Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 132 of 132
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Goldilocks and Global Warming

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Oh, yeah? Look, next you'll be telling me that some lawyer invented calculus, or some sculptor invented philosophy.
    Ridiculous. Only qualified professionals should be allowed to practice medicine and the same goes for science. Otherwise there would be chaos, and you don't want that, do you?
    Tone is difficult around here. Clearly you are sending up a pov you wish to ridicule, but you come across as sincere.

    Quote Originally Posted by -"arthur"
    Anyway, the idea that there is some "ideal climate" is a load of manure as far as I can see. Were the plagues of Egypt ideal? Were the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s? No. They were awful.
    The Dust Bowl weather was at least partly manmade - the natural prairie did not dry up and blow around in clouds ten thousand feet high.

    We should avoid repeating such mistakes, yes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Oh, yeah? Look, next you'll be telling me that some lawyer invented calculus, or some sculptor invented philosophy.
    Ridiculous. Only qualified professionals should be allowed to practice medicine and the same goes for science. Otherwise there would be chaos, and you don't want that, do you?
    Tone is difficult around here. Clearly you are sending up a pov you wish to ridicule, but you come across as sincere.

    Quote Originally Posted by -"arthur"
    Anyway, the idea that there is some "ideal climate" is a load of manure as far as I can see. Were the plagues of Egypt ideal? Were the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s? No. They were awful.
    The Dust Bowl weather was at least partly manmade - the natural prairie did not dry up and blow around in clouds ten thousand feet high.

    We should avoid repeating such mistakes, yes?
    So which is it, ridiculous or sincere? You are obviously confused and the idea that there exists any OPTIMUM climate is A LOAD OF GARBAGE, PERIOD.

    Hopefully this will clarify my position, which, of course, is the only RATIONAL one possible.

    As for man-made weather effects, yeah, so what? There were man made floods in China long before the Dust Bowl days, and yeah, RATIONAL people learned from these. Will you guys? I know I'm new around here but I am on the skeptical side so far- this Prince guy is some piece of work.

    Maybe he should rely less on nursery rhymes and so on and more on common sense. Wouldn't hurt you either, Iceman.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    So which is it, ridiculous or sincere?
    I'm betting both. It's ridiculous. Its sincerity is the question mark. I can't tell for sure - the problem is that your chosen viewpoint cannot be parodied.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    As for man-made weather effects, yeah, so what?
    They are manmade weather disasters. Let's have fewer of them, and smaller of them, how about.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    You are obviously confused and the idea that there exists any OPTIMUM climate is A LOAD OF GARBAGE, PERIOD.
    Look, if somebody somewhere is arguing for the existence of an optimum climate, you should go there and bitch at them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    So who is asking to be parodied?

    And isn't the subject of the thread, "What would an optimum climate be?"(paraphrase, not parody.)

    It does not exist.

    It will not exist.

    Regardless of what humans do or do not do, using current or foreseeable technology.

    Period.

    OH, and man made weather disasters? I'M the reason there is not a tornado in your living room right now- you're welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    And isn't the subject of the thread, "What would an optimum climate be?"(paraphrase, not parody.)
    No. That was an accusation, like yours. No one has been debating that as if it were literal and sincere, and the attempt to frame the CO2 alarmists as if they were advocating an optimum climate is one of Prince's characteristic approaches here.

    Quote Originally Posted by -"arthur"
    OH, and man made weather disasters?
    The dust bowl, was the immediate example. Boosting the greenhouse effect by half or more in a couple of centuries, would lead to many others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    And isn't the subject of the thread, "What would an optimum climate be?"(paraphrase, not parody.)
    No. That was an accusation, like yours. No one has been debating that as if it were literal and sincere, and the attempt to frame the CO2 alarmists as if they were advocating an optimum climate is one of Prince's characteristic approaches here.

    Quote Originally Posted by -"arthur"
    OH, and man made weather disasters?
    The dust bowl, was the immediate example. Boosting the greenhouse effect by half or more in a couple of centuries, would lead to many others.
    And you are accusing me of making accusations, big deal.

    It stands to reason that whoever is trying to influence the climate in some way has some specific goal in mind.

    If you AND your "Prince" do not have such a goal, which is an illusion wrapped in a mirage deep in the heart of a fantasy anyhow, then WHAT, pray tell, are you guys arguing about? So you SERIOUSLY contend that the Dust Bowl was a result of global warming from carbon dioxide emissions?

    Okay.

    Why is the Dust Bowl not worse than ever if carbon dioxide emissions have gone up since that time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Take your time on that one, iceman. I'm sure it will be worth waiting for...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    It stands to reason that whoever is trying to influence the climate in some way has some specific goal in mind.
    Does it?

    My rather cynical view of human history is that the one constant feature is total failure to think through consequences. The 'specific goals' people have had in mind relate to power, control, influence and display of accumulated wealth. How else have whole civilisations and many more "successful" communities let themselves run completely out of water, or so polluted their locality that they've had to move, or exterminated a prime food resource? There are examples of communities that have survived, if not thrived, for very long periods without exhausting the natural advantages of their area. But they are far outnumbered by the others.

    One example actually goes the other way. Pure serendipity. Do you really think we'd have rejected or banned aerosol products if they'd been based on bromine rather than chlorine? I doubt it very much. It's just pure blind luck that it was CFCs rather than BFCs that gave us our ozone hole. Had it been bromine, the skin cancer and cataract toll - especially on southern hemisphere residents would have been absolutely catastrophic, rather than a statistical bump that took some time to become evident. But there was no specific goal or thoughtful purpose in choosing CFC, it just happened that way.

    I would never, ever believe that anyone set out to 'change the atmosphere' by adding greenhouse gases. It was a wrong choice to follow that path when there were already other options working reasonably well - by the standards of the time, and we could have gone one of those routes. But we didn't.

    So, just like old established cities having to rework their infrastructure to get rid of disease by introducing clean water supplies and sewage disposal systems, and eventually get fish back in their rivers as London has done with the Thames, we have to do something about the way we've treated our atmosphere as an infinite waste depository. It hasn't bred cholera, rats, contaminated water and noxious fumes the way uncontrolled landfills have done, but the effects are equally as bad. They just happen to be more widespread.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    It stands to reason that whoever is trying to influence the climate in some way has some specific goal in mind.
    It does not stand to reason that those who oppose influencing the climate in certain damaging ways have any particular goal in mind other than disaster avoidance.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    If you AND your "Prince" do not have such a goal,
    You want to review your reading of Prince - he and I share very little in the way of viewpoint on anything, and nothing in this matter. You and he have similar viewpoints in this matter, and similar rhetorical approaches - you should get along just fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    So you SERIOUSLY contend that the Dust Bowl was a result of global warming from carbon dioxide emissions?
    Uh, dude, are you just trolling? The answer is No.

    Although it was, apparently, a factor. Farming practices were my reference, above.
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Why is the Dust Bowl not worse than ever if carbon dioxide emissions have gone up since that time?
    - - -
    Take your time on that one, iceman. I'm sure it will be worth waiting for...
    Another one of these guys. Jesus Christ on a crooked crutch, what is wrong with the woodwork around here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    So your point is- what? You just want things to be as they were if there were no people? How the hell can you know that, let alone achieve it? Sheer fantasy is what the hell it is, as much as the whole notion that there is an "ideal" climate anywhere.- addressed to adelady

    And iceman, buddy, you are backpedaling very well. Making your case, whatever it might be- that's another matter. You claimed that "boosting the greenhouse effect" would lead to many other Dust Bowls, in as many words, it is in black and white.

    You and this Prince character and the lovely lady from Down Under all seem convinced that this carbon dioxide thing is the way to ensure global nirvana, weatherwise.

    Which is something I have a hard time believing, so explain, if you will.

    Jesus Christ WAS a woodworker, but it is hard to know what His position might be on the question.
    Last edited by Arthur Angler; January 11th, 2012 at 01:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    So your point is- what? You just want things to be as they were if there were no people?
    Not feeding cockroaches, is my new goal.

    For my old points, reread my perfectly clear posts above. Or adelady's. Or any of several others. Key concept: disaster avoidance. Not creating horrible messes. Avoiding the worst of the obvious and incoming harms by ceasing to invite and amplify them. Learning from past mistakes, not repeating them.

    It comes under the heading of common sense, one would think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    So your point is- what? You just want things to be as they were if there were no people?
    Not feeding cockroaches, is my new goal.

    For my old points, reread my perfectly clear posts above. Or adelady's. Or any of several others. Key concept: disaster avoidance. Not creating horrible messes. Avoiding the worst of the obvious and incoming harms by ceasing to invite and amplify them. Learning from past mistakes, not repeating them.

    It comes under the heading of common sense, one would think.
    So you realize your argument about Dust Bowl conditions is a disaster? You DID sorta paint yourself into a corner there, so, too late.

    Still pretty unclear on what you think a disaster free climate would look like or how we could get one. After all, droughts, floods, storms, and so on have been around longer than humanity has, and to me it looks like they aren't leaving anytime soon.

    THERE's your "common sense", buckaroo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    So you realize your argument about Dust Bowl conditions is a disaster?
    I think your apparent inability to read English and follow arguments is dishonest. I think you are just pretending to be really stupid, for the purpose of trolling.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Still pretty unclear on what you think a disaster free climate would look like or how we could get one.
    My guess is the people who suffered from the Dust Bowl would have gladly chosen an ordinary run of climate disasters, rather than the abetted and amplified mess they created. We actually have that choice, if we act quickly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Hey, there was a tornado in a town nearby yesterday. Which vehicle should get the blame for it? Or was it a "farting cow" tornado? It is so hard for me to tell them apart sometimes. I'll blame the cow, eat steak, and keep on driving.

    And most of you will keep driving too, won't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    So you realize your argument about Dust Bowl conditions is a disaster?
    I think your apparent inability to read English and follow arguments is dishonest. I think you are just pretending to be really stupid, for the purpose of trolling.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Still pretty unclear on what you think a disaster free climate would look like or how we could get one.
    My guess is the people who suffered from the Dust Bowl would have gladly chosen an ordinary run of climate disasters, rather than the abetted and amplified mess they created. We actually have that choice, if we act quickly.
    When I troll, son, I am in a BOAT. I understand English just FINE, and I know you are ticked off, there is no need to get all steamed up because you screwed up and made a claim you couldn't back up. If you want to take another run at it, be my guest.

    Explain how the greenhouse gas problem causes dustbowls and why they are not worse today. Take your time, be inventive, let your creative side come out to play. Then tell me how to recreate the Garden of Eden.

    Act quickly though! This is a LIMITED TIME OFFER! Hop to it boy, get on the stick! Now, before you know what you are really doing!

    It's more fun that way.

    Of course, it would be EASIER to keep insulting me as "stupid" or "dishonest", but I can afford to be tolerant- I have a pretty good case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, of course, the other thing is that reducing energy use often means increasing efficiency and hence reducing overheads. also good for business.
    Actually, historically, more efficiency leads to greater consumption. Extraction and use of coal and iron as well as generation and use of electricity bears this out, as does computing power and information processing more generally, going back to Gutenberg and the printing press. So yes, good for business- but reduced consumption?

    No WAY.
    If consumption is going to increase, which it is, then you need to increase efficiency so that, for example, that increased consumption uses no more (or may be even less) energy. This reduces costs for businesses and hence improves margin.

    WAY.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    that there is an "ideal" climate anywhere.- addressed to adelady
    To me? Why? I don't think there's any such thing.

    What I do think is that the only reason we've been able to develop human civilisation in the way we have is because of agriculture - which depends on certain seasonal conditions of wet, dry, cold, warm for various important crops. The climate we've had for the last 10000 years has provided those conditions. We'd be foolish to throw that advantage away.

    Why is the Dust Bowl not worse than ever if carbon dioxide emissions have gone up since that time?
    OK, time for more history. Clearly you're not as old as I am - otherwise you would also have been taught in high school in the early 60s (not the 30s, 40s or 50s mind you) as I was about agricultural best practice. And that was to plough paddocks as often as possible between harvest and seeding to "enhance" capillary action in the soil. It wasn't only America that produced dust bowl conditions, but theirs were the biggest and most spectacular. They also occurred in Australia and parts of Russia and the Ukraine.

    Whether you have the drought conditions that blows the topsoil away or not, you finish up with what are called in Australia, 'Sunday soils'. Too wet to plough on Saturday, too hard to plough on Monday. Because the microbial and insect life of the soil as well as the structure of retained organic matter is destroyed entirely - giving you silty or sandy dust that washes away in the wet, then sets like concrete, then blows away when it warms up and dries out completely.

    These widespread soil damaging practices were entirely independent of any general warming of global climate. And now good soil management means that structure and moisture are retained in far more soils so that massive dust storms are far less frequent nowadays - and they don't usually have the same cause as in the 30s.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by "arthur'
    When I troll, son, I am in a BOAT. I understand English just FINE, and I know you are ticked off, there is no need to get all steamed up because you screwed up and made a claim you couldn't back up.
    I made no such claim. You have been corrected now five times, counting a reread of the original post. You are using the false assertion to attack personally, rather than argue the OP issue - which you also misread rather badly, if we continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Using false claims to attack personally, multiply repeating the falsehood after correction, and thereby deflecting the thread from the matter at hand, is trolling.

    This, for example:
    Explain how the greenhouse gas problem causes dustbowls and why they are not worse today. Take your time, be inventive, let your creative side come out to play. Then tell me how to recreate the Garden of Eden.
    Oh stuff it.

    As far as greenhouse gases contributing to the Dust Bowl, - that's contributing to, not causing, and its not the farming practices i referred to above, and it's a new topic, and your contribution is nil to date - that's pretty much conventional wisdom: the CO2 boost was well underway by then, and the temperature boost could hardly have had no effect. As far as why changing the plowing and planting windbreaks and so forth cut down on the dust storms and consequent weather effects, that's for another thread - the point here is that people should avoid creating disasters like that if they can, and taking steps to ameliorate them if they are unavoidable is a good thing to do.

    Why wouldn't they?
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, of course, the other thing is that reducing energy use often means increasing efficiency and hence reducing overheads. also good for business.
    Actually, historically, more efficiency leads to greater consumption. Extraction and use of coal and iron as well as generation and use of electricity bears this out, as does computing power and information processing more generally, going back to Gutenberg and the printing press. So yes, good for business- but reduced consumption?

    No WAY.
    If consumption is going to increase, which it is, then you need to increase efficiency so that, for example, that increased consumption uses no more (or may be even less) energy. This reduces costs for businesses and hence improves margin.

    WAY.
    And I admitted as much regarding business. But consumption goes UP, not down, with increased efficiency. It is called the Jevons paradox, been around for awhile.

    Jevons paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by "arthur'
    When I troll, son, I am in a BOAT. I understand English just FINE, and I know you are ticked off, there is no need to get all steamed up because you screwed up and made a claim you couldn't back up.
    I made no such claim. You have been corrected now five times, counting a reread of the original post. You are using the false assertion to attack personally, rather than argue the OP issue - which you also misread rather badly, if we continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Using false claims to attack personally, multiply repeating the falsehood after correction, and thereby deflecting the thread from the matter at hand, is trolling.

    This, for example:
    Explain how the greenhouse gas problem causes dustbowls and why they are not worse today. Take your time, be inventive, let your creative side come out to play. Then tell me how to recreate the Garden of Eden.
    Oh stuff it.

    As far as greenhouse gases contributing to the Dust Bowl, - that's contributing to, not causing, and its not the farming practices i referred to above, and it's a new topic, and your contribution is nil to date - that's pretty much conventional wisdom: the CO2 boost was well underway by then, and the temperature boost could hardly have had no effect. As far as why changing the plowing and planting windbreaks and so forth cut down on the dust storms and consequent weather effects, that's for another thread - the point here is that people should avoid creating disasters like that if they can, and taking steps to ameliorate them if they are unavoidable is a good thing to do.

    Why wouldn't they?
    Well, sonny boy, the lady has explained that the Dust Bowls were not caused by Global Warming, so take up your quarrel with her, why don't you? "Caused" or "contributed", you haven't put up any FACTS or meaningful explanation of any kind beyond the usual "sky is falling" line I keep hearing from plenty of other unresponsive guys. Telling me to "stuff it" is pretty damned rude and not very illuminating. I WILL point out that 1934 was a very warm year but the temperature came down, while fuel consumption went up for the next few decades.

    FYI when I say YOU said the following, that is not a personal attack OR a falsehood, it is a QUOTE:"The dust bowl, was the immediate example. Boosting the greenhouse effect by half or more in a couple of centuries, would lead to many others."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    As for the topic, I seriously doubt that you or anybody else knows for sure just what this ideal climate is supposed to be or how we can get one. Major cause of seasonal climate variation is 93 million miles away, and there isn't much we can do from here to affect it. PLUS, what is "ideal" for one area is liable not to work too good for other places folks live. Hard to get people in the USA to agree about anything, let alone other parts of the world.

    There's MORE common sense for you, iceman. You could do worse than take etiquette lessons from the lady, if she'll have it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Major cause of seasonal climate variation is 93 million miles away
    No it's not. Variations in the sun's output are tiny on a decade, century, millennium basis. The only real change is the minuscule but steady brightening - and the effects of that brightening are measured in millions of years. The main times we see the sun having an effect on a short term, say 30-50 year basis, is if a few strong positive sunspot cycles happen to coincide with an extended period of no or low volcanic activity.

    The reasons we have seasons at all is the fact that we circle the sun, year by year.

    The reasons we have large scale climate changes between glaciations and de-glaciations is the Milankovitch cycles, which run in 10s of thousands of years.

    And for both of them, that is only because the Earth is tilted on its axis.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Telling me to "stuff it" is pretty damned rude and not very illuminating. "
    Hello Arthur. Thank you for the "Arthur likes this" on another thread. Your inherent ability to recognise quality when you see it, evidenced by your vote, caused me to stay my hand while reading through the oh-so cute, deliberately provocative posts that constitute your contribution to this thread. However, if you are going to play silly games then at the very least take the time to read, or if it's necessary, attend some adult learning classes in reading comprehension.

    iceaura did not tell you to stuff it. He most decidedly did not do so, either explicitly or implicitly. The phrase, "Oh stuff it", uttered in isolation, was a cry of exasperation, requiring no one and certainly not yourself, to stuff it. If he was calling upon anyone to stuff it that would have been himself. That conclusion is clear from grammar, syntax, context and usage. Your failure to understand this hints at deeper cognitive difficulties.

    Had iceaura been telling you to stuff it he would have said something more akin to:

    Arthur, why don't you take your passive-aggressive, snide, ill informed stack of nonsense and stuff it.

    But he didn't do that. So why not try to participate more like a mature adult than a teenage troll. Some of us might even come to like you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Major cause of seasonal climate variation is 93 million miles away
    No it's not. Variations in the sun's output are tiny on a decade, century, millennium basis. The only real change is the minuscule but steady brightening - and the effects of that brightening are measured in millions of years. The main times we see the sun having an effect on a short term, say 30-50 year basis, is if a few strong positive sunspot cycles happen to coincide with an extended period of no or low volcanic activity.

    The reasons we have seasons at all is the fact that we circle the sun, year by year.

    The reasons we have large scale climate changes between glaciations and de-glaciations is the Milankovitch cycles, which run in 10s of thousands of years.

    And for both of them, that is only because the Earth is tilted on its axis.
    I stand corrected. The problem is ONLY the fact that the axis of the planet is tilted. I figure we can fix that overnight. Plus what is all this I hear about an 11 year sunspot cycle? Must have got the wrong dope on that too. Thank you ma'am. So where are we regarding the, what you call 'em, Milankovitches?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Telling me to "stuff it" is pretty damned rude and not very illuminating. "
    Hello Arthur. Thank you for the "Arthur likes this" on another thread. Your inherent ability to recognise quality when you see it, evidenced by your vote, caused me to stay my hand while reading through the oh-so cute, deliberately provocative posts that constitute your contribution to this thread. However, if you are going to play silly games then at the very least take the time to read, or if it's necessary, attend some adult learning classes in reading comprehension.

    iceaura did not tell you to stuff it. He most decidedly did not do so, either explicitly or implicitly. The phrase, "Oh stuff it", uttered in isolation, was a cry of exasperation, requiring no one and certainly not yourself, to stuff it. If he was calling upon anyone to stuff it that would have been himself. That conclusion is clear from grammar, syntax, context and usage. Your failure to understand this hints at deeper cognitive difficulties.

    Had iceaura been telling you to stuff it he would have said something more akin to:

    Arthur, why don't you take your passive-aggressive, snide, ill informed stack of nonsense and stuff it.

    But he didn't do that. So why not try to participate more like a mature adult than a teenage troll. Some of us might even come to like you.
    He most certainly DID say exactly that. I suggest you reread the post. Not that I mind, really, he is obviously an excitable boy. And you seem to share his opinion, which is pretty much unrelated to the topic and seems a lot like a the sort of personal criticism you CLAIM to object to. Looks like the kid called in some reinforcements, or are you a freelance English to English interpreter?

    Any thoughts about what the climate ought to be and why? I say there isn't an ideal climate in the realm of possibility, practically speaking, you must disagree, so tell me why.

    Unless you are ONLY interested in being disagreeable, which is hard to figure out for this old country boy too. If you don't like me, or if you do, why the hell should I care? It has nothing to do with the point of the debate. Do you want to get back to it sometime, it feels like trying to nail Jello to the wall here, folks want to talk about everything but.
    Last edited by Arthur Angler; January 12th, 2012 at 04:13 AM. Reason: edited for clarity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I stand corrected. The problem is ONLY the fact that the axis of the planet is tilted. I figure we can fix that overnight. Plus what is all this I hear about an 11 year sunspot cycle? Must have got the wrong dope on that too. Thank you ma'am. So where are we regarding the, what you call 'em, Milankovitches?
    Google is your friend - for practically all climate topics. (Though Google Scholar is preferable if you want to avoid disputations about elementary thermodynamics and the like.)
    Even Wiki can tell you about Milankovitch. Here you go. Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    One interesting sidenote. Milankovitch was born in 1896. The same year that Arrhenius first calculated warming caused by CO2 - the effect that had been identified 50 years earlier, Fourier, Tyndall. Most of the climate basics are pretty old, well-established science. Older than relativity, much older than plate tectonics.

    If you want to avoid silliness like "The problem is only the fact that the axis of the planet is tilted." it's really easy to get on top of the basics. Not so easy if you really want to get a handle on the real deal with radiative physics and lapse rates and the like - that takes work rather than just reading. (But paleoclimatology can be really fascinating stuff once you get into it.)

    Try Spencer Weart "The Discovery of Global Warming" The Discovery of Global Warming - A History . Online, well-written, easy to dip into the chapters that interest or puzzle you.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Arthur Angler. Please tone down your snideness and sarcasm, would you? There is no need for it. It is clear that you just generally dislike the whole man made Global warming idea and everyone who agrees with it, but calm down and try to engage civilly with the people in this thread. You might learn a thing or two. This is just a friendly request for starters.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    He most certainly DID say exactly that.
    Here is the quote lifted directly from the thread.

    This, for example:
    Explain how the greenhouse gas problem causes dustbowls and why they are not worse today. Take your time, be inventive, let your creative side come out to play. Then tell me how to recreate the Garden of Eden.

    Oh stuff it.

    As far as greenhouse gases contributing to the Dust Bowl, - that's contributing to, not causing, and its not the farming practices i referred to above, and it's a new topic, and your contribution is nil to date - that's pretty much conventional wisdom: the CO2 boost was well underway by then, and the temperature boost could hardly have had no effect. As far as why changing the plowing and planting windbreaks and so forth cut down on the dust storms and consequent weather effects, that's for another thread - the point here is that people should avoid creating disasters like that if they can, and taking steps to ameliorate them if they are unavoidable is a good thing to do.
    If you really do not grasp that he is not telling you to stuff it then you should take the remedial reading classes I suggested, ironically, you would benefit from. The context, the grammar and the syntax make it clear, at least to anyone who isn't affecting a country hick persona.

    Looks like the kid called in some reinforcements, or are you a freelance English to English interpreter?
    iceaura certainly requires no help from me and did not ask for any. I just dislike seeing people speak nonsense. It's a weakness, but what can one do?

    Any thoughts about what the climate ought to be and why? I say there isn't an ideal climate in the realm of possibility, practically speaking, you must disagree, so tell me why.
    You have been arguing since the outset against a strawman. The climate fifty or one hundred years ago was not ideal. I have no idea what an ideal climate is. However the climate fifty and one hundred years ago was one to which the biosphere in general and the human race in particular was reasonably well adapted. Anthropogenic global warming is now changing that climate in ways that the biosphere and humanity are generally not well adapted for. This leads to degradation of the biosphere and possible short term catastrophe for humans. This is undesirable. We should seek to eliminate or reduce the man made climatic changes.

    Do you want to get back to it sometime, it feels like trying to nail Jello to the wall here, folks want to talk about everything but.
    Don't be so cute. You have been deliberately provocative and people have reacted. If you are serious about debating then cut the cutsie farm boy routine, show some frigging respect and focus on the arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    And I admitted as much regarding business. But consumption goes UP, not down, with increased efficiency. It is called the Jevons paradox, been around for awhile.
    Jevons paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Just in time. A detailed look at Jevons paradox and energy efficiency, mainly in the US.

    CO2 Scorecard | Energy Efficiency is for Real, Energy Rebound a Distraction
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Jesus Christ WAS a woodworker, but it is hard to know what His position might be on the question.
    Well, now we know what the Lord, or those acting in His name, anyway, think about this mess:

    The American Spectator : A Pardoner's Tale
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Arthur Angler. Please tone down your snideness and sarcasm, would you? There is no need for it. It is clear that you just generally dislike the whole man made Global warming idea and everyone who agrees with it, but calm down and try to engage civilly with the people in this thread. You might learn a thing or two. This is just a friendly request for starters.
    What "snideness and sarcasm"? I am not the one abusing people here, get a grip. I am NOT the one calling people "stupid" or "dishonest" and telling them to "stuff it" on this thread. I have not told people on other threads that their posts are unwelcome. All I would like is some common courtesy and to ADDRESS the topic, for Pete's sake.

    Why can't you save the censure for your raving bigots and homophobes I have noticed you seem to tolerate with great equanimity on other threads?

    The terms of use I signed off on do not mention "snideness or sarcasm" anyway, if you will bother to read them.

    So, even if, by some means not discovered yet, we can hold the level of carbon dioxide at whatever (arbitrary) level we happen (miraculously) to agree upon, the climate will change due to other factors, agreed? Obviously this level cannot be zero, or green plants would all die- on that we can all agree. Before we reach this point, hypocapnea will present respiratory difficulties for all of us. On the high end of the scale, hypercapnia becomes an obstacle. So we have a limited range.

    Obviously this will require study and not a little effort. Such study and effort could be devoted to other things, so it is reasonable to ask if this allocation is wise given what we now know. "Sarcasm" will probably not be a significant factor in making the decisions, so is this a SCIENCE forum or some kind of high school environment for alleged adults?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Arthur, here's another warning.

    This is a science forum, which means most members make an effort to mix science into their rhetoric and do so in a civil manner for good conversation.
    Your scientific contributions to this and other thread have been almost non-existent while you continue to engage, or now link to an inflamatory article which is also lacking scientific substance.

    Enjoy your three days off and please come back with a better attitude and desire to talk about science.
    Lynx

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. About global warming!
    By gius in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: December 8th, 2009, 04:36 AM
  2. Global Warming
    By (In)Sanity in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 4th, 2006, 12:58 AM
  3. Another Cause for Global Warming
    By ghost7584 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 01:42 PM
  4. Aside From Global Warming
    By The P-manator in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 28th, 2006, 09:24 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •