Global warming is real

[dantes]

Far more convincing than your argument which relies on 100% speculation.

[Samm]

@dantes

Far more convincing than your argument which relies on 100% speculation.

That’s what a hypothesis is.

[dantes]

It’s really not. Hypothesis are informed by observation.

You’re just guessing.

[Samm]

@dantes

It’s really not. Hypothesis are informed by observation.

You’re just guessing.

That is only one genesis of a hypothesis, but you are right … scientists have observed that there have been many climatic changes on Earth, and a shift in orbit is one possibility to explain that. And how could the orbit be changed? One possibility is “near misses” by celestial bodies.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

If 1400 posts in you guys are arguing about what a hypothesis is, maybe just agree to disagree

[dantes]

You really have no idea of what an insanely lucky coincidence it would take for that to happen.

Or we could go with what we already know about how our orbit changes based on interactions with the gas giants.

[Samm]

@dantes

You really have no idea of what an insanely lucky coincidence it would take for that to happen.

Or we could go with what we already know about how our orbit changes based on interactions with the gas giants.

Once every 100,000 years or so is all it would take.

[dantes]

Once every 100,000 years is not an lucky coincidence in the universe’s frame of reference.

That’s a common event.

[WildRose]

@dantes

You moved the goal posts. You stated that nuclear power plants produce a “tremendous” amount of water vapor but admit that no one has ever calculated it. Now you’re shifting the topic back to the product of all human activity.

“Common sense” is not a substitute for science which isn’t based on assumptions. Again, if you want to claim that the earth is warming because we’ve increased water vapor through burning fossil fuels, then congratulations you’ve just signed on to AGW via the burning of foss

I haven’t moved anything. Any plant that uses steam for energy production is putting off a tremendous amount of water vapor. I don’t need to measure all the effluent from all the plants to recognize that.

The discussion was never limited to nuclear production nor did you specify it.

@WildRose

Not just fossil fuels. Even nuclear reactors produce a tremendous amount of steam and vapor.

[WildRose]

@dantes

@WildRose

All of your drivel aside, my objections are based solely on good science.

You cannot draw an accurate conclusion unless you eliminate all other possible contributing factors.

If you’re going to claim that our recent warming is due to man interfering with the natural cycle you must compare this cycle to those that predate industrialization. There is no other honest way to even begin to approach it.

It has never been shown anywhere experimentally that X rise in CO2 can cause Y rise in temperatures at any level in which CO2 remains a trace gas. In order to do so you have to raise CO2 to such a level that it would kill all air breathing animal life on the planet.

How can you claim the experiment is never done but somehow understand the results of such an experiment?

Let me help you, “where CO2 remains a trace gas”.

[WildRose]

Yes, theoretically we could burn off enough oxygen that it would no longer support animal life.

[Samm]

@dantes

Once every 100,000 years is not an lucky coincidence in the universe’s frame of reference.

That’s a common event.

Then it would make orbit disturbances common. How many climatic changes have occurred since land rose from the sea?

Imrightyourwrong is right on this one (for once) … you have beaten this dead horse to pulp.

[WildRose]

@BigBear

@WildRose

All of your drivel aside, my objections are based solely on good science.

Well, that’s the point: your objections are not based solely, or even partially, on “good science.”
They’re based on ideology, and then attempted backfill of handwaving gibberish claimed to be “good science.”

But let’s hear it: what’s this “good science” supporting your objections and denial? Where are the myriad peer-reviewed papers published in legitimate journals that show that AGW theory is wrong? Where are those peer-reviewed papers that support your contentions? I stand ready to read.

Try reading the rest of the post you ignored.

@WildRose

You cannot draw an accurate conclusion unless you eliminate all other possible contributing factors.

If you’re going to claim that our recent warming is due to man interfering with the natural cycle you must compare this cycle to those that predate industrialization. There is no other honest way to even begin to approach it.

It has never been shown anywhere experimentally that X rise in CO2 can cause Y rise in temperatures at any level in which CO2 remains a trace gas. In order to do so you have to raise CO2 to such a level that it would kill all air breathing animal life on the planet.

[WildRose]

@dantes

It’s hard to describe how much is incorrect in this post.

For starters, you don’t calculate orbits with third grade math.

The distance from earth is measured in a straight line. We cannot know the orbit of an object that hasn’t even been discovered nor can it be calculated.

[WildRose]

The discovery of Proxima b points to just how difficult it is even with a concerted effort to locate a planet the size of the earth when closely studying a very small area of space.

Found! Potentially Earth-Like Planet at Proxima Centauri Is Closest Ever

[dantes]

Extremely lucky coincidences don’t happen every 100,000 years. Your idea is indeed a dead horse since you never had a leg to stand on.

[dantes]

I can tell you one thing for certain: it’s orbit is not a straight line to our planet.

[dantes]

You started talking about nuclear plants producing a “tremendous” amount of water vapor and that’s what I specifically asked you about. If you can’t follow a simple conversation, then your scientific ability is likewise in doubt.

In order to recognize whether it’s a “tremendous” amount, you should at least have an estimate of it’s production, otherwise you’re introducing unscientific assumptions into a discussion supposedly about science.

[Samm]

@dantes

Extremely lucky coincidences don’t happen every 100,000 years. Your idea is indeed a dead horse since you never had a leg to stand on.

I didn’t say that it happened every 100,000 years, I said if it happened every 100,000 years on average (as an example, not a statement of fact) it would have happened some 35,000 times since life began. You know, like the average interval between major eruptions at Yellowstone is 700,000 years even though the actual interval between any two eruptions has never been 700,000 years.

[dantes]

Like I said, this doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Pure conjecture isn’t scientific.