Tot admits of human effect on global warming!

[teacher]

And teacher... you're only the warden in the basement. Up here your powers mean nothing.

From this place where my Warden powers have ended but my true God-like powers still exist.

Top Ten reasons Sir Alec said that.

10. C- in "Billo's Apprentice 101" class.
9. Tin Foil Hat made up of old Hershey Kisses wrappers.
8. Trying to impress TOT.
7. Only way he could figure to get my attention so that I would explain to him the shape of the Pentagon. (Bro, it's got five equal sides.)
6. Knows I'm the guy to see for someone with a monkey fetish.
5. Assumes that because I'm "The Warden" I can introduce him to "Bubba".
4. Finally figured out how to get a Top Ten list of his very own.
3. PM default address went to him in the latest DP "Hey teacher get up off your lazy azz, stop debating politics, and write a new friggin TT list" letter writing campaign.
2. Masochism.

And the number one reason why Sir Alec said that.

1. Mom's French. Dad's French. Dog's a Poodle. Loves Berets. Sings "Alluette" in the shower. You figure it out.

 

[Enola/Alone]

Oh, I could go find some, I just don't do that. I'd rather tell you people water is wet then giggle my friggin azz of when you yell for a source on it.

The point is, if you need a source for common knowledge then you're too friggin stupid to understand the source. Or maybe you are here to play some "who can come up with a better source" game, for simple matters.

Or I could get all stupid and tell you to prove to me that there aren't a billion Chinese cooking and heating with dirty burning coal. Would you come back by asking me to prove there are a billion Chinese?

There is a palm tree outside of my window. Do you need to see me standing in front of my window with a copy of todays newspaper?

I don't play stupid word games with children. Claim victory, but we both know what the real deal is.

Try this one on: The sun rises in the East.

It's okay Teacher, no one thinks any less of you for making a claim and then being unable/unwilling to back it up with evidence, nd then giliding the lilly by calling me a child. Rock on, little spinning top! :spin:

 

[jfuh]

Hope you're not being sarcastic there because I agree. What I want to see is a scientific estimate of what percantage the warming climate is attributed to man and what is the normal cyclical increase. Is that too much to ask? Then we can debate that number and what to do about it.

Let's see how you respond to this then.

The newly analysed ice does show that although the climate is in constant flux, it is capable of producing extended warm phases even when carbon dioxide levels are stable, says Stocker. Two places in the record, for example, are marked by periods of almost 30,000 years when temperature hardly changed at all. And the beginning of these 'interglacial' phases was not linked to rises in carbon dioxide.

That's not to say that current rises in temperature are due to natural shifts, as some climate-change sceptics have claimed. "The CO2 emitted now is not part of the natural cycle," Stocker points out.

"In the palaeorecord there's no human activity driving the change," says Chris Jones, of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, UK. The current challenge facing climate modellers is to work out the one-way effect of the huge spike in greenhouse gases now being pumped into our skies by human activities.

Source

Get these two friggin extreme sides:

The sky is falling, it's one hundred percent caused by man and we are all gonna die in 3 days...

No one has said 3 days. However the whole over antarctica is 100% caused by humans and ppl were saying that it's only a normal cycle of ozone. And that's been changed. Global warming today is indeed 100% caused by humans and something significant needs to be done about it within the next 10 years.

 

[teacher]

It's okay Teacher, no one thinks any less of you for making a claim and then being unable/unwilling to back it up with evidence, nd then giliding the lilly by calling me a child. Rock on, little spinning top! :spin:

How about you tell me which claim specifically you have a problem with. I'll argue it with common sense, well known facts and logic. No links or sources. We all have our own styles here Enola, part of mine is to debate without the crutch of the internet. You'll notice I don't ask others for sources. I debate straight from my colossal brain. When you've been here a while you will pick up on these things. Instead of challenging me to cite sources, why don't you try challenging me with what you know in your own words. Matter of fact, you're not even debating, you're just attempting to give me a hard time. Maybe something else you will pick up after you've been here a while is that I'm not the guy to do that to. I'm not worried about what anyone thinks of me. Something else you might pick up on when you grow up. Now if you just want to have a smack off, I think I just might be able to bring something to that party.

 

[teacher]

Let's see how you respond to this then.

The sky is falling.

No one has said 3 days. However the whole over antarctica is 100% caused by humans and ppl were saying that it's only a normal cycle of ozone.

Then answer me this. Why is it that the animals of the Artic regions, Seals, Walrus, Penguins, Polar bears, have skin secretions that give then UV protection way above what other animals have? To me that shows they have evloved over millions of years to deal with the extra UV light that comes from this cyclical ozone deal. And doesn't sunlight make ozone? And what is there a lack of part of every year in the Artic regions? What logical decuctions have led you to believe that the ozone holes are 100 percent caused by us? I can go list sites that will counter what you say. We were going the common sence route, remember?

And that's been changed. Global warming today is indeed 100% caused by humans and something significant needs to be done about it within the next 10 years.

Carbon Dioxide bla bla bla. One cause of the shift is at times the change in the Deep Ocean Current. Apart from ozone, deodorant, fossil fuels, the hole nine yards. Climatologists don't yet understand the big picture and you claim you do? Climatologist are learning something new, new factors every day. Did you see the most recent documentary called "The Dimming Sun"? Over the past few decades the suns strength at the ground has lessened by 10 percent. They know this from evaporation tray measurements. Fossil fuel burning puts more particulate matter in the air. These particles give greater purchase for water droplets to form. More water drops in the air means more sunlight reflected back into space. This is a definite measured factor. So while burning fossil fuel adds CO2, on the same hand it causes less sun to hit the Earth, actually slowing global warming. There's a conundrum for you.

There you go bro. teacher logic. Now your sources say what?

 

[jfuh]

The sky is falling.

Would you like to refute a Nature publication then?

Then answer me this. Why is it that the animals of the Artic regions, Seals, Walrus, Penguins, Polar bears, have skin secretions that give then UV protection way above what other animals have? To me that shows they have evloved over millions of years to deal with the extra UV light that comes from this cyclical ozone deal. And doesn't sunlight make ozone? And what is there a lack of part of every year in the Artic regions? What logical decuctions have led you to believe that the ozone holes are 100 percent caused by us? I can go list sites that will counter what you say. We were going the common sence route, remember?

One very simple reason, snow and ice reflect sunlight. No other ecosystem has such issues, thus no need to evolve such protection.
Sunlight does make ozone, however chloroflurocarbons destroy ozone. CFC's which are completely artificial. Next?

Carbon Dioxide bla bla bla. One cause of the shift is at times the change in the Deep Ocean Current. Apart from ozone, deodorant, fossil fuels, the hole nine yards. Climatologists don't yet understand the big picture and you claim you do? Climatologist are learning something new, new factors every day. Did you see the most recent documentary called "The Dimming Sun"? Over the past few decades the suns strength at the ground has lessened by 10 percent. They know this from evaporation tray measurements. Fossil fuel burning puts more particulate matter in the air. These particles give greater purchase for water droplets to form. More water drops in the air means more sunlight reflected back into space. This is a definite measured factor. So while burning fossil fuel adds CO2, on the same hand it causes less sun to hit the Earth, actually slowing global warming. There's a conundrum for you.

Actually there's no such conundrum at all. You're describing global dimming. However it's well known of the causes and results of global dimming. Global dimming has been linked to the failure of the monsoon in north africa.
By your proposal then should we continue to inject particulates into the atmosphere? Particulates that :fyi: are carcinogenic?

There you go bro. teacher logic. Now your sources say what?

Want global dimming sources? Sure np, here you go.
Source
AS for teacher logic; two questions
1. Should we start scattering more particulates into the atmosphere through dirty combustions?
2. SHould we continue to use CFC's as refrigerants?

 

[teacher]

Would you like to refute a Nature publication then?

Put it in your own words and I'll give it a go.

One very simple reason, snow and ice reflect sunlight.

But it's dark half the year. Where as a place like Canada or Siberia has sun all year long, PLUS snow and ice reflecting surfaces half the year. More sun, yet less UV. They still have ozone, negating the need for extra UV protection. In the Artic there is no ozone during the sunlite part of the year. Giving a need for extra UV protection. Is this so hard to understand?

Sunlight does make ozone, however chloroflurocarbons destroy ozone. CFC's which are completely artificial. Next?

And many CFC's make it to the south pole? Really bro, try harder.

Actually there's no such conundrum at all. You're describing global dimming. However it's well known of the causes and results of global dimming. Global dimming has been linked to the failure of the monsoon in north africa.

No. The monsoon failure has been linked to Global Dimming.

By your proposal then should we continue to inject particulates into the atmosphere? Particulates that :fyi: are carcinogenic?

Now where the fuc*k did I say that? That's the friggin problem with debating you people. You can't stick to what was said. Always trying to win. Maybe that shi*t works with other members. I was making the point that the very burning of fossil fuels causes global dimming thereby somewhat negating your whole, global warming is 100 percent caused by man, chicken little scenario. But no, that means teacher is for global warming, maybe dirty water and mutant babies that look like Billo while your at it.

Want global dimming sources? Sure np, here you go.
Source

Put it into your own words. If you can do that and make sence of it then maybe there is something to the source. Never forget I can just as aesily go find something on the net to say the opposite. See? It's on the net, it must be true.

AS for teacher logic; two questions
1. Should we start scattering more particulates into the atmosphere through dirty combustions?
2. SHould we continue to use CFC's as refrigerants?

Yea, see, that's just a fuc*king stupid thing to say. Tells me you've lost rational sight of this debate and are now trying to discredit me with things I didn't say nor implied. That's just friggin weak, childish tactics.

No jfuh, we shouldn't.

 

[Sir_Alec]

From this place where my Warden powers have ended but my true God-like powers still exist.

Top Ten reasons Sir Alec said that.

10. C- in "Billo's Apprentice 101" class.
9. Tin Foil Hat made up of old Hershey Kisses wrappers.
8. Trying to impress TOT.
7. Only way he could figure to get my attention so that I would explain to him the shape of the Pentagon. (Bro, it's got five equal sides.)
6. Knows I'm the guy to see for someone with a monkey fetish.
5. Assumes that because I'm "The Warden" I can introduce him to "Bubba".
4. Finally figured out how to get a Top Ten list of his very own.
3. PM default address went to him in the latest DP "Hey teacher get up off your lazy azz, stop debating politics, and write a new friggin TT list" letter writing campaign.
2. Masochism.

And the number one reason why Sir Alec said that.

1. Mom's French. Dad's French. Dog's a Poodle. Loves Berets. Sings "Alluette" in the shower. You figure it out.

Ewwwwwwwwwwww... French people. I'm a Brit at heart, a Polski in blood, and an Yank in citizenship, so my food sucks either way. Watch out, I just might send the redcoats, the Wojsko Polskie, and a tomahawk missile after ya!

 

[Enola/Alone]

Ewwwwwwwwwwww... French people. I'm a Brit at heart, a Polski in blood, and an Yank in citizenship, so my food sucks either way. Watch out, I just might send the redcoats, the Wojsko Polskie, and a tomahawk missile after ya!

Ah, the wonders of multi-culturalism!

 

[teacher]

Ewwwwwwwwwwww... French people. I'm a Brit at heart, a Polski in blood, and an Yank in citizenship, so my food sucks either way. Watch out, I just might send the redcoats, the Wojsko Polskie, and a tomahawk missile after ya!

Like that is supposed to scare The Warden? Please. I'm English, Dutch, German, and used to have some French in me before I had it surgically removed and replaced with something monkey. Speaking of monkeys, of which I have an army of, they don't much like the redcoats. I think it has something to do with calling the Brits "island monkeys" for an insult, I picked that one up from the Belgians in Germany, it gives monkeys a bad name. Can't say that I blame them. The monkeys that is. I've a beef with the Brits right now. I was playing with my Warden powers two days ago in The Basement and managed to ban myself. Turns out I figured out how to do stuff that I wasn't supposed to be able to do. I can ban your azz if I want. I'm not supposed to do that. So you know the next time I get drunk I'm gonna be having a battle with myself over that whenever I see Billo's name. Anyway, friggin Garza UK was the only mod around. I sent him a PM asking him for help unbanning me. An hour later he logs off. Never no reply or help. Stace got me unbanned. Friggin Garza UK PM's me this morning wondering if I was ok. Says he was at his parents house and they have no internet and he never saw my PM. Likely story, stupid island monkey. Yea, I'm unbanned, no thanks to you I tell him.

The morale of the story?

The French suck.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Like that is supposed to scare The Warden? Please. I'm English, Dutch, German, and used to have some French in me before I had it surgically removed and replaced with something monkey. Speaking of monkeys, of which I have an army of, they don't much like the redcoats. I think it has something to do with calling the Brits "island monkeys" for an insult, I picked that one up from the Belgians in Germany, it gives monkeys a bad name. Can't say that I blame them. The monkeys that is. I've a beef with the Brits right now. I was playing with my Warden powers two days ago in The Basement and managed to ban myself. Turns out I figured out how to do stuff that I wasn't supposed to be able to do. I can ban your azz if I want. I'm not supposed to do that. So you know the next time I get drunk I'm gonna be having a battle with myself over that whenever I see Billo's name. Anyway, friggin Garza UK was the only mod around. I sent him a PM asking him for help unbanning me. An hour later he logs off. Never no reply or help. Stace got me unbanned. Friggin Garza UK PM's me this morning wondering if I was ok. Says he was at his parents house and they have no internet and he never saw my PM. Likely story, stupid island monkey. Yea, I'm unbanned, no thanks to you I tell him.

The morale of the story?

The French suck.

How do you send a pm if you were banned?

 

[teacher]

How do you send a pm if you were banned?

I was banned from posting only. Makes sense, you can appeal your banishment to "They Who Are Called They" if you want, but can't pester the community at large. Oh yea, I was "suspended" not banned. My bad.

 

[jfuh]

Put it in your own words and I'll give it a go.

I already made the citation and the quotation earlier. If you want to make a go at it, take your shot.

But it's dark half the year. Where as a place like Canada or Siberia has sun all year long, PLUS snow and ice reflecting surfaces half the year. More sun, yet less UV. They still have ozone, negating the need for extra UV protection. In the Artic there is no ozone during the sunlite part of the year. Giving a need for extra UV protection. Is this so hard to understand?

I really wonder why it's so difficult to understand. It doesn't matter that its dark for half the year. What matters is when it is light for the other half of the year. Ozone at the polar regions is limited to begin with because 1. half the year it's dark; 2. the poles attract higher conc. of solar radiation particles (thus the northern lights). You have the ozone part mixed around, it's the dark half of the year that leads to less ozone. However it's CFC's that are causing an accelerated decay of the ozone.
You do realize that there is no debate regarding whether or not humans contribute to the hole over the south pole right?

And many CFC's make it to the south pole? Really bro, try harder.

That's right. It's already prooven and accepted fact even by industry that opposed it. So I'd like to ask you here, your source?

No. The monsoon failure has been linked to Global Dimming.

That's what I said. Glad you also accept this.

Now where the fuc*k did I say that? That's the friggin problem with debating you people. You can't stick to what was said. Always trying to win. Maybe that shi*t works with other members. I was making the point that the very burning of fossil fuels causes global dimming thereby somewhat negating your whole, global warming is 100 percent caused by man, chicken little scenario. But no, that means teacher is for global warming, maybe dirty water and mutant babies that look like Billo while your at it.

No, you didn't say this, however you cited the "conundrum". Of global warming vs global dimming. You bringing up global dimming does not negate global warming the least bit. Contrary to what you think, it actually reinforces the global warming debate because dimming is the reverse, thus the reason why we haven't expereinced incredible warming trends in the last century. Ironically though now that the air is cleaner and thus there's no longer the threat of dimming as much as there was 10 years ago, global warming now no longer has the negative pull of dimming, thus the full effect of global warming - accelerated melting of greenland's glaciers.

Put it into your own words. If you can do that and make sence of it then maybe there is something to the source. Never forget I can just as aesily go find something on the net to say the opposite. See? It's on the net, it must be true.

Yes you can find something that says the exact opposite on the net. THe issue is credibility. Thus I say, care to overturn a Nature publication? If you want my own words just look above

Yea, see, that's just a fuc*king stupid thing to say. Tells me you've lost rational sight of this debate and are now trying to discredit me with things I didn't say nor implied. That's just friggin weak, childish tactics.

Then what is your argument. Make your argument, otherwise don't bring up scenarios that you do not support.

No jfuh, we shouldn't.[/quote]

 

[teacher]

However it's CFC's that are causing an accelerated decay of the ozone.
You do realize that there is no debate regarding whether or not humans contribute to the hole over the south pole right?

Now pay attention. This is the last time I repeat myself. I freely admit that humans CONTRIBUTE to the problem. Just as I say we are not the SOLE cause. Ny contention when I jumped into this debate was just that. REMEMBER? When I jumped in my main question was to what PERCENTAGE we contribute to it, as opposed to normal global cycles.

Global warming today is indeed 100% caused by humans

The Earth over ages has been in many ice ages. So it stands to reason that the Earth can warm without our friggin help at all. Why do you feel that THIS time it is completely human caused?

That's right. It's already prooven and accepted fact even by industry that opposed it. So I'd like to ask you here, your source?

My colossal brain. The science that says CFC's contibute to ozone depletion is rock solid. But the atmospere's of the two hemispheres stay largely seperate. The north produces way more CFC's than the south. Tells me the hole over the north pole should be way larger. Something is not adding up.

accelerated melting of greenland's glaciers

I don't have a problem with that. I'm asking to what percent we accelerate it.

Yes you can find something that says the exact opposite on the net. THe issue is credibility. Thus I say, care to overturn a Nature publication?

Like I said before. I don't cite sources. I try to go this with my understanding of basic science, common knowledge, and logic. I refuse to get in a war over which scientist is correct or more credible. They all can blow me. I try to get the raw facts, apply science and logic, and figure it out for myself. When I'm bored out of my friggin mind I may go look at the Nature data. Don't hold your breath. Saw a report on CNN not an hour ago that said that the scientist's models are way off. But they were dead sure a year ago. That's why I don't blindly listen to all that they say.

Then what is your argument. Make your argument, otherwise don't bring up scenarios that you do not support.

Yes Father.....Not sure what you mean there. Please extrapolate.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/298592-post24.html

REMEMBER? I'm between the sky is falling, (you) and the ostrich mentality. If you are gonna sit there and claim this is 100 percent caused by humans, I'm not gonna waste my time. Unless you can prove to me that the Earth has not warmed and cooled over history without human influence. And to do that you'll have to explain why ice ages have come and gone.

 

[jfuh]

Now pay attention. This is the last time I repeat myself. I freely admit that humans CONTRIBUTE to the problem. Just as I say we are not the SOLE cause. Ny contention when I jumped into this debate was just that. REMEMBER? When I jumped in my main question was to what PERCENTAGE we contribute to it, as opposed to normal global cycles.

Yes I know what you argued. But here's the issue, what matters of what percentage when what it is that we are doing is. In terms of Ozone, the hole's accelerated gap is 100% anthropogenic.
AS for the issue with the current CO2 spike, it too is 100% anthropogenic. The argument within the scientific community is no longer of whether or not humans are the cause, but what to do, and how to do it. There's precisely zero question that CO2 emissions need to be cut, but how and what's the alternative to fossil fuels?
There is where the argument lays.

The Earth over ages has been in many ice ages. So it stands to reason that the Earth can warm without our friggin help at all. Why do you feel that THIS time it is completely human caused?

Simple, I provided a source. If you read it you would see that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now then there ever has been in the atmosphere in over 6,500,000 years. This doesn't say anthropogenic directly, but it first establishes that there is an exceptionally high concentration. No argument there right?
Next, all studies have clearly shown an ongoing sharp spike in CO2 since the industrial revolution. It continues to rise and correlates with current energy consumptions.

My colossal brain. The science that says CFC's contibute to ozone depletion is rock solid. But the atmospere's of the two hemispheres stay largely seperate. The north produces way more CFC's than the south. Tells me the hole over the north pole should be way larger. Something is not adding up.

Though what you explain is largely true, the Equator does "cut off" weathern patterns and other atmosphereric conditions. However substances that do not decay naturally, do eventually cross down into the southern atmosphere from the northern hemisphere.

I don't have a problem with that. I'm asking to what percent we accelerate it.

100%

Like I said before. I don't cite sources. I try to go this with my understanding of basic science, common knowledge, and logic. I refuse to get in a war over which scientist is correct or more credible. They all can blow me. I try to get the raw facts, apply science and logic, and figure it out for myself. When I'm bored out of my friggin mind I may go look at the Nature data. Don't hold your breath. Saw a report on CNN not an hour ago that said that the scientist's models are way off. But they were dead sure a year ago. That's why I don't blindly listen to all that they say.

Way off in what way? They overestimated? Or underestimated. With more and more data that is coming in, we are finding that all the models are considerably off from cautious conservative estimates. Also with global dimming being newly acknowledged indeed these models are way off.

Yes Father.....Not sure what you mean there. Please extrapolate.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/298592-post24.html

REMEMBER? I'm between the sky is falling, (you) and the ostrich mentality. If you are gonna sit there and claim this is 100 percent caused by humans, I'm not gonna waste my time. Unless you can prove to me that the Earth has not warmed and cooled over history without human influence. And to do that you'll have to explain why ice ages have come and gone.

I've never said natural cycles do not occur. What I'm saying is that the current trend is un-natural. For one, as per the data collected in the 70's we should be in a cooling trend towards another ice age, however the data shows we're heading contrarily.
Either way, as per my arguments made, releasing ancient carbon sources is going to result in drastic changes that will cause huge ecological, economic and social downfalls. The other side is that we can not rely on constant imports from unstable regions, thus it's very much a security issue as well.
There's no way around it, alternatives must be used.

 

[C.J.]

Originally Posted by teacher
My colossal brain. The science that says CFC's contibute to ozone depletion is rock solid. But the atmospere's of the two hemispheres stay largely seperate. The north produces way more CFC's than the south. Tells me the hole over the north pole should be way larger. Something is not adding up.

Though what you explain is largely true, the Equator does "cut off" weathern patterns and other atmosphereric conditions. However substances that do not decay naturally, do eventually cross down into the southern atmosphere from the northern hemisphere.

Actually I don't believe that's it. First off the Antarctic ozone "hole" isn't actually a hole but a thinning of the ozone column. The ozone column in the Antarctic is approximately a third of the baseline, which is the level it was in the mid 1970's. The Arctic ozone is also thinning, and at what level this thinning is referred to as a hole, I haven't a clue.

The difference is believed to be the temperature. It's not just the amount of CFC's and bromoflurocarbons in the stratosphere, but what happens to them. Extreme cold seems to be the answer. Polar stratospheric clouds only form in extreme cold, and since the Antarctic is colder than the Arctic, more PSC's are formed there. Chlorine atoms within these clouds act as a catalyst for ozone breakdown, but without the PSC's the Chlorine can't act as a catalyst for the breakdown. Since the Arctic has fewer PSC's (Because of its comparatively warmer temperature than the Antarctic) it can handle substantially larger amounts of CFC's and bromoflurocarbons with less damage to the ozone.

At least that's how I understand it.

The bad news, an increasing number of PSC's have been cataloged over the Arctic the past several years.

PS I didn't mean to interrupt a good food fight.

Regards,

"C.J."