MannyDelgado's forum posts

Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"] HI : > And interesting post, thanksMrPraline

Suplol

not much drowning in work but fine otherwise ty how is uni going?

I'm in the same position as you then, due to incoming exams D;

It's going OK thanks. I got funding for my summer research project which was nice. Although I don't know why I need it, since I'm just going to be sat at a PC the whole time. Oh well.

Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts
I assure you that it's possible to find plenty of "peer reviewed" litature about false global warming in the library and the internet and people you meet on the street.GOGOGOGURT
This sentence is good satire Shame you didn't intend it to be
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] Sure, but if it has happened before, can we blame humanity for 100% of the current occurrences? MrPraline
Well, clearly it wouldn't be reasonable to claim that all natural climate change has somehow halted entirely; non-anthropgenic factors continue to influence the climate alongside anthropogenic ones, and perhaps the best way to assess their relative significance is basically just to run simulations of the climate during the past century or so with and without human GHG emissions taken into account, the results of which are that practically all of the recent climate change is predicted to be anthropogenic. Also worth taking into account that most of the natural climate change is due to Milankovich cycles, which are very predictable and consequently known not to have any significant effect during the past century

HI : > And interesting post, thanks

Suplol

Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]The question is slightly off because climate change is generally accepted as fact. The degree as to which humans are to blame for something that has been happening for billions of years is, somehow, still debated.MrPraline
That's a bit of a weird stance to take - the fact that something is happening doesn't mean we can't influence it.

Sure, but if it has happened before, can we blame humanity for 100% of the current occurrences?

Well, clearly it wouldn't be reasonable to claim that all natural climate change has somehow halted entirely; non-anthropgenic factors continue to influence the climate alongside anthropogenic ones, and perhaps the best way to assess their relative significance is basically just to run simulations of the climate during the past century or so with and without human GHG emissions taken into account, the results of which are that practically all of the recent climate change is predicted to be anthropogenic. Also worth taking into account that most of the natural climate change is due to Milankovich cycles, which are very predictable and consequently known not to have any significant effect during the past century
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts

A lot of you fail to realize that time and space are the same thing. There is no one without the other, they aren't even two sides of the same coin, they're the same damn side.

Time may be something unique to our universe, even if there are others out there. Don't think about it, no one can comprehend it, but...math.

To speculate anything about 'before the big bang' is to not fully grasp the value of that fact.

Distance through time is just as spatial as the distance between me and my monitor, it's just in a different direction other than up, down, left, right, back or forward.

The speed at which you move through time is affected by the speed in which you move through space. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. You're diverting momentum from one direction (time) to another (distance).

br0kenrabbit
I don't think this is quite right - the implication seems to be that 'there is nothing special about the time dimension', which is not really true because time carries the opposite sign to the spatial dimensions in the Minkowski tensor, which gives spacetime a hyperbolic structure in which time plays a privileged role
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts

[QUOTE="4myAmuzumament"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Even if they work all day erry day at universities and laboratories as motherf****ing SCIENTISTS? It's not a fact. It's a position. Get over it and move on with your life. Ninja-Hippo
lol it doesn't matter what position you have. humans that are alive and breathing affect the earths climate. even if one human was on earth and he wasn't a scientist, he would be affecting the earths climate ever so slightly. do you see the light now? only when there are no more humans will humans not be affecting the climate.

It's not a matter of seeing the light, it's a matter of you having a really pedantic and pointless point of view. Breathing does not affect the GLOBAL climate. Don't be ridiculous. When scientists speak of climate change, I'm pretty sure they're referring to an actual measurable change rather than a change in the climate in the immediate area of your mouth after you exhale. This is like a debate of whether or not the sun is hot but you can never get around to it because one guy wants to debate whether or not it exists.

It does though - just by a very tiny amount.

What he's trying to illustrate is that it's inevitable that humans are affecting the climate, and the real question is 'by how much'

Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts
[QUOTE="4myAmuzumament"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

Scientific studies in favor of man-made global warming.

Scientific studies not in favor of man-made global warming.


Learn the difference between a fact and something you very strongly believe to be true. 

 

Ninja-Hippo
you missed my point entirely. the rate at which humans affect the climate will ALWAYS be there, whether the affect is positive OR negative.

Again, many scientists would disagree with you entirely and say that humans have no effect at all on the climate.

LOL
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Elaborate. Because last I read the scientific community couldn't agree on that....

Yeah, but you've not read very much, have you? It's simple: models predict that the temperature to which the climate is going to rise is strongly dependent upon the amount of atmospheric CO2 (and other, less significant human factors), which is in turn strongly dependent upon the amount of fossil fuel burning that occurs

I didn't say some scientists did blame humans per se...I said there is no consensus.

Oh - in that case, what coolbeans said pretty much
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts
[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]

[QUOTE="4myAmuzumament"] is reducing the human impact really going to change anything really? as long as there are sentient human beings, we will always be impacting the the climate. it's natural and we should accept things as they happen because trying to control it is a waste imo.LJS9502_basic

Yes

next question

Elaborate. Because last I read the scientific community couldn't agree on that....

Yeah, but you've not read very much, have you? It's simple: models predict that the temperature to which the climate is going to rise is strongly dependent upon the amount of atmospheric CO2 (and other, less significant human factors), which is in turn strongly dependent upon the amount of fossil fuel burning that occurs
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
MannyDelgado

1187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 MannyDelgado
Member since 2011 • 1187 Posts
[QUOTE="4myAmuzumament"][QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="4myAmuzumament"] there is less ice now than 10000 years ago. the earth is warming up. this is evidence my friend. why can't you see this?

It's evidence that climate change occurs naturally on long timescales, which everyone knows already and which in no way contradicts the assertion that the last ~100 years of warming have been primarily driven by human activity. tl;dr f*ck off

you're on the internet because of previous human activity? you would rather us not have all the cool things we have now? such a backwards m.o. smh

That was a dumber response than I'd thought possible