Science from the other side of Climate Change

[IBDaMann]

Science from the other side of Climate Change​

Dollars-to-donuts says that this post is entirely devoid of any science, and instead covers only religious beliefs.

This is believed to occur over thousands of years,

Right off the bat, we are told that this thread only discusses beliefs, and that those beliefs are about an undefined "this."

which isn't going to do anything about increased temperature, extreme weather, etc now or in the near future.

So whatever it is in which ZenMode believes, he is not discussing any increased temperature, now or in the near future.

Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia, new study finds

ZenMode still hasn't learned thermodynamics; he still doesn't understand that nothing has any power to "regulate" its own temperature, and that the laws of thermodynamics do all temperature "regulating."

Scientists have confirmed that a “stabilizing feedback” on 100,000-year timescales keeps global temperatures in check.

Well, it appears that the religious sermon has taken a turn into tabloid reporting.

Science says nothing about the unobserved past. No humans, not even scientists, can "confirm" anything about the unobserved past.

The Earth’s climate has undergone some big changes,

It would appear that there is no global climate in the first place, so there is nothing to undergo big changes.

from global volcanism to planet-cooling ice ages

Nobody has shown that any of this has ever happened.

and dramatic shifts in solar radiation.

Solar radiation doesn't shift. What does that even mean?

And yet life, for the last 3.7 billion years, has kept on beating.

Nobody knows for how long life has existed on Earth.

Now, a study by MIT researchers

Studies are not science. Studies are simply someone's opinion, written into a document and called "a study." I bet that if this "study" had had any science, that you would have posted it.

in Science Advances confirms that

Science cannot confirm anything, unless by "science" you are actually refering to some WACKY religion.

the planet harbors a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism

This is gibberish referring to a "miracle" of said religion.

that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to pull the climate back from the brink,

... more gibberish.

keeping global temperatures within a steady, habitable range.

There is no such thing as a global temperature, much less multiple ones.

— a geological process by which the slow and steady weathering of silicate rocks involves chemical reactions that ultimately draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into ocean sediments, trapping the gas in rocks.

Too funny. Notice that the "regulation of temperature" doesn't involve temperature in any way, only the storage of gas in rocks.

Scientists have long suspected that silicate weathering plays a major role in regulating

There are no scientists who "suspect" this.

 

[Into the Night]

You are ignoring science

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!

by denying the impact of the Earth's atmosphere on high and low temperatures.

You cannot create energy out of nothing by the mere presence of any gas or vapor, Void.

 

[ZenMode]

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!

You cannot create energy out of nothing by the mere presence of any gas or vapor, Void.

Educate yourself on how the atmosphere impacts temperatures and get back to me.

Hint: nowhere in the process is energy created out of nothing.

 

[ZenMode]

Dollars-to-donuts says that this post is entirely devoid of any science, and instead covers only religious beliefs.


Right off the bat, we are told that this thread only discusses beliefs, and that those beliefs are about an undefined "this."


So whatever it is in which ZenMode believes, he is not discussing any increased temperature, now or in the near future.


ZenMode still hasn't learned thermodynamics; he still doesn't understand that nothing has any power to "regulate" its own temperature, and that the laws of thermodynamics do all temperature "regulating."


Well, it appears that the religious sermon has taken a turn into tabloid reporting.

Science says nothing about the unobserved past. No humans, not even scientists, can "confirm" anything about the unobserved past.


It would appear that there is no global climate in the first place, so there is nothing to undergo big changes.


Nobody has shown that any of this has ever happened.


Solar radiation doesn't shift. What does that even mean?


Nobody knows for how long life has existed on Earth.


Studies are not science. Studies are simply someone's opinion, written into a document and called "a study." I bet that if this "study" had had any science, that you would have posted it.


Science cannot confirm anything, unless by "science" you are actually refering to some WACKY religion.


This is gibberish referring to a "miracle" of said religion.


... more gibberish.


There is no such thing as a global temperature, much less multiple ones.


Too funny. Notice that the "regulation of temperature" doesn't involve temperature in any way, only the storage of gas in rocks.


There are no scientists who "suspect" this.

FYI....again, this is something you should already know..... Neither climate change nor this MIT research to the contrary are known to be true, nor have I ever said they were. Both are details on what may be the case.

Again, if you or Into the Abyss had an ounce of intellectual curiosity, this wouldn't be news to you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Bottom line: natural stabilizing doesn't account for about 3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale. The latter greatly effects the former, whether the myopic research of climate change deniers accept it or not.

 

[IBDaMann]

FYI....again, this is something you should already know

Here we have that underfined "this" again. Apparently I should already know "this." Too funny.

..... Neither climate change nor this MIT research to the contrary are known to be true,

Without any rational basis, it isn't science. Yet you felt obligated to include that word in the title of the thread. You nullified any arguments you might make.

Both are details on what may be the case.

That contradicts the word "science" in the thread title.

 

[IBDaMann]

natural stabilizing

There is no such thing.

doesn't account for about 3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale.

None of this has happened.

I have an idea: try honesty on your next post. You can't do any worse than you are doing now.

 

[ZenMode]

Here we have that underfined "this" again. Apparently I should already know "this." Too funny.


Without any rational basis, it isn't science. Yet you felt obligated to include that word in the title of the thread. You nullified any arguments you might make.


That contradicts the word "science" in the thread title.

Climate change and the MIT study are both based in science, you fool. Something you already knew, but insist on playing dumb, just as you do in regard to the "creation of energy" claim. If you had ANY knowledge of how climate change is believed to work, specifically as it relates to increase in temperature, you would repeat such idiocy, because it's not there.

Again, that would require you to a) be honest and b) have actual intellectual curiosity.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Climate change and the MIT study are both based in science, you fool. Something you already knew, but insist on playing dumb, just as you do in regard to the "creation of energy" claim. If you had ANY knowledge of how climate change is believed to work, specifically as it relates to increase in temperature, you would repeat such idiocy, because it's not there.

Again, that would require you to a) be honest and b) have actual intellectual curiosity.

Zen, a bit of advice here:

 

[AProudLefty]

Dollars-to-donuts says that this post is entirely devoid of any science, and instead covers only religious beliefs.


Right off the bat, we are told that this thread only discusses beliefs, and that those beliefs are about an undefined "this."


So whatever it is in which ZenMode believes, he is not discussing any increased temperature, now or in the near future.


ZenMode still hasn't learned thermodynamics; he still doesn't understand that nothing has any power to "regulate" its own temperature, and that the laws of thermodynamics do all temperature "regulating."


Well, it appears that the religious sermon has taken a turn into tabloid reporting.

Science says nothing about the unobserved past. No humans, not even scientists, can "confirm" anything about the unobserved past.


It would appear that there is no global climate in the first place, so there is nothing to undergo big changes.


Nobody has shown that any of this has ever happened.


Solar radiation doesn't shift. What does that even mean?


Nobody knows for how long life has existed on Earth.


Studies are not science. Studies are simply someone's opinion, written into a document and called "a study." I bet that if this "study" had had any science, that you would have posted it.


Science cannot confirm anything, unless by "science" you are actually refering to some WACKY religion.


This is gibberish referring to a "miracle" of said religion.


... more gibberish.


There is no such thing as a global temperature, much less multiple ones.


Too funny. Notice that the "regulation of temperature" doesn't involve temperature in any way, only the storage of gas in rocks.


There are no scientists who "suspect" this.

"Science says nothing about the unobserved past. No humans, not even scientists, can "confirm" anything about the unobserved past."

Word play. If the past is unobserved, then of course nobody knows.

 

[IBDaMann]

Climate change and the MIT study are both based in science

Neither have anything to do with science.

If you had ANY knowledge of how climate change is believed to work,

If only you could grasp the idea that no religion is science, even if it has "Science" in the name (e.g. Christian Science, Climate Science, etc.), you would be on your way to clarity.

specifically as it relates to increase in temperature,

You've had over a year to explain this in a way that doesn't violate science, math or logic, but you can't even get out of the starting gate.

Learn what science is

 

[IBDaMann]

Word play. If the past is unobserved, then of course nobody knows.

Too funny. In the first two words you completely dismiss my position with which you totally agree in the subsequent statement.

 

[AProudLefty]

Too funny.

That's correct. Your word play is too funny.

 

[ZenMode]

Neither have anything to do with science.




If only you could grasp the idea that no religion is science, even if it has "Science" in the name (e.g. Christian Science, Climate Science, etc.), you would be on your way to clarity.


You've had over a year to explain this in a way that doesn't violate science, math or logic, but you can't even get out of the starting gate.

Learn what science is

You removed the important part, which has been pointed out to you multiple times....

You have no intellectual curiosity. If you did, you would stop making the claim that climate change, if it works the way it is believed, "creates" energy.

Let me know when you a) educate yourself and/or b) decide to stop being dishonest.

 

[Into the Night]

Educate yourself on how the atmosphere impacts temperatures and get back to me.

Hint: nowhere in the process is energy created out of nothing.

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Bottom line: natural stabilizing

There is no 'tipping point'.

doesn't account for about 3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation,

There are more trees than ever. Also, grass absorbs carbon dioxide more than a tree. Why are you so afraid of carbon dioxide?

urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale.

What is this so-called 'pollution'?

The latter greatly effects the former, whether the myopic research of climate change deniers accept it or not.

Climate cannot change. No research needed.

 

[Into the Night]

Climate change and the MIT study are both based in science, you fool.

Climate cannot change. Science does not redefine English words.
Science is not a study or research.

You still deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Kirchoff's law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are theories of science that YOU deny.

Something you already knew, but insist on playing dumb, just as you do in regard to the "creation of energy" claim.

It is YOU claiming the creation of energy out nothing. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

If you had ANY knowledge of how climate change is believed to work, specifically as it relates to increase in temperature, you would repeat such idiocy, because it's not there.

Climate has not temperature. Climate cannot change.
You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Again, that would require you to a) be honest and b) have actual intellectual curiosity.

A fundamentalist religion such as the Church of Global Warming isn't intellectual curiosity.

 

[Into the Night]

Zen, a bit of advice here:

Theories of science is not an idiot.

 

[gfm7175]

Again....you claim the Earth's atmosphere has NO impact on temperature on the surface. You are either scientifically ignorant or a liar. Either way, your opinion is irrelevant as a result.

Again.... redistributing thermal energy from one part of Earth to another part of Earth does not add any additional thermal energy to Earth.

Earth's temperature remains the same. Earth remains in equilibrium.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA

I didn't ask a question. I made statements. You have repeatedly claimed that man-made climate change involves the creation of energy. I'm doing so, you have repeatedly proven that you are either a) ignorant or dishonest.