flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Global Warming

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
LocoDelAssembly wrote:

The O3 is destroyed by natural processes all the time


Agreed.


LocoDelAssembly wrote:

but the problem is the extra catalysis we are making by introducing Br and Cl in higher concentrations that would be available naturally.


Assumptions with no proof!

fact:

We have no data showing the volume of gases produced by natural causes like volcanoes.
We don't even know how many active volcanoes there are on this world as the ocean floor is largely unexplored.
We have no idea what the planet is capable of dealing with.



Opinion:

I suggest since the planet is still very much alive, at no point in the past since life began has planet earth even come close to a point at which it could not cope.
Post 04 Dec 2007, 07:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Assumptions with no proof!

Assumption is something that by-definition doesn't require proof. There can be incorrect assumption, eg. one that does require proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption
Post 04 Dec 2007, 12:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
35 Mis-statements in award winning global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth"

Here is a link to an atricle detailing 35 errors (lies) about global warming currently being used to prop up the notion of global warming. In a recent interview (I'm trying to find the transcript), Al Gore (author of "Inconvenient Truth), who won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for this film, admitted that he exaggerated the facts for the overall good. In other words, the means justify the ends ..... a very sad statement indeed.
Post 04 Dec 2007, 12:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
We have no data showing the volume of gases produced by natural causes like volcanoes.We don't even know how many active volcanoes there are on this world as the ocean floor is largely unexplored.

We can easily find this out, because human produce different molecules containing Cl and Br than nature. We can just look at ratio of molecules, and we can discover amounts produced by nature and by humans.

Human produced molecules are primary Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). Naturaly produced molecules are primary Methyl Chloride (CH3Cl) and Methyl Bromide (CH3Br). CFC unlike natural molecules doesn't dissolve in water, and so it isn't brought down to oceans by rain, like natural molecules are. CFCs also have much longer lifetime (40-100 years) compared to naturally produced molecules (less than 1 year).

Source: propaganda from Chemical Sciences Division of Earth System Research Laboratory of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of United States Department of Commerce:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2002/qandas7.pdf

Quote:
There are two halogen source gases present in the stratosphere that have large natural sources. These are methyl chloride (CH3Cl) and methyl bromide (CH3Br), both of which are emitted by oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems. Natural sources of these two gases contribute about 16% of the chlorine currently in the stratosphere, and about 27-42% of the bromine (see Figure Q7-1). Very short-lived gases containing bromine, such as bromoform (CHBr3), are also released to the atmosphere by the oceans. The estimated contribution of these gases to stratospheric bromine (about 15%) is uncertain at this time. Changes in the natural sources of chlorine and bromine since the middle of th the 20 century are not the cause of observed ozone depletion.


a bit more propaganda about this topic:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/volcano.html
Post 04 Dec 2007, 12:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
MichaelH wrote:

Your mistake was splitting the thread in the first place making mute all my points about fanatical verse rational thinking and turning my posts into those of a fanatical anti global warming cult follower.
Well, perhaps I am to blame for vid's decision to split this topic, since I asked him to do so. In my opinion, the splitting was done with great skill. I agree that a couple of the posts include some reference to the earlier topic, but that is nearly unavoidable. Well done, vid.
vid wrote:
...Reason why people argue with links more than with words is (not always) that want to provide as good info as possible. ...
Use of links is essential for scientific discussions, as opposed to faith based philosophy arguments. Including links in no way detracts from the content of a message, in my opinion. An article can not be published in a scientific periodical without including references.
kohlrak wrote:
If we spend this much time on arguing, imagin what we could accomplish using that time to code instead.
Sorry that I cannot share your opinion. Writing code, without an underlying framework, leads only to gobbledygook. It is that underlying structure that changes "code" into "program". Writing on apparently unrelated historical, scientific, or philosophical ideas can lead not only to improved syntax, spelling, punctuation, and logic, it can also lead to improved THINKING in algorithmic fashion, hence, represents useful experience linking two ostensibly unrelated concepts:
vid wrote:
...i find my personal worldview as important as my coding achievements....

Smile
Post 04 Dec 2007, 14:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
2bitRAKE, I found a possible word!! "nascent Cl" has some sense? Another one could be "rising Cl" since "sol naciente" is translated as "rising sun", but I'm not really convinced about "rising" for this context. "naciente" in this context is relative to "recently born" or "very young".

2Michael, not sure about how much we know about the volcano gases and any natural sources, I just said that we add EXTRA catalysis, but that just mean that we accelerate the destruction, not that we are the only cycle balance breakers.
Post 04 Dec 2007, 16:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
2Michael, not sure about how much we know about the volcano gases and any natural sources, I just said that we add EXTRA catalysis, but that just mean that we accelerate the destruction, not that we are the only cycle balance breakers.

And still, this doesn't matter to topic. Don't forget topic is WHETHER Global Warming is happening, not if/how much mankind adds to it.

MichaelH is not arguing that Global Warming is occuring as natural fenomen without human intevention. He argues that Global Warming is not happening at all! (he asked me for proof of global warming, which he then claimed is bias and unscientific).

personal view: MichaelH opinions mostly remind me of Gaia hypothesis, especially after he demonstrated lack of understanding of science (he didn't know what scientific terms mean, he refused to accept observations, etc.)
Post 04 Dec 2007, 16:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Enko



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 678
Location: Mar del Plata
Enko
Image
Post 04 Dec 2007, 20:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
vid wrote:

MichaelH is not arguing that Global Warming is occuring as natural fenomen without human intevention. He argues that Global Warming is not happening at all!


No I'm not. I'm arguing and have argued from the beginning there is not enough evidence to conclude one way or the other.

Vid I know you're in love with the sheer power of being admin, but I'm quite capable of arguing my own points!

vid wrote:

especially after he demonstrated lack of understanding of science (he didn't know what scientific terms mean, he refused to accept observations, etc.)


I'm sorry vid you are so upset that I made a mistake in my haste to write a previous post and used an incorrect term.

Should we all point out each others mistakes in future? ...... endlessly Sad


Hey vid, I considered the link posted by HyperVista above to counter your ridiculous assumption that if someone spends money to deny global warming that proves global warming is happening but didn't want to lower myself to such brain dead debating. But since debating with you is nothing more than brain dead bla bla, here's the link again -

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/

Thanks HyperVista
Post 04 Dec 2007, 21:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
No I'm not. I'm arguing and have argued from the beginning there is not enough evidence to conclude one way or the other.

OK, sorry for misrepresentation of your case. You said you are certain that human acting doesn't influence global warming, and never commented on certainity that it is happening.

Revised warning to Loco: MichaelH is not arguing that Global Warming is occuring as natural fenomen without human intevention. He argues that there is no scientific consensus that Global Warming is happening!

But in that case you should address scientific evidence I provided you, and explain why that evidence doesn't count. Here is the link to some evidence collected again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.

Honestly, i can't imagine how can all those plain simple measurements of temperature and average calculation be biased, like you say...

Quote:
Vid I know you're in love with the sheer power of being admin, but I'm quite capable of arguing my own points!

Again, what have I done in this discussion that I couldn't do if I wasn't admin? Until you respond that question with some example of me misusing my admin priviliges, do not accuse me. It is perfectly fine to accuse me, but only if you can put up some evidence.

Quote:
I'm sorry vid you are so upset that I made a mistake in my haste to write a previous post and used an incorrect term.

Actually, that was your third error of kind, don't forget about "atomic weight" and "hypothesis". There was also clear misunderstanding of CFC's role in O3->O2 reaction:
Quote:
I've also know O3 (Ozone) is an unstable molecule that is broken almost instantly most of the time by O2 (not CFCs) because the double bond between two oxygen atoms is stronger than the single bond the oxygen atoms has when shared with two other oxygen atoms in an O3 atom.

I could count your "destroy hypothesis with your theory" as misunderstanding of term "theory" too. And you also said "theory of global warming" which basically indicates that global warming is happening (remember theory is just interpretation of observations).

This looks to me more like five "hasty writings", not one. Sorry, but there are so many incorrect uses of scientific terms that i conclude you don't understand fundamental basics of sciencitific method.

Quote:
Should we all point out each others mistakes in future? ...... endlessly

Absolutely YES. Mistake which is not pointed out cannot be fixed. Pointing out repeated mistakes is also important to demonstrate lack of general understanding of science by person. Please point out all my scientific incorrectness too.

Quote:
Hey vid, I considered the link posted by HyperVista above to counter your ridiculous assumption that if someone spends money to deny global warming that proves global warming is happening ...

That would indeed be braindead, IF I EVER MADE SUCH ASSUMPTION. I didn't. Here is all I said about factual importance of companies spending millions:
Quote:
Especially first link has few examples of how big companies push dollars into denying even climate change itself, not just it's human source. Are you sure it wasn't their effort that influenced your opinion? Why would they do it, if it wasn't truth?

Quote:
Sure, big bussiness has nothing to do with molecules. That was just another example that "something's going on". Someone was pissed about pro-global-warming propaganda, for some reason. Molecules are still better dis/proof, this was only little indication as bonus to all data provided along with it.

First one only presented question that indicated answer, and was no more error than you asking how can heavy CO2 get to stratosphere (yes, it can). Second one explicitly told this is just some indication, nothing about corporate spending "proving" anything. So, this was just your another false accusation.

By the way, how would one movie that exaggerates global warming explain companies financing denial of global warming? I don't understand how would that answer that point, if I had made it.

And by the way, what's with CO2 and greenhouse effect? What's with Cl, Br, CFCs and ozon holes? We haven't heard about these since we replied your questions. I believe more people here are anxious to see your conclusion.


Last edited by vid on 04 Dec 2007, 23:12; edited 2 times in total
Post 04 Dec 2007, 22:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
I've read the article, it is nice except for one thing (unless I misread it), there is no references, so it is something that Scott said. Probably there is much truth at there, but the author should really add the references but even the graphs are hosted in his own blog and there is no copyright info so it is impossible to know if he drawn the graphs or was copy&pasted from real sources.

Note that I'm claiming that the article is based on fake data, but I think that he damages his article by ommiting references for every point IMHO.

BTW, if global warming is proved to be fake then many scientists will lose their jobs because no one will pay them to keep researching Smile
Post 04 Dec 2007, 23:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
if global warming is proved to be fake then many scientists will lose their jobs because no one will pay them to keep researching
I'd say many thermometers would lose their jobs, for being biased and showing higher values than real.
Post 04 Dec 2007, 23:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Enko wrote:
Image


XD not sure how to interpret that, but it's still clever. XD
Post 05 Dec 2007, 00:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
vid wrote:

Actually, that was your third error of kind, don't forget about "atomic weight" and "hypothesis". There was also clear misunderstanding of CFC's role in O3->O2 reaction:


I never mentioned the role of CFC. I did state O3->O2 reaction was the most common..... but what ever, who cares ..... youda man vid.


vid wrote:

That would indeed be braindead, IF I EVER MADE SUCH ASSUMPTION. I didn't. Here is all I said about factual importance of companies spending millions:

Quote:
Especially first link has few examples of how big companies push dollars into denying even climate change itself, not just it's human source. Are you sure it wasn't their effort that influenced your opinion? Why would they do it, if it wasn't truth?


Talk about brain dead. States "IF I EVER MADE SUCH ASSUMPTION" and then posts the very words that show indeed he did.

Vid has your brain slipped out of gear Smile

Edit: Vid you forgot to show your endless crying ..... "MichaelH, why don't you answer me, why waw sob sob, why did companies push dollars into denying .... why sob sob" Wink
Post 05 Dec 2007, 01:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4238
Location: 2018
edfed
hey MickaelH, hey vid:
cannot you chat on a private channel instead of battle on this forum?
Post 05 Dec 2007, 01:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
MichaelH wrote:
I never mentioned the role of CFC. I did state O3->O2 reaction was the most common..... but what ever, who cares ..... youda man vid.

MichaelH wrote:
I've also know O3 (Ozone) is an unstable molecule that is broken almost instantly most of the time by O2 (not CFCs) because the double bond between two oxygen atoms is stronger than the single bond the oxygen atoms has when shared with two other oxygen atoms in an O3 atom.

You stated molecule is broken by O2, not by CFC. You apparently think that reaction with O2 is completely different from reaction with CFC. That is nonsense, CFC acts as catalyst to reaction with O2. In case you don't know what catalyst is, it is molecule that allows or hastens reaction. We could say that both O3 + O2 + CFC enter reaction, and we 2O2 + CFC leave reaction. Perfect demonstration of lack of knowledge I was talking about.

Since you dislike reading links so much, maybe neat graphical animation of this reaction would be more satisfying for your rationality: http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/Students_Teachers/ozanim/ozoanim.shtml

Quote:
Talk about brain dead. States "IF I EVER MADE SUCH ASSUMPTION" and then posts the very words that show indeed he did.

- what you said i posted: "your ridiculous assumption that if someone spends money to deny global warming that proves global warming is happening"
- what i really posted: "this was only little indication as bonus to all data provided along with it"
FYI, "indication" IS NOT same as "proof". Let me repeat, i posted nothing about corporate spending "proving" anything.

Quote:
Edit: Vid you forgot to show your endless crying ..... "MichaelH, why don't you answer me, why waw sob sob, why did companies push dollars into denying .... why sob sob"

As I already twice told you, this was the least important point, but the one you liked to catch on. I would much rather see your explanation of that other, scientific, data I provided. Or I would like to see your proof of your accusations that I overused admin privileges. Or I would like to see explaination of those CO2 and Cl/Br questions. etc etc. Corporate spending i last on my list.

edfed wrote:
cannot you chat on a private channel instead of battle on this forum?

Why? At least more people may see it, form some opinion about me, about MichaelH, and maybe even learn something. I truly hope there is someone except me and Michael reading this debate, and taking something out of it.
Post 05 Dec 2007, 02:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
vid wrote:

You stated molecule is broken by O2, not by CFC.


Did I


vid wrote:

You apparently think that reaction with O2 is completely different from reaction with CFC.


Do I

vid wrote:

Since you dislike reading links so much


Do I

vid wrote:

I would much rather see your explanation of that other, scientific, data I provided.


Why, as shown you already have a direct link to my brain. If it means so much to you, why don't you explain what I think?

edfed wrote:

cannot you chat on a private channel instead of battle on this forum?


That's not required edfed as clearly vid already has a direct link to my brain Smile

Don't you think witnessing a fanatical cult follower such as vid, in full fight condemning any who would name a teddy bear Mohammed to a public whipping, a learning experience. I do.
Post 05 Dec 2007, 04:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.