Severe weather alert!!!!

Is there a physical basis for focusing on Helium as a cause of global warming? If there is then we should, by all means, research that. And does solving the three bodied problem for helium tell us anything about global warming? If it does then we should, by all means, research that.

But, if your point is that the PDE's that govern the thermodynamic and mass flux properties of the atmosphere cannot be solved exactly is a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water then I'm absolutely going to disagree with you right there. You sound like a smart guy so you know that just because some problems are intractable in terms of exact solutions they can still be approximated with useful skill.

So, is this you point? That just because we can't make predictions with perfection then we should stop trying to make predictions at all?

This is what I like to call the fallacy of impossible expectations. You frame the issue in way that makes it appear like a perfect solution or prediction is required as a means of undermining every prediction.

 

None of that makes sense in this context (or any other) and I can only assume you are trying to use "Big Words" in some strange attempt to seem intelligent or learned, which for even the moderately educated is a terrible failure.and using cosmology and gravity combined with helium is just plain confusing.

 

Perfect, funny

 

I've not implicated cosmology nor helium as being instrumental in explaining the warming that has been observed.

Gravity, however, is instrumental because you must use it to explain the vertical distribution of the properties of the atmosphere and to derive the fluid flow equations that predict its behavior. It's certainly not necessary to explain why CO2 and other multiatmoic molecules trap heat at a fundamental level, but it is necessary for explaining the vertical and horizontal distributions of these gas species. Afterall, if these gases didn't disperse or get agitated then they would not be as effective at trapping heat as they are.

My purpose in using "big words" is to provide people with terms they can use to google this stuff on their own so that they don't have to take my word for it.

 

What do these posts even mean?

 

C02 is not pollution so it's fake pollution

 

I assume you mean Polyatomic but nevertheless you still make no sense in the context of an atmosphere.

 

What you miss here is many people looked at the same data and came to many different conclusions. Someone's best guess was bound to be right

 

CO2 can be a pollutant....ask the Apollo13 folks or just put a bag over your head.

 

Under that definition water is a pollutant and so is oxygen. Nice try.

 

Yes. I'm using multiatomic synonymously with polyatomic.

What doesn't make sense?

 

Being that my point was that you'd instantly auto-scream about politics as an excuse to reject rationality and good morality, I thank you for so conclusively proving that point.

Denialism isn't your actual cult. Kook-right-extremist-authoritarianism is your cult. Denialism is just one of the many reality-defying mantras that your cult has ordered you to chant.

 

Sorry but you let the cat out of the bag. A big part of this AGW hysteria is generated by politics. Democrats always need a boogeyman and right now this is it. A few elections ago it was logging, before that it was Reagan would start a nuclear war and before that it was Republicans would get us in a war in Europe which is kind of ironic since it was democrats that did that not to mention Vietnam. After AGW runs it's course a new boogeyman will suddenly appear.

 

Your kook theory faceplants hard because it's the entire world talking about global warming, not just Democrats. If the Democrats didn't exist, AGW science wouldn't change a bit.

In direct contrast, only your right-wing-extremist authoritarian cult embraces denialism. If your political cult didn't exist, denialism wouldn't exist.

We based our position entirely on facts and data. You base your position entirely on politics. That makes us intellectually and morally superior to you.

 

Much of the world is run by socialist who want the United States to do a faceplant as you say so sure they are quick to jump on the bandwagon. That's what the Paris agreement was about. Once Trump refused to sign it it just faded into Oblivion and many of those that signed it have actually increased their C02 output.

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions highest on record

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-emissions-in-past-year-the-highest-on-record

Now tell me again how the world believes in AGW.

 

It's the tragedy of the commons. Entities are motivated by their own self-interests so if left to their own devices they will maximize their position at the expense of harming the entire group. It's likened to everyone jockeying for a slice of the same pie even though their actions actually work to make the pie smaller overall. To prevent the tragedy of the commons everyone rallies around a centralized set of ideas and goals. Entities are encouraged to compete for their slice of the pie as long as their actions do not reduce the overall size of the pie. But, when entities start cheating it becomes a regime of exponential attrition as more entities, again motivated by self interests, also cheat because they don't want to be the last one holding the bag. This is the problem the world faces as humanity struggles to find common ground by which we can mitigate the harm we're all doing to the planet.

But the fact that the tragedy of the commons is playing out before our eyes in no way invalidates the fact that most of the world acknowledges AGW is happening. Some, like the United States, have sent the message loud and clear that acknowledgement of the problem isn't enough motivation to actually do anything about it. Instead we embark on a de facto wealth redistribution program by which the current generation is stealing wealth from future generations. Our children will pay the price for our irresponsibility. Maybe the cost will be small and maybe it won't. It's definitely an experiment we've so far decided to let play out though.

 

Be careful. Those socialists also want to sap and impurify all of your precious bodily fluids.

 

Anything in excess is pollution

 

Absolutely.

 

It's not slander. It's a simple statement of fact.

You started this thread "OK you convinced me, now what?" and then ignored responses and questions from everyone until you got the following response …
​

To which you gleefully replied …

You created an entire thread just to troll for this specific response. You admitted this. Those are your words. Now, if only there was a term to describe someone who does this ...

 

The weather is bad on TV most every morning, and the telling of it is an emotional event now for meteorologists.

 

Ahhh like liberal pollution huh. LOL

 

How about this for a term. "Trapper". Joseph Walker was a trapper and was expert at setting his traps carefully for some dumb animal to walk into. I could come here and accuse people of using AGW for political purposes and they would deny it. So much better to set a trap where they come out and admit it. See how that works? Obviously you do and that's why it upsets you so much. Watch your step! LOL

 

I'll accept that moniker. I knew you'd you'd make it about entirely about politics. And you did. I talked about science and personal responsibility, and in return you started raving about phantom socialists. Your credibility is zero now, thanks to walking into my trap. Everyone is now certain that you're just making nonsense up in the service of your political cult.

Don't project. We're not like you.

We take positions based on the science, and tell the truth about it.

You take positions based on your political fanaticism, and then you lie about it.

Better luck with your next dishonest troll thread.

 

A dumb animal will do anything to try and get out of a trap, even chew his own leg off.

You admited your goal in convincing others that AGW was real was to get them to vote Democrat. No way out of that.