• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

Media_Truth said:
If one analyzes the CO2 increases, for about the last 10 years, we've averaged an increase of about 2.5 PPM per year. This is a higher average than 20 years ago. Assuming we stay on this path, we would increase about 202 PPM by 2100. That would put us at about 612 PPM, just below the RCP6.0 model, with a temperature increase probably around 3 deg C.
Click to expand...

But to average 2.5 ppm added each year means an incredible increase on CO2 output over time. Output to added CO2 is not a linear response.
 
Media_Truth said:
That's very interesting. I recall studying the 4th power calculation, using the Stefan Boltzman constant, in college Physics, but it's been awhile. It makes sense that this is how one would calculate the trapped energy, by monitoring the Top of the Atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Really?

The balance at the TOA of the moon and earth are the same at equilibrium.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
But to average 2.5 ppm added each year means an incredible increase on CO2 output over time. Output to added CO2 is not a linear response.
Click to expand...

No disagreement here. However, I did mention that 2.5 ppm average increase in CO2 was lower than that 20 years ago (between 1.5 and 2 ppm). So if anything, we seem to be heading in the wrong direction. That's not to say that this trend will continue. I don't see it dropping below a 2 ppm average in my lifetime. Do you?
 
Media_Truth said:
You may be correct that RCP6.0 will be the most relevant Representative Concentration Pathway. Just like the IPCC shows a year-2100 temperature range increase of 1.5-4.5 deg C, they show a range of RCPs. Here's what the NOAA says about a RCP6.0 scenario. Are you OK with that for your Great-Grand-Children?

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/climate-model-temperature-change-rcp-60-2006-2100/

Projections for temperature according to RCP 6.0 include continuous global warming through 2100 where CO2 levels rise to 670ppm by 2100 making the global temperature rise by about 3-4°C by 2100.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Media_Truth. :2wave:

In truth, I question why all we hear about is global warming, but we have also had serious global cooling on this planet, which has the potential of being just as harmful to us as heating, albeit in different ways. Since we have the written records of those who lived in Northern Europe, we learned that the coming of the little ice age in the early 1300s went on to last for over 200 years! Since this followed a period of warmer-than-normal temperatures, it's not surprising that very low temperatures were quite horrifying to those who had not prepared for the misery of worrying about possible starvation plus the ever-present need to stay warm.

IMO, since I have kept written records for many, many years of my very own vegetable and fruit gardening endeavors, which is nothing compared to the problems people faced in the "little ice age," I did learn what I could no longer plant and expect to harvest as I watched the temperature slowly drop over those years, so it would not surprise me to see it get colder and stay that way for a long time - which has already happened at least once that we know of - and which many scientists were predicting at least five years ago. :shrug: l
 
marke said:
blacks don't belong in school and christians do not belong in science are nothing but idiotic old evil biases.
Click to expand...

WTF??? :shock:
 
Threegoofs said:
Learn about molecular biology and get back to us.

Because the concept of evolution being some old theory is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Doesn't evidence from studies in molecular biology prove that Darwin's idea that a single-celled creature spawned all future life forms was just ignorant erroneous **** and bull speculation?
 
marke said:
Doesn't evidence from studies in molecular biology prove that Darwin's idea that a single-celled creature spawned all future life forms was just ignorant erroneous **** and bull speculation?
Click to expand...

No.

Pretty much the opposite.

Like I said, learn it and get back to us.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Record Lobster Production Defies Alarmist Climate Scare[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by James Taylor Marine fisheries data show New England lobstermen are benefiting from a new golden age of lobster, thanks in large part to a warming Earth. Yet Democrats in Congress and even lobster lobbyists asserted in House climate hearings earlier in February that global warming is causing a lobster apocalypse. Thankfully, facts…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Media_Truth. :2wave:

In truth, I question why all we hear about is global warming, but we have also had serious global cooling on this planet, which has the potential of being just as harmful to us as heating, albeit in different ways. Since we have the written records of those who lived in Northern Europe, we learned that the coming of the little ice age in the early 1300s went on to last for over 200 years! Since this followed a period of warmer-than-normal temperatures, it's not surprising that very low temperatures were quite horrifying to those who had not prepared for the misery of worrying about possible starvation plus the ever-present need to stay warm.

IMO, since I have kept written records for many, many years of my very own vegetable and fruit gardening endeavors, which is nothing compared to the problems people faced in the "little ice age," I did learn what I could no longer plant and expect to harvest as I watched the temperature slowly drop over those years, so it would not surprise me to see it get colder and stay that way for a long time - which has already happened at least once that we know of - and which many scientists were predicting at least five years ago. :shrug: l
Click to expand...

Five years ago? Any link to support that comment? Have you seen recent temp charts?

Temp-graphic-NASA.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 10Hottest_NOAA.jpg
    10Hottest_NOAA.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 60
Media_Truth said:
No disagreement here. However, I did mention that 2.5 ppm average increase in CO2 was lower than that 20 years ago (between 1.5 and 2 ppm). So if anything, we seem to be heading in the wrong direction. That's not to say that this trend will continue. I don't see it dropping below a 2 ppm average in my lifetime. Do you?
Click to expand...

That depends on Asia now, doesn't it? I think the current rate is close to 3 ppm per year. The 2.5 is over the decade.
 
Threegoofs said:
No.

Pretty much the opposite.

Like I said, learn it and get back to us.
Click to expand...

The opposite? Here is an article which can serve as an expose of the shaky foundation upon which various secular theories of life's origin rest. Secularists still cannot prove their theories are scientific facts, cannot deny those theories rest in part on unproven assumptions, and still cannot eliminate unanswered questions and unsolved problems with the various theories which suggest how life might have started on earth without God.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
 
marke said:
which of the following statements is nothing but disrespectful dishonest bias?

"blacks are stupid." "christian scientists are quacks."
Click to expand...

WTF??? :shock:
 
marke said:
The opposite? Here is an article which can serve as an expose of the shaky foundation upon which various secular theories of life's origin rest. Secularists still cannot prove their theories are scientific facts, cannot deny those theories rest in part on unproven assumptions, and still cannot eliminate unanswered questions and unsolved problems with the various theories which suggest how life might have started on earth without God.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me.

Like I said, get back to me when you learn something.
 
Threegoofs said:
No.

Pretty much the opposite.

Like I said, learn it and get back to us.
Click to expand...

"Learn?" Try to read this typical secular article for understanding. I suggest a careless reading will give comfort to those wishing to maintain the erroneous idea that all life on earth evolved from a single-celled organism, but that is not what scientific research has demonstrated. In fact scientific research has not submitted any irrefutable evidence to support any secular assumption that life may have begun on earth apart from the supernatural creation of God.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
 
marke said:
"Learn?" Try to read this typical secular article for understanding. I suggest a careless reading will give comfort to those wishing to maintain the erroneous idea that all life on earth evolved from a single-celled organism, but that is not what scientific research has demonstrated. In fact scientific research has not submitted any irrefutable evidence to support any secular assumption that life may have begun on earth apart from the supernatural creation of God.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
Click to expand...

Yeah, it supports the concept that current life comes from a common ancestor.

This is basic stuff if you have a rudimentary idea of molecular biology.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah, it supports the concept that current life comes from a common ancestor.

This is basic stuff if you have a rudimentary idea of molecular biology.
Click to expand...

That is not molecular biology. It is not 'basic stuff'. It is religion. It is not possible to test whether current life came from a single cell as an ancestor.
 
Threegoofs said:
Thanks for your informed opinion as always.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising that he rejects biology and evolution. Rejecting the existence of the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect appears to be a zealous religious belief as well. I wonder if he also believes the age of the earth is only thousands of years instead of ~4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. Probably uses Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham's absurd tactic of asking "Were you there?"
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah, it supports the concept that current life comes from a common ancestor.

This is basic stuff if you have a rudimentary idea of molecular biology.
Click to expand...

Let's examine what is written for proper interpretation, separating the speculations from the irrefutable proofs. First, the article headline claims that some study has found that all species evolved from a single cell. Did the researchers prove that assumption or conclusion to be irrefutable fact or was that just their best scientific interpretation of the results of their experimentation?

From the article we find the lead researcher has determined that the "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" is unrealistic based upon mathematical probability. Theobald also opined that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis."

"A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar as they are," Theobald said.

Is common ancestry a fact or an assumption? Theobald called it an "Assumption."
 
marke said:
Let's examine what is written for proper interpretation, separating the speculations from the irrefutable proofs. First, the article headline claims that some study has found that all species evolved from a single cell. Did the researchers prove that assumption or conclusion to be irrefutable fact or was that just their best scientific interpretation of the results of their experimentation?

From the article we find the lead researcher has determined that the "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" is unrealistic based upon mathematical probability. Theobald also opined that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis."

"A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar as they are," Theobald said.

Is common ancestry a fact or an assumption? Theobald called it an "Assumption."
Click to expand...

Your understanding of science is dismal.
 
Threegoofs said:
Your understanding of science is dismal.
Click to expand...

But my reading comprehension is good, right? Did the article say scientists have proved all life descended from a common ancestor? Of course not.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah, it supports the concept that current life comes from a common ancestor.

This is basic stuff if you have a rudimentary idea of molecular biology.
Click to expand...

Assumptions, speculations and computer calculations support the common ancestor theory, but irrefutable facts do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom