plan to convert US to 100% renewable energy by 2050

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This kind of behavior I would expect in the spiritual forum. But please, let the science forum remain friendly.

What are we? Children or scientists? Then behave accordingly!

Havn't you heard? The Pope is speaking out to bring awareness to global warming. He isn't a scientist, but science never stopped humy from being a blind sheep and ignoring facts.

FACT: CO2 levels are at about the same level of the Pliocene when all glaciers had melted.

I know this is an inconvenient fact, but it cannot be ignored. This is why most climate scientists are not concerned about global warming. Most climate scientists would think humy is a nut job. Humy is perverting the perception of scientific consensus to fit his belief system. Furthermore, he knows full well he is doing just that.

FACT: 97% of climate scientists DO NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. They merely believe man is a factor and nothing more.

FACT: Less than 1% of climate scientists believe man is the primary factor causing global warming today.

Humy is thumbing his nose at most climate scientists as if they don't know what they are talking about. That is how arrogant she is.

FACT: Humy is not a climate scientist.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Havn't you heard? The Pope is speaking out to bring awareness to global warming. He isn't a scientist, but science never stopped humy from being a blind sheep and ignoring facts.

FACT: CO2 levels are at about the same level of the Pliocene when all glaciers had melted.

I know this is an inconvenient fact, but it cannot be ignored. This is why mos ...[text shortened]... t they are talking about. That is how arrogant she is.

FACT: Humy is not a climate scientist.

Here is one climate scientist talking about what 400 PPM CO2 looks like:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

So are YOU a climate scientist? If so, can we read your papers in the journals?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
FACT: 97% of climate scientists DO NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. They merely believe man is a factor and nothing more.

FACT: Less than 1% of climate scientists believe man is the primary factor causing global warming today.

Where did you get these 'facts'?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is one climate scientist talking about what 400 PPM CO2 looks like:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

So are YOU a climate scientist? If so, can we read your papers in the journals?

Our climate is not even close to being as warm as the Pliocene. CO2 is not the primary factor driving global warming. If it was we would be a lot warmer than we are.....period. Anybody can pretend this inconvenient fact does not exist, but it does. All you do is post web links that don't prove anything. Why is that? Is that the best you can do?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Where did you get these 'facts'?

Various climate scientists.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Various climate scientists.

...a really tiny minority of climate scientists that go against the basic principles of science; the vast majority of climate scientists asserting the contrary to those said (by you ) 'facts'. In every profession, you will get some going against the basic principle of their profession with science being no exception thus with a tiny minority of people qualified in science (any kind of science, whether to do with climate or not ) but still being unscientific.

If you wanted to believe that that Earth was hollow desperately enough, you may be able to find over the net (which I certainly will no waste my time finding for you ) some references to a few rouge modern day geologists (surely a truly TINY minority of them ) that actually say it is; ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth ). So "Various geologists" say the Earth is hollow. So now you can convince yourself (with warped logic ) that most geologists say the Earth is hollow and this this is 'fact' just by taking notice of that minority that say it but ignoring all those that deny it -just exactly what you want to believe. Perfect.
This is the SAME kind of thing you have done to satisfy your desperate desire to convince yourself that it is 'fact' that there is no man made global warming.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Various climate scientists.

They gave you those statistics? I don't believe you. I think you are lying.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

he is massively prejudiced against woman, falsely claiming they are generally more 'vindictive' than men. He ineffectively and unconvincingly tried to justify this false claim by saying that there are more cases of woman being cruel to their children than men -idiotically (and maybe deliberately ) ignoring the fact that there are vastly more female single parents than male single parents thus it would be unsurprising if their were more of them cruel to their children even if they were generally less 'vindictive' to their own children thus rendering any such statistic totally irrelevant as evidence against woman because it isn't evidence that a greater proportion of them are cruel to their children.

As I explained to him before, it is as stupid as claiming that black haired people are more vindictive than redheads because there exists more black haired people that are cruel to their children -same kind of false inference; there be far more that abuse their children simply because there exists far more black haired people that are parents! Not because a greater proportion of them are cruel!

I should have also pointed out to him the very well known fact that a greater proportion of men commit crime, especially violent crime, than woman:

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

"..In 2011, the United States Department of Justice compiled homicide statistics in the United States between 1980 and 2008.[4] That study showed the following:

Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders.[4]
Young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories.[4]
White females of all ages had the lowest offending rates of any racial or age groups.[4]
Of children under age 5 killed by a parent, the rate for biological fathers was slightly higher than for biological mothers.[4]
However, of children under 5 killed by someone other than their parent, 80% were killed by males.[4]
Victimization rates for both males and females have been relatively stable since 2000.[4]
Males were more likely to be murder victims (76.8% ).[4]
Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7% ) and sex-related homicides (81.7% )[4]
Males were most likely to be victims of drug- (90.5% ) and gang-related homicides (94.6% ).[4]
..."

-clear evidence that, if anything, it is men that are generally more 'vindictive'.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Our climate is not even close to being as warm as the Pliocene. CO2 is not the primary factor driving global warming. If it was we would be a lot warmer than we are.....period. Anybody can pretend this inconvenient fact does not exist, but it does. All you do is post web links that don't prove anything. Why is that? Is that the best you can do?

This is a common trope of yours. And it's unbelievably stupid.

Imagine you are lying on your bed, it's freezing cold an you are shivering.
So you do what any sensible person would do, and you get under the duvet.
The duvet adds a layer of insulation between you and the cold air in your room,
and traps a layer of air around you.

However, the duvet is also cold, as is the air you have just trapped.

The added insulation has not made you instantly warm.

However as your body emits heat, the air and duvet warm up, and the temperature
under the duvet slowly climbs to the equilibrium temperature for a person lying under
that much insulation for the given temperature of the room.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is analogous to adding insulation [although it's a lot
more complicated] and in the same way it doesn't instantly make it hotter.

What it does is introduce an energy imbalance [that can be, and has been measured]
that will continue to raise the temperatures [heat content] until a new equilibrium is reached.

Some examples:

1) Heating the atmosphere over the oceans increases the rate of heat flow from the air into
the oceans. This causes the oceans to heat up.

However, just as putting a pan of cold water onto a stove does not cause it to instantly boil,
so increasing the rate of heat flow into the oceans doesn't cause them to instantly heat up
to equilibrium point. The oceans being unbelievably massive, and water having an impressively
high heat capacity. [much greater than that of the atmosphere]

This means that the oceans suck heat out of the atmosphere and lead to lower atmospheric temperatures
until the oceans have warmed up. [similarly with rocks/the earth but to a much less extent]

2) Their are large land and ocean ice caps/glaciers. These huge lumps of ice take energy to heat them
up and then even more energy to convert them from zero degree ice to zero degree water.
This is why having ice in you drink keeps it cool, the heat melts the ice instead of raising the temperature.
Additionally, the white surface reflects far more light than the oceans or rocks underneath and thus
reduce the amount of heating that region receives. As the ice 'slowly' melts it exposes more land/ocean
surface which increases the amount of heat energy the Earth absorbs further warming the planet.

This is a feedback loop, where warming causes further warming.

This process takes time, there are million and millions of cubic km of ice to melt.

As this ice melts, it dumps huge quantities of freezing water into the oceans, cooling them down.
This acts to slow the oceans temperature rise introducing another delay on the system reaching
a new equilibrium.

3) A large [majority] of the warming caused by an increase in CO2 levels is both predicted and observed
to be caused by an increase in the water vapour content of the air [water vapour being a much stronger
greenhouse gas] caused by the increase in the water carrying capacity of the warmer air. This is another
positive feedback loop. Such feedback loops take time to steadily build and are not instantaneous.

That will do for now.

In short the idea that the planet should have warmed to the temperatures of the Pliocene when we reached the
'same' CO2 concentrations last year, given the vast thermal capacity of the Earth's climate system, is idiotic
and absurd in the extreme.

And is not a sentiment that any real scientist of any stripe could possibly contemplate.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is a common trope of yours. And it's unbelievably stupid.

Imagine you are lying on your bed, it's freezing cold an you are shivering.
So you do what any sensible person would do, and you get under the duvet.
The duvet adds a layer of insulation between you and the cold air in your room,
and traps a layer of air around you.

However, the duv ...[text shortened]... eme.

And is not a sentiment that any real scientist of any stripe could possibly contemplate.

No, you are unbelievably stupid.

You make your moronic points based on the assumption that the planet just started warming. The earth has been warming for centuries and it surely did not start yesterday. It doesn't take years for my blanket to warm up and it doesn't take centuries for the earth to warm up.

If I asked you how long it would take for the planet to warm the way you predict you would surely avoid the question and digress like humy did. You know you can't answer that question and if you did time would prove you wrong and none of you irrational alarmists will commit to that. Deep down you all know you have no clue and are just putting blind faith in your religion. Tell it to the pope, this is the science forum. Your silly assertions are not based on science, just faith.

Originally posted by twhitehead
They gave you those statistics? I don't believe you. I think you are lying.

Then it should be easy for you to prove me wrong. Many others have tried and failed, but give it your best shot. I didn't bring this up recently. Humy has had months to try and find proof and failed and he would probably cut off his left arm to be able to prove me wrong. I hope you try hard.

Originally posted by humy
he is massively prejudiced against woman, falsely claiming they are generally more 'vindictive' than men. He ineffectively and unconvincingly tried to justify this false claim by saying that there are more cases of woman being cruel to their children than men -idiotically (and maybe deliberately ) ignoring the fact that there are vastly more female single paren ...[text shortened]... .[4]
..."

-clear evidence that, if anything, it is men that are generally more 'vindictive'.

I was able to determine you were a woman purely by your vindictiveness. If my claim was false I would not have been right so easily.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I was able to determine you were a woman purely by your vindictiveness..

I am a man. According to your own stupid 'logic', your vindictiveness means you are a woman. Why are you so vindictive against woman? Statistically most violent crimes are commit by men, not woman.