14 edits
Originally posted by Metal Braintotally irrelevant;
"Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing to happen"
When it is from natural causes...
it is a bad thing to happen whether it is from natural causes or, as in the more recent case, man made causes. The main difference with man made causes; we should be able to do something about it. Us saying we can and should do something about it is OBVIOUSLY not 'alarmist' to everybody here but you.
I am not predicting the end of the world as you keep making out with your completely stupid unconvincing straw man but the exact opposite; I am predicting that, because most of us, unlike you, are intelligent and thus see a danger if we moronically ignore it, humanity will prevent any significant global warming disaster by taking action (such as going renewable etc) that will ensure it only becomes a miner manageable inconvenience for our children's children, not a real disaster.
Originally posted by humyStupid! Ice ages are bad, but man is helpless to stop them. You still have no proof that man is the "primary cause'. You just say it. I should say repeat it since that is what you are really doing. You repeat unproven bunk peddled by those that lie because they think it is for your own good, like "reefer madness".
totally irrelevant;
it is a bad thing to happen whether it is from natural causes or, as in the more recent case, man made causes. The main difference with man made causes; we should be able to do something about it. Us saying we can and should do something about it is OBVIOUSLY not 'alarmist' to everybody here but you.
I am not predicting the end of the ...[text shortened]... only becomes a miner manageable inconvenience for our children's children, not a real disaster.
"The main difference with man made causes; we should be able to do something about it"
There is nothing we can do about it. All of your proposals would not accomplish that goal. We have been over this before, but you forget how weak your solutions were proven to be. You are an alarmist. I have proven that with your own statements before and you deny that as well. You are a denier of facts.
7 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainwe didn't cause any ice ages at least in part because the ice ages happened before we had the ability to have much effect on climate although we may have caused some rather limited warming by deforestation. Purely hypothetically, if we had been the primary cause of an ice age, then depending on exactly what we were doing to cause it, we might have been able to do something about it by stop/undoing/counteracting whatever what we were doing to cause it.
Ice ages are bad, but man is helpless to stop them.
"The main difference with man made causes; we should be able to do something about it"
There is nothing we can do about it. All of your proposals would not accomplish that goal.
Incorrect: stopping the man made CO2 emissions by going renewable/nuclear (or even total carbon burial if that made feasible) would work just fine to stop it getting too serious. And us saying that we can stop it getting too serious if we really wanted to proves we are not being 'alarmist'.
We have already shown you the evidence for man made causes which you deny.
Originally posted by humy"We have already shown you the evidence for man made causes which you deny."
we didn't cause any ice ages at least in part because the ice ages happened before we had the ability to have much effect on climate although we may have caused some rather limited warming by deforestation. Purely hypothetically, if we had been the primary cause of an ice age, then depending on exactly what we were doing to cause it, we might have been able to ...[text shortened]... being 'alarmist'.
We have already shown you the evidence for man made causes which you deny.
Incorrect. I never denied man made causes, I deny man is the "primary cause". I have made this clear too many times to count, but you still lie as usual.
Coral reefs are not in great danger as you and others have alleged.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2435145f55c8e9c2825507b4db812dff.htm
None of your proposals to do something about global warming make any sense as I pointed out many times before. Renewables will not result in replacing gasoline and diesel in automobiles. The fuel infrastructure is fossil fuel based and your past suggestion of hydrogen fueling stations is unrealistic. Continued beating of that dead horse will not change that fact!
9 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI have NEVER suggested this. You are LYING, as usual.
your past suggestion of hydrogen fueling stations is unrealistic.
I have always consistently asserted that I think the idea of the so called 'hydrogen economy' is a very deeply flawed strategy which I always have repeatedly again and again vehemently rejected.
In addition, I said absolutely nothing about "hydrogen fueling stations"; since I think 'hydrogen economy' is a none-starter, I wouldn't.
There may be a valid argument for the very limited application of using hydrogen for fueling some aircraft under some very limited set of circumstances where the specific energy (energy per unit mass) is of such critical impotence that this may more than offset the many disadvantages of hydrogen; but that is it.
I would say using hydrogen to fuel, say, a car, is always a bad idea. Using a battery and making the car electric is a much better idea.
Originally posted by humymisedit;
I have NEVER suggested this. You are LYING, as usual.
I have always consistently asserted that I think the idea of the so called 'hydrogen economy' is a very deeply flawed strategy which I always have repeatedly again and again vehemently rejected.
In addition, I said absolutely nothing about "hydrogen fueling stations"; since I think 'hydrogen economy' is a ...[text shortened]... a car, is always a bad idea. Using a battery and making the car electric is a much better idea.
"critical impotence "
should have been;
"critical importance"
Originally posted by humyI suppose it is possible it was googlefudge or sonhouse that suggested hydrogen. I remember the battery powered electric vehicle being proposed by one of you three, but I showed they are too expensive and even hazardous due to fires burning those in the vehicle. Electricity in my country is produced by mostly fossil fuels and using wind or solar would require electric lines built that do not exist today, another high cost in addition to the high cost of those two renewables.
I have NEVER suggested this. You are LYING, as usual.
I have always consistently asserted that I think the idea of the so called 'hydrogen economy' is a very deeply flawed strategy which I always have repeatedly again and again vehemently rejected.
In addition, I said absolutely nothing about "hydrogen fueling stations"; since I think 'hydrogen economy' is a ...[text shortened]... a car, is always a bad idea. Using a battery and making the car electric is a much better idea.
It is not enough to show there is global warming. That has been the long term trend for over 300 years. Since it was started by natural causes the burden of proof belongs on those that claim man is the primary cause and since nobody is even trying to do that your position is extremely feeble and merely faith based.
11 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI don't know how many ways you want us to explain to you, the none-scientists who clearly doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand the science and lectures about the science to US, the scientists who DO understand the science, who then try and educate you, who doesn't want to ever learn anything new and arrogantly think he knows better about all the science than we do and who has already made up his mind before studying any of the science properly, but, we have empirical evidence (such as cooling stratosphere ) and knowledge (such as the laws of physics) that specifically imply increase CO2 MUST be the cause as opposed to other natural causes, of some (and please don't do the STUPID straw man of making out we all deny any natural causes as part of temperature changes; nobody CLAIMS this ) of the increase warming and we are the cause of increase in CO2 therefore we are the cause of some of the increase warming;
It is not enough to show there is global warming.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what-is-the-evidence-that-co2/
Other causes cannot explain the amount of cooling in the stratosphere relative to the troposphere; ONLY the increase in CO2 explains it. Therefore, CO2 is the cause. And this is not even to mention that other causes cannot explain the amount of warning recently occurred in the biosphere as a whole including the oceans; only the increase in CO2 can explain it.
also
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell like you said in the Debates forum you have never worked a hard day in your life. Perhaps your math suffers a bit.
That's a weird question to ask to someone you know is pretty good at maths and makes his living using it.
To give a technical response to your query - it would depend on how strongly one year's average temperature correlates with the next, which happens to be not very strongly - certainly not strong enough to find very hot years in 2016 because there was also a historically very hot year in 1999.
Originally posted by humyYou are forgetting that most climate scientists do not agree with you and there are plenty of scientists that have a better understanding about this than you. I think it all comes down to that 97% myth you and others on here believed foolishly. Even after I debunked it you still believe the myth. That is why you are the arrogant one. Arrogant enough to ignore facts and cling to pathetic myths even after I proved them wrong.
I don't know how many ways you want us to explain to you, the none-scientists who clearly doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand the science and lectures about the science to US, the scientists who DO understand the science, who then try and educate you, who doesn't want to ever learn anything new and arrogantly think he knows better about all the sc ...[text shortened]... explain it.
also
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
"Primary cause". Do not forget it!
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo I am not; most agree and I get my info from that most;
You are forgetting that most climate scientists do not agree with you ...
the evidence presented in my last post that the warming has the C02 signature on it still stands and most climate scientists would agree.