It's Hot (What if Global Warming is Here?)

[ozimoron]

56 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

OK, cold hearted I know, but can we stop feeding the ones that aren't self sufficient.  I understand charities need to make profits, and corporations (big pharma) enjoy their tax write offs, but damn.   

 

Also the world needs to adopt China's 1 child per female, not family, as too many irresponsible folks start too many families.

 

Stop banning abortions for convenience, as that's 10s of million not born.   As much as I'm against abortion, it works in that aspect.

 

Don't bother ... as I know how cold those come off as ... but if really concerned about humans existence on this roc, the numbers have to come down, or at least level off, deaths vs births.

How very 1984 of you ???? Lucky you were born on the right side of the railway tracks wasn't it?

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Humans have been around for 200,000 - 300,000 years. They only began to influence the Earth's climate with the Industrial Revolution, about 200 years ago.

 

Your post is a good example of a red herring argument.

Someone was claiming (foolishly) that ALL climate change is man made. I was not making an argument; I was making a joke. 

 

Sorry for the confusion. 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Someone was claiming (foolishly) that ALL climate change is man made. I was not making an argument; I was making a joke. 

 

Sorry for the confusion. 

If you believe it's foolish put up a considered argument with evidence to support your opinion. Otherwise it's not me who is the fool. I already explained (with evidence) why all climate change in the past 200 years is man made.

Edited April 21, 2023 by ozimoron

[Yellowtail]

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If you believe it's foolish put up a considered argument with evidence to support your opinion. Otherwise it's not me who is the fool. I already explained (with evidence) why all climate change in the past 200 years is man made.

I did not say it was you making foolish claims, but I did ask you to provide evidence that supported your claim that all climate change was man made. While you responded with a link, you never provided anything that supported your statement. Now, you have qualified your claim by limiting it to the last 200 years. So, apparently you are now claiming that "...all climate change in the past 200 years is man made.", which is patently false. While AGW is real, many things impact the climate, volcanic eruptions (like Mount St. Helens) are just one example. 

 

Volcanoes Can Affect Climate | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov)

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I did not say it was you making foolish claims, but I did ask you to provide evidence that supported your claim that all climate change was man made. While you responded with a link, you never provided anything that supported your statement. Now, you have qualified your claim by limiting it to the last 200 years. So, apparently you are now claiming that "...all climate change in the past 200 years is man made.", which is patently false. While AGW is real, many things impact the climate, volcanic eruptions (like Mount St. Helens) are just one example. 

 

Volcanoes Can Affect Climate | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov)

 

 

Surely every person here implicitly understands that the climate change argument is about man made climate change and that has only occurred since the industrial revolution and specifically much more recently, like since about 1900? That climate change before that is irrelevant unless it affects the change since humans put their thumb on the scale?

[Danderman123]

51 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I did not say it was you making foolish claims, but I did ask you to provide evidence that supported your claim that all climate change was man made. While you responded with a link, you never provided anything that supported your statement. Now, you have qualified your claim by limiting it to the last 200 years. So, apparently you are now claiming that "...all climate change in the past 200 years is man made.", which is patently false. While AGW is real, many things impact the climate, volcanic eruptions (like Mount St. Helens) are just one example. 

 

Volcanoes Can Affect Climate | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov)

 

 

It's a semantic argument now.

 

There are short term impacts to climate from natural events.

 

There is a long term natural cooling trend.

 

But, these are overwhelmed in the mid and long term by human caused warming.

 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, itsari said:

Planet earth has been changing for billions of years . We should not be too surprised with the small changes we are seeing in our short time on earth . 

This is a canard.

 

The changes you refer to in the past would have killed every person on the planet. So, your position is laughable: "let's not worry about human caused warming that causes droughts and famines and sea level rise, because a billion years ago, natural forces turned the planet into a fireball."

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Can you provide a link that supports your statement? I do not believe it is true. 

Given that the vast majority of scientists are graduate students, it's a no-brainer.

[itsari]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

This is a canard.

 

The changes you refer to in the past would have killed every person on the planet. So, your position is laughable: "let's not worry about human caused warming that causes droughts and famines and sea level rise, because a billion years ago, natural forces turned the planet into a fireball."

It is more laughable that you think you can change a climate  globally . Some changes have occured less than a million years .

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, itsari said:

It is more laughable that you think you can change a climate  globally . Some changes have occured less than a million years .

Because the world is too big or because God wouldn't let it happen?

[itsari]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Because the world is too big or because God wouldn't let it happen?

Forget about God , he only made the place in 7 days with no maintainence contract

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Given that the vast majority of scientists are graduate students, it's a no-brainer.

So you do not have anything that supports your claim, that's what I thought. 

 

In any event, given that the vast majority of petroleum workers are gas-station/pump attendants, "no-brainer" or otherwise, clearly you are mistaken. 

 

[rabiedabruce]

On 4/19/2023 at 7:04 AM, Lacessit said:

It's not the same. Climate change is the result of global warming, following as night follows day.

Global warming is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Climate change is the First Law of Thermodynamics at work as a consequence.

The ship has already sailed as far as scientists are concerned, when it comes to global warming being caused by anthropomorphic emissions of carbon dioxide. The evidence is overwhelming.

Roof insulation, venting of ceiling space help.

Utter rubbish this latest man made global warming grift. I remember days of it getting up to 44/45 c on Phuket at least 17 years ago. 'Scionce' Yeah

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

It's a semantic argument now.

 

There are short term impacts to climate from natural events.

 

There is a long term natural cooling trend.

 

But, these are overwhelmed in the mid and long term by human caused warming.

 

Is it also your position that ONLY humans have any impact on the climate, or are you pretending I was making some other claim? 

 

I am not now, nor have I ever claimed AGW wan not real. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Surely every person here implicitly understands that the climate change argument is about man made climate change and that has only occurred since the industrial revolution and specifically much more recently, like since about 1900? That climate change before that is irrelevant unless it affects the change since humans put their thumb on the scale?

You first claimed that only human activity had any impact on climate change. You were not able to provide a link that supported that claim. 

 

You then qualified your original statement to be that only human activity has had any impact on climate change in the last 200 years.  You were not able to provide a link that supported that claim. 

 

Are you now changing your position again such that you are now claiming that only human activity has any impact on man-made climate change? If so, do you have a link that supports that claim? 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

On 4/20/2023 at 4:10 AM, Lacessit said:

In layman's terms, all forms of energy are capable of conversion from one form to another. A fossil fuel can be converted to electrical energy via a turbine in a power station, or kinetic energy in a car. That's the first law.

The second law states heat cannot flow from a colder to a hotter body without work. The oceans warm in response to solar radiation trapped by greenhouse gases and re-radiated as heat.

Any meteorologist will tell you warmer water leads to more violent hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones.

Tropical cyclone Ilsa is a case in point. Cyclones etc. need a water temperature of 26 C to form. The water temperature for Ilsa was 31.5 C. Ilsa broke records for sustained wind speed, i.e. kinetic energy.

One could argue the First Law preceded the Second Law when solar radiation was converted to heat, quite correct. It depends where one wants to start in the cause-effect chain.

 

 

Obfuscating of the first order; you have indulged yourself in a meaningless monologue designed to do anything other than answer my simple question, which was … how can the first law be a consequence of the second ??

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

Obfuscating of the first order; you have indulged yourself in a meaningless monologue designed to do anything other than answer my simple question, which was … how can the first law be a consequence of the second ??

I have explained it to you. I can't understand it for you.

[Lacessit]

34 minutes ago, rabiedabruce said:

Utter rubbish this latest man made global warming grift. I remember days of it getting up to 44/45 c on Phuket at least 17 years ago. 'Scionce' Yeah

Goodbye.

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Someone was claiming (foolishly) that ALL climate change is man made. I was not making an argument; I was making a joke. 

 

Sorry for the confusion. 

any animal that over populate can influence clima changes, and earth activities do also create clima crises. Humans is an add on to natural clima changes. not hard to understand really. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I have explained it to you. I can't understand it for you.

You know full well that you have not explained it to me, and that you cannot.

That is, of course, because it is not possible for a first law to be a consequence of a second. You however, refuse to admit that you made an error. Maybe you think that admitting to a simple error would somehow diminish your status, when in fact, the opposite is true; you are only deceiving yourself, nobody else.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

You first claimed that only human activity had any impact on climate change. You were not able to provide a link that supported that claim. 

 

You then qualified your original statement to be that only human activity has had any impact on climate change in the last 200 years.  You were not able to provide a link that supported that claim. 

 

Are you now changing your position again such that you are now claiming that only human activity has any impact on man-made climate change? If so, do you have a link that supports that claim? 

Meaning (to almost all people) that only humans have had any impact on climate change since the industrial era, the time span of most interest and the only one of any relevance to this topic. Since the last 50 years or so, climate change has generally been accepted as meaning anthropomorphic clime change (or lack of it) in the industrial era since we have been burning fossil fuels and releasing large amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Don't pretend that anyone here is interested in climate change in neanderthal times because that's not what this topic is about.

 

So we don't have to thread any more needles, ONLY human activities have had any significant effect on climate change since 1900 and, to the extent that natural climate change has occurred it has been to cool the planet, not warm it. Humans have overwhelmingly caused the planet's climate to warm up and done so rapidly.

[Yellowtail]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Meaning (to almost all people) that only humans have had any impact on climate change since the industrial era, the time span of most interest and the only one of any relevance to this topic. Since the last 50 years or so, climate change has generally been accepted as meaning anthropomorphic clime change (or lack of it) in the industrial era since we have been burning fossil fuels and releasing large amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Don't pretend that anyone here is interested in climate change in neanderthal times because that's not what this topic is about.

 

So we don't have to thread any more needles, ONLY human activities have had any significant effect on climate change since 1900 and, to the extent that natural climate change has occurred it has been to cool the planet, not warm it. Humans have overwhelmingly caused the planet's climate to warm up and done so rapidly.

To me it just means that you think you should be able to make any unsupported claim, regardless of how false it is. 

 

You're just repeating it when you claim; "Meaning (to almost all people) that only humans have had any impact on climate change since the industrial era..." 

 

Why do you not just admit your statement is wrong and rephrase to read something like; Since the dawn of the industrial era, human-activity has been the primary driver of climate change. That is at least arguably true. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

To me it just means that you think you should be able to make any unsupported claim, regardless of how false it is. 

 

You're just repeating it when you claim; "Meaning (to almost all people) that only humans have had any impact on climate change since the industrial era..." 

 

Why do you not just admit your statement is wrong and rephrase to read something like; Since the dawn of the industrial era, human-activity has been the primary driver of climate change. That is at least arguably true.

No, I stand by my claim that ONLY humans have contributed to global warming and that any natural climate change effects have acted in the opposite direction to cool the climate. So the net effect has been an overwhelming increase in global warming ALL caused by human activity.

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You know full well that you have not explained it to me, and that you cannot.

That is, of course, because it is not possible for a first law to be a consequence of a second. You however, refuse to admit that you made an error. Maybe you think that admitting to a simple error would somehow diminish your status, when in fact, the opposite is true; you are only deceiving yourself, nobody else.

If you want to engage in semantics and dogma, go ahead.

I have explained how tropical storms are an example of the first law of thermodynamics taking place. after being triggered by the operation of the second law, heat transfer. If you are unable to comprehend that sequence, I can't help you.

Troll someone else. Goodbye.

 

[CG1 Blue]

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Yea, saw that, pretty impressive, BUT, crops for food, not trees.   Trees do not grow back near a rate that they are cut down elsewhere.  Just an impossibility of math, years vs tonnage.

Totally agree with that.

 

The biggest focus should be on stopping the destruction of ancient trees, woodlands and forests. But people can't make money from stopping the destruction of trees. In fact a lot of money is lost when tree destruction is prevented. 

 

Instead we're all told to buy EVs and upgrade our energy providing equipment.  Lots of money to be made from those changes. 

 

In the UK the same people who are bleating about carbon footprints are also saying we need to build a million more houses every year, further destroying the eco system. Makes no sense to me. 

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

No, I stand by my claim that ONLY humans have contributed to global warming and that any natural climate change effects have acted in the opposite direction to cool the climate. So the net effect has been an overwhelming increase in global warming ALL caused by human activity.

Yet you have still not provided anything that supports your position. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Yet you have still not provided anything that supports your position. 

A number of times which is why you don't see it again. Climate change deniers aren't fond of reading links and you've just demonstrated that.

[Danderman123]

It's hot in Pattaya today.

 

I just installed the last solar panel for my condo. I have about 1,000 watts of panels, facing in 3 directions, so I have to use 3 MPPT charge controllers.  I don't get a lot of sunlight, except in summer, so I don't expect much financial benefit.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

14 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If you want to engage in semantics and dogma, go ahead.

I have explained how tropical storms are an example of the first law of thermodynamics taking place. after being triggered by the operation of the second law, heat transfer. If you are unable to comprehend that sequence, I can't help you.

Troll someone else. Goodbye.

 

I have noticed before that when an interaction you are engaged in with another poster is not going to your liking, you revert to one of two somewhat shallow default mechanisms. You either accuse them of being a troll, which is invariably not the case, or you finish your comment with “goodbye”

 

Both of these ploys are a risible attempt at silencing the other person by trying to end the engagement; the implication is that your adversary has no further right to reply, leaving you of course, having had the last word.

 

These ploys are both commonly used nowadays online, and they sit in the same category as finishing a comment with “period” or “fact” and are transparent in their intent, and rather tiresome.

 

You have used both of them on me in one fell swoop, I am honoured indeed.