Global warming is real


#1305

Exceedingly rare events become common over billions of years.


#1306

And whose to say that that hasn’t occurred? We only know what we see today. We cannot see what occurred the past.

You talk about exceedingly rare occurrences … think about how rairly a planetoid with an orbit that takes tens of thousands of Earth years, would pass one of the gas giants such that it would be captured as a moon or flung out of the solar system. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.


#1307

Not necessarily.


#1308

It’s most likely a combibaton of events.


#1309

Yes, but the chance that they would alternate on one side and then the other is highly improbable. If you flip a coin 100 times you may end up with 50 heads and 50 tails, but the odds of it being heads - tails, heads - tails, fifty times in a row is infinitesimally small. And because they are rare (your word) the effect of two or three or more on the same side would last a very long time, perhaps millions of years.


#1310

But as you postulate, it would take a millions of interactions to have any meaningful effect. Three in a row isn’t going to do squat.


#1311

Actually they are. It is well established science that the gravity of obititing masses affects the orbit of each other.

You and dantes are not only ignoring the probability of odd/even succession of repetitive events, you are also neglecting to consider that the mass of NEOs is not constant, nor would be the distance from Earth they may pass.


#1312

That works both ways … which leaves the description “possible” intact.


#1313

That’s a cop out, not a hypothesis.


#1314

Well, if you already did it and found the paper of interest (out of how many GISS papers?) why should I repeat the work?


#1315

I didn’t say I had all the answers, did I? At least it’s within the real of plausible.


#1316

I’m not saying it is impossible. I think the odds are pretty low but I also have not run the numbers. But Wildrose made the claim, just interested in seeing what made him come to this possibility.


#1317

Not really. It depends on the probability of the event in question. I think it’s so exceedingly rare it’s extremely unlikely to happen in the hundreds of millions of years in the last.


#1318

Jesus man… as long as it took you to write these whining posts…

There are references and links here

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q208

Problem is for some of the links, all you get is the abstract. I’ll pay for the document… but not alot.

For you…read it like it is Donald Trump writing it and you - being all smart and everything - are going to find the fine print, the sloppy methods, the crafty artifice that he is using to con us.


#1319

It is not plausible. “A combination of events” doesn’t say anything at all.


#1320

Well, that’s progress …


#1321

Which, as I said, leaves the description “possible” intact.


#1322

Since I already suggest several causes, I’d say you’d be incorrect.

You may be too hasty to throw out theories.


#1323

Possible is misleading. Extremely improbable, infantessimally low likelihood is better descriptor.


#1324

Eh. I don’t believe in the science of “man made” global warming. But, I do believe there are ardent supporters of it, much like yourself. Focused on warming which is actually good so we can support our current demands.

I’d really like to see people who are so focused on what really isn’t too relevant in our lifetimes use their passion and energy to focus on what we can do right now to make our environment a better place today. Put as much energy and heart into solving an issue that is right here, right now. For example the below.