Winter Storm Xyler Expected to Spread Snow to the Great Lakes, Colder Temperatures to t

You are betting wrong. When the "scientists" are 100% sure with positive proof, I'll believe it. Till them bet with your money, not mine.

 

Then you will NEVER believe it as the "scientists" are never in 100% agreement on ANYTHING. Thus do we have the idea of consensus and theory.

Trying to simplify inherent complexity will always lead to limited understanding.

 

You are free to shovel your income at a theory, don't try to do it with mine.

 

Now why would I do that considering I don't really even care anymore.

 

CO2 was as high as it is now 3 million years ago. SUV's?

 

So why respond to my post? What I believe shouldn't stop you from spending your money on stopping Global Warming if you really believe in it.

 

For one this is a debate forum, also I did not say I do not believe in climate change or AGW or that I do not spend money on the little things I can do. I simply debated your understanding as this website intended.

 

The Seinfeld defense, I see.

 

Failed predictions are a hallmark of Fake Science.

 

My defense (not that I need one) is that I know that humans will never agree to do anything en mass and probably cannot do anything anyway, I also know from experience that any attempt to educate people like you is futile and pointless, so I no longer care to engage or share data. There is however, entertainment to be had in the game of goading ignorance.

 

Did it ever just occur to you that the numbers that you've included are still a TINY fraction of the amount of Carbon that is released from sequestration naturally? As in, the amount annually from man is still only 3-4% of total CO2 emissions globally in a year? Or did that tiny little fact escape you? Also, since you seem to be confounded and impressed by the big numbers why not include the total weight of the atmosphere then? If, we are at only 400 ppm the weight you've cited is roughly 4 ten thousandths of the entire weight. One of your fingernails is likely a larger component that CO2 globally. But hey, you had a number... You don't understand your number or were purposefully misrepresenting it, but you brought a number. It turns out your numbers are actually quite trivial... but for you, they were important..

 

I blame TV shows like star trek that set an unrealistic expectation that somehow the "federation" would deliver your pre packaged utopian climate for you... and these kids then transition to adulthood and failed the basic test of science and simply put their faith in those unfounded expectations.

 

Whatever the sun may be doing, it hasn't stopped parts of the world setting high temperature records or stopped the oceans from heating up. You can't look at the effects just in our part of the world over a very short period of time and claim there is no global warming occurring.

 

A lot of it goes into the oceans where it causes a range of problems. Whether in the atmosphere or in the ocean, though, it leads to warming, and that leads to loss of polar ice, which in turn leads to more aborption of solar energy, in turn giving us more heating and more release of greenhouse gases.

 

You seem certain. I would point out that many modern models now indicate that there is a finite ability of the CO2 concentration to actually effect future temp growth.. Just pointing out a serious flaw in the process flow you've outlined. It works more like released, effects, but absent it's ability to induce concentrations at depth vertically in the atmosphere, you get zero additional effect. I know, right? Science...

Here's the thing though. Heat may not be your enemy here. Did it occur to you? some would suggest thast there is a point at which heat distribution equity actually induces long term systemic and rapid cooling. IE the circulatory transference stops and cold prevails... Lots of study to indicate this. Why be so determined that only one possible outcome might then occur? It's like betting on one number over and over at the roulette table hoping it ever happens...

 

The ignorance is on the part of folks that are willing to commit billions of dollars on a "more than likely" conclusion. You want to make the biggest impact on human emissions? Stop cutting down the forest at the rate the size of England, Scotland and Wales every year.

 

Like everything proposed, that is not going to happen. Thus do I simply accept reality and live my life as I want to....I will be dead before this gets really bad.

 

I never said there was no warming, the Earth has done that many times in the last 4 billion years. The Roman and Medieval warm periods prove that, both occurred without any SUV's on the road.

 

The treasury dept accepts more money than you owe in taxes, feel free to donate an additional 15% of your income to stop global warming. You have done that haven't you?

 

I take it reading comprehension is not your forte.

Have A Day

 

In truth I think that the Utopian fantasies of Star Trek does have something to do with some leftist ideology and politics. The irony is that apparently none of them stop to realize that the Star Trek universe is one of the most violent and vicious ones imaginable. Apparently they simply mentally tune out that stuff and go for the 'Live Long and Prosper" stuff instead.

 

That was because it was warmer. Warming releases CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. This will also happen to us and our warming will be amplified by further greenhouse gas release.

 

Your last sentence does not equate to your first two. CO2 because it was warmer? Warmer because of CO2?

 

The fact that you want to play bets with our children's future blows my mind. Even if there was a 30% chance that what we were doing was going to greatly negatively impact thousands of future generations would be extremely disturbing to me.

It sounds like you don't believe in science because you won't believe anything without absolute 100% certainty like in mathematical proofs. Basically the scientific method is all about how to gain knowledge about the world without absolute certainty. The whole idea of proposing hypotheses and having them tested and eventually graduating them into theories is just taking low-confidence claims and trying to gain near (but not absolute) certainly in them through evidence and testing.

Mathematical proofs often use a lot of inductive certainty. They follow the pattern of:
If A then B
A
Therefore B

This is an inductive proof and if the premises are true, then the conclusion is 100% certain.

Science uses mostly deductive reasoning:
If A then B
B
Therefore A is more likely.

The more of these deductive predictions that are confirmed the more confidence we can have in the theory and in science these are called evidence or confirmed predictions.

 

Think of it like this. I have an itch. I scratch it. The scratch causes the itch to get worse. This increases the irritation and I scratch even more. This further scratching worsens the irritation and the scratching and now I have broken the skin. Worse itch because of scratching. More scratching because of worse itch.

In the past something like the sun, orbital shifts, etc will cause initial warming. That initial warming will release greenhouse gasses from melting ice and warming oceans. Those greenhouse gasses will result in greater heat trapping warming the planet even more.