Global warming is real


#1265

Let me see if I can help you. 1+1+1=3 1/3+1/3+1/3=3/3. 2/3’s of the earth’s surface is water, what is the remainder?


#1266

The way to achieve accuracy would be to have all temps taken away from the urban heat islands especially since many of them didn’t even exist 100, 200, 500, or thousands of years ago.


#1267

Fair enough. So go ask GISS.


#1268

The isthmus of Panama formed about 3 million years ago. The Quaternary glaciation about 2.5 million years.

The drop in temperatures was gradual over a million plus years. No need to post a picture, I already did if you didn’t miss it. :wink:


#1269

“Urban heat islands”. But be sure and keep those goalposts on wheels.


#1270

Nope. Then you’ve just introduced sample bias.


#1271

Like the odds of say a life form suddenly arising from inert matter?


#1272

Sam was postulating it was an additive effect of many many objects which is unlikely because more objects would cancel each other out in the long run. Unless it’s a non-random distribution.

Large objects just don’t exist out there. We’d know by now after centuries of careful observation.


#1273

Ah, so now your hypothesis depends on the sum of many exceedingly rare or unlikely occurrences.

Which reduces the likelihood of it being true.


#1274

And that is a baseless supposition that assumes those objects are passing us in such a manner as to counter each other’s gravitational affects.

Meteors tend to travel in packs with great frequency, that’s why we have “meteor showers” and usually they are all passing us on the same side of the planet.


#1275

Because that sort of orbit would be highly unstable. It wouldn’t just pass through our orbit but through the orbits of the gas giants which would either capture it as a moon or fling it out of the solar system.


#1276

What? I provided an estimate of the amount of earth that is paved 0.625%.

You then insinuated I was in error when you provided a percent of the land that was urban as 3% (adjusting to water brings it to 1% of global surface area.

You are the one that changed the measurement from “paved” to “urban”. I presume you see a difference, right?


#1277

Not really. Given the right conditions, the odds would seem to be very high.


#1278

Both sam and I have already shown that statement to be utterly false.

More objects passing in succession on the same side of the planet would not “cancel each other out” the affects would be additive and cumulative.


#1279

Under any conditions that exist in nature the odds against it happening are astronomically high.


#1280

Random interactions tend to cancel themselves out. It’s the nature of the universe.


#1281

Do you really want to turn another thread into a baseless rant on your beliefs of abiogenesis.


#1282

Show tor work. Assume some mass, frequency of appearance, distance from the earth, and orbital velocity. The equation is well established.

Show under which of the above conditions our orbit could be effected. I’m interested in seeing the details of what you and Samm are proposing.

Thanks.


#1283

Why are you postulating they all passing on the “same side of the planet”?

You haven’t shown anything to be false. Just speculation.


#1284

1/3 which is 33%