Global Warming will cause a Harsh Winter...wait what..?

[NomadPatriot]

it's weird how JP argues himself into a corner.. then acts like he is all bad-ass about what he said...
he even put the "cool" emoji in his on comment.. describing himself..

[jusplay4fun]

wonderful refutation; can you teach me to debate better, noMADp.?

ANSWER: You cannot.

[mrswdk]

wonderful refutation; can you teach me to debate better, noMADp.?

ANSWER: You cannot.

[mrswdk]

As for the Farmer's Almanac, despite a whole shitload of folklore singing their praises, their actual record is not particularly impressive. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Overall no better than guessing.

hmmm. seems like that notion applies to Science as well..
since Science is the art of proving the previous Scientific Facts Wrong..

I wonder what NoProblem thinks science is, and what he thinks the alternative to science is

[NomadPatriot]

wonderful refutation; can you teach me to debate better, noMADp.?

ANSWER: You cannot.

“He who can does; he who cannot, teaches.” George Bernard Shaw...

[tzor]

I offer the following argument. I first noticed this when reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy:

the mathematician Hari Seldon spends his life developing a theory of psychohistory, a new and effective mathematical sociology. Using statistical laws of mass action, it can predict the future of large populations.

I offer the following counter argument, in one word (once you remove the definitive article) no less, "The Mule."

The Mule was a powerful mentalic mutant, warlord, and conqueror who posed the greatest threat to the Seldon Plan. His acute telepathic ability to modify the emotions of human beings derailed one of the basic assumptions of Hari Seldon's psychohistory - that, in general, the responses of human populations to given stimuli will remain the same.

Every model requires a base set of assumptions, things that are assumed to be true. When something is introduced that violates that basic assumption the model fails, and often fails miserably.

[tzor]

1) Tzor ignores the preponderance of the evidence. NASA is not the main point, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is. What source or website will Tzor accept as factual? There is plenty of evidence to support the a) temperature changes in the past 60 years or so all indicating global warming; b) the Greenhouse effect; c) The amount of CO2 increasing; d) The huge amount of fossil fuels being burned for energy needs (coal, natural gas, and different forms of petroleum derivatives).

There is an old saying, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. There is plenty of evidence all right, but that doesn't mean you can cherry pick the ones you want and reject the ones you don't. And once you present those facts (even when cherry picked) how to they reach the conclusions you want given the fact that the bulk of CO2 emissions still comes from China's energy generation through dirty coal.

2) A little Chemistry: All this burning does what? release huge amounts of carbon dioxide, CO2.
Here is the chemical equation for burning of octane, one main component of gasoline: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 18 H2O + 16 CO2. Note that for 2 units (moles) of octane burned, 16 units (moles) of CO2 are released. How many tons of CO2 are released in the atmosphere daily? That value is easily found online. Greenhouse gases released by man's activity has a direct mechanism causing temperature in the earth's atmosphere to increase.

Golf clap. Did you factor CO2 absorption by the oceans, leading to acidification and deaths of coral reefs?

Carbon sink

Presently, oceans are CO 2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air.

3) The decline of forests also contributes to global warming (see stories on the fires going on NOW in the Amazon, as one small example).

This is actually FAKE NEWS. Now let's consider the humble tree. How Much CO2 Does A Tree Absorb Each Year

t varies from tree to tree but a single tree can absorb as much as 48 lbs (21.77 kgs) of Co2 per year.

The average American produces about 19.78 metric tonnes (21.8 tons) of CO2 emissions each year. This means it would take 909 trees to absorb the CO2 your average american produces each year.

4) The increased popularity of certain farm animals contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., methane) and increases in their effects. READ that as "cow farts"

I will clearly agree that the industrial farms of animals is a problem, but in more than just the methane emissions.

5) A decrease in the amount of algae in the oceans does not help, either.

Actually see my point about CO2 in the oceans. It's a much bigger problem than deforestation.

ibid ...

In February 2009, Science Daily reported that the Southern Indian Ocean is becoming less effective at absorbing carbon dioxide due to changes to the region's climate which include higher wind speeds.

6) CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas; I cited the role of methane in #4 above.

But few people mention that, unless you were a Seaquest DSV fan, a vegan, or A.O.C.

So now we have a bunch of wonderful pieces of evidence. But what does it point to? Apart from the Eugenic option of kill all humans, what options have been proposed that actually have an impact on the facts presented as such? (Given that no plan even starts to address the biggest CO2 producers on the planet.)

And then once we have everything worked out, what's to stop the Mule from changing everything?

[jusplay4fun]

all facts. Cited. NO lies by me.

[NomadPatriot]

all facts. Cited. NO lies by me.

Tzor backed Jus into a corner so bad all he could muster up was a 7-word Llama comment...

f-ing hell T.

+300

[jusplay4fun]

My comment was a sufficient refutation, for now, noMADp. I was backed into the corner? I have the preponderance of scientific evidence on my side. Sufficient evidence was provided, as I already stated.

Again, noMADp offers another weak attempt at debate and refutation. You JUS proved that you cannot evaluate a debate, nor can you engage in a serious debate You are weak, feeble, and inferior, noMADp. Do you want to try again, or are you continuing not to engage me in any conversation or discussion? Or do you feel COMPELLED to answer my comments with one within 12 hours (or less) when I last post?

Thanks for not conversing with me, noMADp. I am having fun.

JP4Fun

all facts. Cited. NO lies by me.

[jusplay4fun]

You have no idea how to debate; you merely engage in sophistry. Thus you cannot evaluate anyone's skills to argue, much less debate. Oh, thanks for not conversing with me, noMADp.

btw: the seal = noMADp

Also, I added cool emojis such for noMADp to better understand, since he has trouble with words and subtleties.

JP4Fun

it's weird how JP argues himself into a corner.. then acts like he is all bad-ass about what he said...
he even put the "cool" emoji in his on comment.. describing himself..

[mrswdk]

jpmorgan is back on top form!

My comment was a sufficient refutation, for now, noMADp. I was backed into the corner? I have the preponderance of scientific evidence on my side. Sufficient evidence was provided, as I already stated.

Again, noMADp offers another weak attempt at debate and refutation. You JUS proved that you cannot evaluate a debate, not can you engage in a serious debate You are weak, feeble, and inferior, noMADp.

Thanks for not conversing with me, noMADp. I am having fun.

You have no idea how to debate; you merely engage in sophistry. Thus you cannot evaluate anyone's skills to argue, much less debate. Oh, thanks for not conversing with me, noMADp.

Also, I added cool emojis such for noMADp to better understand, since he has trouble with words and subtleties.

[NomadPatriot]

Or do you feel COMPELLED to answer my comments with one within 12 hours (or less) when I last post?

Re: Global Warming will cause a Harsh Winter...wait what..?

Post by NomadPatriot » Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:44 pm

--------------
Re: Global Warming will cause a Harsh Winter...wait what..?

Post by jusplay4fun » Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:15 am
------------

he replies 6 hours 31 minutes later..

now reread his statement..--> " Or do you feel COMPELLED to answer my comments with one within 12 hours (or less) when I last post?" - JUS

--------------------
-------------------

how to spot a Sociopath:
" Sociopaths often accuse people of doing things that they themselves are doing as a form of deflecting To control the conversation. It can be a form of abuse. Sociopaths often deflect as a form of abuse."

[tzor]

nonfiction
noun
the branch of literature comprising works of narrative prose dealing with or offering opinions or conjectures upon facts and reality, including biography, history, and the essay (opposed to fiction and distinguished from poetry and drama).

Note it doesn't have to be "true." Flat Earth books, Scientology, and even the Bible qualify under the above definition. They are all opinions and conjectures.

[NomadPatriot]

nonfiction
noun
the branch of literature comprising works of narrative prose dealing with or offering opinions or conjectures upon facts and reality, including biography, history, and the essay (opposed to fiction and distinguished from poetry and drama).

Note it doesn't have to be "true." Flat Earth books, Scientology, and even the Bible qualify under the above definition. They are all opinions and conjectures.

it's weird someone would move Bibles OUT of the Barnes & Noble Non-Fiction Section.
since Bibles & Christianity is listed as Non-Fiction on the Barnes & Noble Website. same as Science.

hmmmmm

so if one book can be questioned as fiction or non-fiction.. the other must also..

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/h/books/browse

[tzor]

it's weird someone would move Bibles OUT of the Barnes & Noble Non-Fiction Section.
since Bibles & Christianity is listed as Non-Fiction on the Barnes & Noble Website. same as Science.

I wouldn't put the bible in the same category as "science" (which isn't a category; physics, chemistry are categories) as it more like philosophy.

[NomadPatriot]

it's weird someone would move Bibles OUT of the Barnes & Noble Non-Fiction Section.
since Bibles & Christianity is listed as Non-Fiction on the Barnes & Noble Website. same as Science.

I wouldn't put the bible in the same category as "science" (which isn't a category; physics, chemistry are categories) as it more like philosophy.

I was just noting the book categories from the Barnes & Noble website..

that is how they categorize books..

[jusplay4fun]

Is my 12 hour comment true for ALL cases of MADp comments? IDK and I don't care.

My comment on 12 hours is a generalization and not a case by case analysis. Why would I waste my time on such minutia? I leave that to minutia muster, MADp.

And MADp responded very quickly here:

e: Global Warming will cause a Harsh Winter...wait what..?
Postby jusplay4fun on Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:55 pm

Re: Global Warming will cause a Harsh Winter...wait what..?
Postby NomadPatriot on Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:44 pm

jusplay4fun wrote:
all facts. Cited. NO lies by me.


Tzor backed Jus into a corner so bad all he could muster up was a 7-word Llama comment...

all facts. Cited. NO lies by me.

all facts. Cited. NO lies by me.

all facts. Cited. NO lies by me.

Tzor backed Jus into a corner so bad all he could muster up was a 7-word Llama comment...

f-ing hell T.

+300

[jusplay4fun]

My 7 words were a sufficient refutation in that specific case.

Succinct comments can be very cogent.

JP4Fun

[NomadPatriot]

Is my 12 hour comment true for ALL cases of MADp comments? IDK and I don't care.

My comment on 12 hours is a generalization and not a case by case analysis. Why would I waste my time on such minutia? I leave that to minutia muster, MADp.

the Sociopath realizes he just got called out..

he tried to make a claim I would do something. then did it himself. then back tracks on his own statement entailing it doesn't matter.. & he doesn't care..
even though he made a point to write the statement in the first place with Capitalized Bold words originally for emphasis..

[jusplay4fun]

This is clearly an example of more sophistry from the Master of Sophistry, MADp.

He cannot answer the scientific evidence on Global Warming and the man-made causes of Global Warming, so he interjects sophistry, such as cannibalism (in the 3rd thread he started on the topic of Global Warming).

Get back on topic, MADp; discuss Global Warming and get away from calling me and others who disagree with you childish names. Stop avoiding the topic that you start the thread on, which is Global Warming.

To re-iterate: Global Warming is indeed man-made, caused by burning of fossil fuels which puts TONS of CO2 in the atmosphere. The evidence of increased levels of CO2 and other Greenhouse gases (such as methane) into the atmosphere is overwhelming. He cannot deny that. The causality of CO2 levels as a greenhouse gas is a link he cannot and does not deny, apparently. The evidence of Global Warming, as evidence, by 1) increased temperatures; 2) increase rate of temperature change from year to year OVERALL; 3) shrinking ice caps and 4) shrinking glaciers are quite clear and should be cogent, except for those who are deniers because they do not understand and/or choose to ignore the science.

Debate THOSE issues, MADp. Stop the obfuscation; stop the sophistry. Be concise and present worthy arguments, a modicum of logic, and some real thinking.

Here is some documentation to support my main points:

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

JP4Fun

Is my 12 hour comment true for ALL cases of MADp comments? IDK and I don't care.

My comment on 12 hours is a generalization and not a case by case analysis. Why would I waste my time on such minutia? I leave that to minutia muster, MADp.

the Sociopath realizes he just got called out..

he tried to make a claim I would do something. then did it himself. then back tracks on his own statement entailing it doesn't matter.. & he doesn't care..
even though he made a point to write the statement in the first place with Capitalized Bold words originally for emphasis..

[jusplay4fun]

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-17803384/great-white-shark-caught-by-fishermen-in-mexico

[riskllama]

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-17803384/great-white-shark-caught-by-fishermen-in-mexico

why?

[jusplay4fun]

Look up the page:

by NomadPatriot on Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:44 pm

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-17803384/great-white-shark-caught-by-fishermen-in-mexico

why?

[jusplay4fun]

Tzor,

JUS like your friend MADp, you too ignore the preponderance of the evidence. Let me provide more for you to ruminate about:

[url]But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.[/url]

The above quote cogently and succinctly refutes nearly all your arguments about CO2 levels.

JP4F

1) Tzor ignores the preponderance of the evidence. NASA is not the main point, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is. What source or website will Tzor accept as factual? There is plenty of evidence to support the a) temperature changes in the past 60 years or so all indicating global warming; b) the Greenhouse effect; c) The amount of CO2 increasing; d) The huge amount of fossil fuels being burned for energy needs (coal, natural gas, and different forms of petroleum derivatives).

There is an old saying, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. There is plenty of evidence all right, but that doesn't mean you can cherry pick the ones you want and reject the ones you don't. And once you present those facts (even when cherry picked) how to they reach the conclusions you want given the fact that the bulk of CO2 emissions still comes from China's energy generation through dirty coal.

2) A little Chemistry: All this burning does what? release huge amounts of carbon dioxide, CO2.
Here is the chemical equation for burning of octane, one main component of gasoline: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 18 H2O + 16 CO2. Note that for 2 units (moles) of octane burned, 16 units (moles) of CO2 are released. How many tons of CO2 are released in the atmosphere daily? That value is easily found online. Greenhouse gases released by man's activity has a direct mechanism causing temperature in the earth's atmosphere to increase.

Golf clap. Did you factor CO2 absorption by the oceans, leading to acidification and deaths of coral reefs?

Carbon sink

Presently, oceans are CO 2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air.

3) The decline of forests also contributes to global warming (see stories on the fires going on NOW in the Amazon, as one small example).

This is actually FAKE NEWS. Now let's consider the humble tree. How Much CO2 Does A Tree Absorb Each Year

t varies from tree to tree but a single tree can absorb as much as 48 lbs (21.77 kgs) of Co2 per year.

The average American produces about 19.78 metric tonnes (21.8 tons) of CO2 emissions each year. This means it would take 909 trees to absorb the CO2 your average american produces each year.

4) The increased popularity of certain farm animals contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., methane) and increases in their effects. READ that as "cow farts"

I will clearly agree that the industrial farms of animals is a problem, but in more than just the methane emissions.

5) A decrease in the amount of algae in the oceans does not help, either.

Actually see my point about CO2 in the oceans. It's a much bigger problem than deforestation.

ibid ...

In February 2009, Science Daily reported that the Southern Indian Ocean is becoming less effective at absorbing carbon dioxide due to changes to the region's climate which include higher wind speeds.

6) CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas; I cited the role of methane in #4 above.

But few people mention that, unless you were a Seaquest DSV fan, a vegan, or A.O.C.

So now we have a bunch of wonderful pieces of evidence. But what does it point to? Apart from the Eugenic option of kill all humans, what options have been proposed that actually have an impact on the facts presented as such? (Given that no plan even starts to address the biggest CO2 producers on the planet.)

And then once we have everything worked out, what's to stop the Mule from changing everything?