the snowball earth era.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/snowball-earth-700-million-years-ago-ended-by-phosphorus/1#.VVSD9vnF98E

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not sure which ice age you are talking about but there was one about 700 million years ago called 'Snowball Earth' where most of the planet including the oceans were covered with ice.

They also propose a reason why it ended: Phosphorous, from the mountains the glaciers ground down, made its way to the sea and was a nutrient for blooms that allowed vast t ...[text shortened]... sciencefair/post/2010/10/snowball-earth-700-million-years-ago-ended-by-phosphorus/1#.VVSD9vnF98E

I don't remember from where, but I recall a theory that snowball Earth ended as a result of a buildup of atmospheric CO2 from volcanoes.

That theory was that, before snowball Earth, the lack of ice over oceans thus nothing stopping the hydro cycle and the chemical reaction between the carbonic acid in liquid rain water and rocks on land meant that CO2 from volcanoes was constantly being taken out of the atmosphere via chemical reaction of acidic erosion of rocks (to form carbonates thus locking the carbon out of the atmosphere ) thus preventing it building up to high levels.

Then, during snowball Earth, all that ice and cold temperatures stopped that process of CO2 from volcanoes constantly being taken out of the atmosphere thus, over millions of years, it built up to ever and ever higher levels until the CO2 levels was eventually so massively high that its massive warming effect started to swamp the massive cooling effect of the high albedo that comes with snowball Earth and that was what ended it causing a very rapid thaw (which might have happened in just 10 years! ).

I wonder if the reason why I don't ever hear of that theory any more is because it has been discredited. -does anyone here know?

Originally posted by humy
You certainly don't have to. It simply couldn't be more plainly evident from your posts. I have absolutely no problem at all with someone merely having no science credentials. What I have a problem with is with someone having no science credentials arrogantly condescendingly and insultingly giving ignorant stupid lectures about science to people esp to those th ...[text shortened]... If you had any science credentials worthy of mention here, you clearly would have already said.

"You certainly don't have to. It simply couldn't be more plainly evident from your posts."

Is that why I'm so good at intellectually kicking you around on this issue? You have made so many stupid statements replying to my posts that I'm not convinced you have any science credentials. The one thing you have been consistent with is your dishonesty. You are constantly lying in a feeble attempt to bluff, refusing to give a source of information because you had none, then whine about it when I call you a coward as if you didn't deserve it for dishonest claims.

What would be worse for you? Finding out I had science credentials all along or knowing you were kicked around by an uneducated person? Either way you should be embarrassed.

You are making the mistake of assuming I think like you. You are driven by social affirmation, I'm not. You care what other people think about you too much. I care what I think about me, not others so much. That is why when you and others call me stupid it doesn't bother me much unless I think there is truth to it. The disrespect annoys me, but I know you don't really believe it when you say it. You would be happier if I really was stupid and feel no need to hurl insults. You insult because of psychological projection and never because you are happy. Being wrong makes you very unhappy. That is why you insulted me the first time you did it. You wanted me to feel as unhappy as you were.

I remember when I lived in the city for a few years in Florida. A guy I worked with got to know me and said he was surprised I was so smart and grew up on a farm. I asked him: "why, because you expected me to be like Woody from Cheers?" He hesitated briefly and said yes. He assumed. Once on the debate forum I told Kazetnaggora I grew up on a dairy farm. He made a condescending remark implying farmers are not intelligent people. I asked him why he thought farmers could not be intelligent, he didn't reply. He assumed too. Lots of people assume, but you do it excessively.

Is it possible for a person to be stupid and condescending at the same time? Perhaps, but it would never be taken seriously enough to anger anybody. Why so angry? Don't bother answering that, we all know.

Why don't you just ignore me like I do RJ Hines? After all, I am just a dumb son of a farmer. Just because I am stupid doesn't mean you have to point it out. Is it because you are so curious as to what my educational level is? You have put considerable effort into goading me into telling you. I know the curiosity bugs you. You will not find out by continually disrespecting me. I don't think like you. After all, I'm just a dumb hick from the country. Why would you care to know? Don't you know enough from your powers of assumption?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Is that why I'm so good at intellectually kicking you around on this issue?

If you think you are so good - then why are you so persistently losing every discussion?
Doesn't that make you embarrassed?

Originally posted by Metal Brain

You are making the mistake of assuming I think like you.

Nope; unlike you, I don't arrogantly think that am smarter and know better than everyone else here. In fact, although I am smarter than you, I think I am one of the least smart here. So, no, I do not make the mistake of assuming you think like me; because you clearly don't think like me at all and I know it. Although I am clearly smarter than you, so is near-enough everyone else here so that's saying next-to nothing.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you think you are so good - then why are you so persistently losing every discussion?
Doesn't that make you embarrassed?

LOL! You are so silly!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you think you are so good - then why are you so persistently losing every discussion?
Doesn't that make you embarrassed?

Well, given that one of his delusions is that he wins every 'debate', I would suspect
he feels no embarrassment whatsoever.

Originally posted by humy
I don't remember from where, but I recall a theory that snowball Earth ended as a result of a buildup of atmospheric CO2 from volcanoes.

That theory was that, before snowball Earth, the lack of ice over oceans thus nothing stopping the hydro cycle and the chemical reaction between the carbonic acid in liquid rain water and rocks on land meant that CO2 from ...[text shortened]... 't ever hear of that theory any more is because it has been discredited. -does anyone here know?

I was thinking of contributing to this debate, beyond the occasional point I've made, but I really don't feel competent to. By chance I was looking at the Wikipedia pages on long term climate and I think that how the cryogenian era ended counts as a Problem for Science. The problem for now, however, is that we've pumped so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we may find ourselves past the hysteresis point and have ended the ice age we live in. This is bad news as we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions. Neither is anything else.

Of course, the irony to all this is that geology as a science, which is a major contributor to our knowledge of the earth's climate, was invented to find fossil fuels to burn.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I was thinking of contributing to this debate, beyond the occasional point I've made, but I really don't feel competent to. By chance I was looking at the Wikipedia pages on long term climate and I think that how the cryogenian era ended counts as a [b]Problem for Science. The problem for now, however, is that we've pumped so much carbon dioxide in ...[text shortened]... contributor to our knowledge of the earth's climate, was invented to find fossil fuels to burn.[/b]

"By chance I was looking at the Wikipedia pages on long term climate and I think that how the cryogenian era ended counts as a Problem for Science."

What do you mean by "a problem for science"? Do you mean science does not explain the end of the Cryogenian era to your satisfaction?