Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
desifemlove wrote:I hope so. T&T needs a serious hurricane, to clean up the sheit, and rebuild.
anybody who thinks there is no climate change is a dullard, who ignores all the data to suit his or her ideological agenda. sea levels are rising. global temperatures are rising. ice caps are melting. yes, this happened many thoustands of years ago, but not lie it has today.
desifemlove wrote:ignores all the data to suit his or her ideological agenda.
It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the document reports. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:Why doesn't Elon Musk try to fix this shitty planet than fooling everybody with his pipe dream of Teraforming an even shittier mars?. We can't fix the climate on earth but he thinks he could fix the climate on Mars?
Miktay wrote:When scientists use words like “extremely likely” it means they have no valid scientific evidence to support the theory.It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the document reports. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
Miktay wrote:When scientists use words like “extremely likely” it means they have no valid scientific evidence to support the theory.It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the document reports. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
adnj wrote:Miktay wrote:When scientists use words like “extremely likely” it means they have no valid scientific evidence to support the theory.It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the document reports. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
But aren't you saying, "It's extremely unlikely?"
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Miktay wrote:When scientists use words like “extremely likely” it means they have no valid scientific evidence to support the theory.It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the document reports. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
In science they do not default to absolutes. Which is why when something is proven via scientific evidence they still refer to it as a scientific theory e.g. Theory of Evolution.
Theory -
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Scientific Theory -
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
"The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the opposite its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope."
So when scientists say "it is extremely likely" they mean it is extremely likely based on scientific evidence.
redmanjp wrote:I have a theory. If all of us only used our cars when going out with the whole family instead of driving passenger less cars to work everyday (take public transport if alone) only used AC between 11-4pm when we're home and not colder than 25-26C and use tankless water heaters then the emissions from vehicles plus power plants would be drastically reduced and climate change wouldn't be such a threat.
Oh and we'll save money on electicity and gas too!
But its seems what was once luxuries just 20-30 yrs ago are now needs. Too bad for our grandchildren. If you think it hot now try living in the world we are creating for them 50-60 yrs from now. Everyday what we consider to be a hot spell now would unfortunately become the new normal, and a hot spell for them wont just be very uncomfortable - it would actually be deadly!
Imagine hundreds of people going to the hospital on such a day and God forbid 20 or so dying?
We are at a crossroads now. We can choose to give up some comforts now and save future generations and be on the right side of history, or continue being comfortable and doom our grand children to a horrible future and be on the wrong side of history.
If that's the case i better do like Ingalook and leave Packaskas
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ Miktay you are very passionate about your POV. I sense that you have a deeper rooted reason why you deny global warming climate change and it's not because you feel there is a lack of evidence.
adnj wrote:^^ I believe that I understand now. "Catastrophe Theory" has certain implications.
The documented affects of the 1°C of the average annual temperature includes:
Diminished polar ice
Relocation of coral reefs
Relocation of fisheries
Relocation of vegetation
Increased wildfires
Increased weather pattern intensity
Decreased severity of winter weather patterns
Increased severity of summer weather
Increased shore erosion
Increased average sea level
and others
There is no theory of catastrophic climate change. The "scientific theory" is that human release of green house games has caused or added to a change in the global ecosystem. These changes are long lasting and may be mitigated or multiplied by current green house gas production.
If catastrophic means end of the world, not likely. But if catastrophic means winter is warmer, corn grows in places that it never did before, some deserts are getting larger, or that your beach front property in North Carolina, Indonesia, New Guinea, or Australia is in danger of being washed away by a rising tide, it's already happened.
sMASH wrote:Venus. Run away green house
sMASH wrote:Heat is its difference, and this place here is getting hotter.
The distance isn't that much greater to Warrant the high temperatures it has. The green house effect kicked it wayyy above what,it should be.
Co2 and methane here will kick our Temps way above what it should be too.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:https://www.popsci.com/evidence-climate-change-is-real
2016 was the hottest year ever recorded, with global average temperatures reaching 1.69°F above the 20th-century average.
Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998
January 3rd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24 deg. C, down substantially from the November value of +0.45 deg. C (click for full size version):
The resulting 2016 annual average global temperature anomaly is +0.50 deg. C, which is (a statistically insignificant) 0.02 deg. C warmer than 1998 at +0.48 deg. C. We estimate that 2016 would have had to be 0.10 C warmer than 1998 to be significantly different at the 95% confidence level.
Both 2016 and 1998 were strong El Nino years.
Miktay wrote:
Do u have proof of thiz future occurrence or iz this more rumshop ole talk ?
sMASH wrote:Miktay wrote:
Do u have proof of thiz future occurrence or iz this more rumshop ole talk ?
I know I move like Rick, but I don't have access to time crystals.
U really asking me for proof of something that hasn't happened yet?
LOL.
Just putting 2 and 2 together, co2 and ch4 induce a green house effect. Increasing those concentrations will have a net increase in temperatures. Unless sumting happens to mitigate that effect, or reduce incoming sunlight, the logical extrapolation is to continue on an upward trend.
sMASH wrote:Oceans regulate like a capacitor; it absorbs peaks but raises troughs, even out the temperature.
It doesn't remove the heat energy away from the system that is earth. If u keep adding heat energy, it will eventually saturate, and the average temperature will increase.
Things like solar flares do cause instantaneous increases in temperture, but it would have to be continuous for it to become a sustained increase in temperature.... (duh)
Global warming isn't a spike in temerstures, which can be caused by things like solar flares or volcanic eruptions or what not.
Global warming is an increase in the average temperatures over long stretches in time.
When the average temperature rises, the occasional swings, either up or down, will trend to be higher.
If u think about the sun delivering energy to the earth at a constant rate, then the amount reflected back out to space is reduced, because of reduced albedo and because of green house gases trapping the heat, then logically one would expect the general temperatures to increase.
U have to thing about the earth as inputs and outputs. The output of heat energy has decreased and the input has remained the same, so there will be accumulation of heat energy.
U know, conservation of energy...
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: jav_tray and 224 guests