Conquer Club

jusplay4fun wrote:

dinosaurs caused an ice age hundreds of years ago

Really? DO you want to explain that one?

JP4Fun

2dimes wrote:That dinosaurs caused an ice age hundreds of years ago and now burning their carcasses might cause the tropical oceans to return to Alberta?

Well, there used to be these animals called dinosaurs. Then it got like 40 below and they didn't wear jackets or build huts so they froze.

Read a book man.

Yeah, I am sure you read that in a book. Of Fiction.

2dimes wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

dinosaurs caused an ice age hundreds of years ago

Really? DO you want to explain that one?

JP4Fun

2dimes wrote:That dinosaurs caused an ice age hundreds of years ago and now burning their carcasses might cause the tropical oceans to return to Alberta?

Well, there used to be these animals called dinosaurs. Then it got like 40 below and they didn't wear jackets or build huts so they froze.

Read a book man.

Do you have a dinosaur or something? You really never heard they froze?

I guess some cannot keep up with the conversation in several Forum threads on this topic. Perhaps it is deliberate obfuscation by some deniers. A brief reference to information already pointed out on the issue of Polar Bears in one of the Forum threads:

by Dukasaur
Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:02 pm

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/search.php?keywords=Polar+Bear&t=231174&sf=msgonly

tzor wrote:
4.

Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing!

Really? This is just one more bit of denialist hogwash that just won't go away. Clifford Kraus started this myth by saying "there are more than 20,000 polar bears roaming the Arctic, compared to as few as 5,000 40 years ago." The trouble with that is, while the 20,000 is reasonably accurate (best current estimate 23,000), the 5,000 is nonsense. It's pure smoke and mirrors. One Russian author in 1956 said there might be 5,000 to 8,000 polar bears in the world. He didn't do any kind of counting, he just took anecdotal accounts from bear hunters and wildly extrapolated from there. Climate change deniers have latched on to the "5000" figure as if it was gospel truth (I wonder why they didn't latch on to the 8000 number instead?) and keep repeating it, despite the fact that its just a wild guess by one man who didn't do any real counting. Even rudimentary attempts at actually counting polar bears didn't begin until the late 1980s.

In the next 40 years or so we'll have much more accurate surveys. But going 50 years into the past, any number was pure guesswork

.

You over simplify things.

https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/why-did-the-dinosaurs-die-out-1

To say dinosaurs froze to death is not supported by the evidence. Try reading some nonfiction.

2dimes wrote:Do you have a dinosaur or something? You really never heard they froze?

hilarious how JP posts the 1st thing his quick internet search brings up.. LOLOL..

he posts a link that does not provide any non-fiction evidence.. it is a Theory page..

-----------------

hmmm. if polar bear numbers are not increasing. I wonder if it is due to Global Warmi.. I mean Climate chan.. dang it .. I mean Climate Chaos..
or
Trophy Hunters..

this chart from just the Nunavut & Northwest territory from 1970 - 2008 shows about 3,000 killed by humans.. for fun

Oh, of course. Some dinosaurs died other ways. Too much fast food. Knocking pop machines over on themselves. Head injuries...

2dimes wrote:Oh, of course. Some dinosaurs died other ways. Too much fast food. Knocking pop machines over on themselves. Head injuries...

JP is a science Teacher. he knows..
the dinosaurs died from Sophistry & Obfuscation..

jimboston wrote:There’s speculation that Global Warming / Climate Change will indeed cause a mini-ice-age in the North Atlantic.

The argument is that fresh water flows into the Atlantic would break the gulf stream that keeps the eastern side of the Atlantic much warmer than the western side of the Atlantic. Looking at the map, one discovers that England and cities like London are actually north of the major east coast cities of Canada but tends to have a weather more like that of the middle of the Eastern United States. (In the winter, Long Island which is "south" of London is often colder than London. I went to London in December and I never wore a winter jacket the entire week.)

2dimes wrote:Well, there used to be these animals called dinosaurs. Then it got like 40 below and they didn't wear jackets or build huts so they froze.

As others have pointed out, NO, just NO. Dinosaurs did not have diaphragms; the largest dinosaurs were dependent on the high oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere which was due to volcanic activity. When that died down the slow drop in oxygen levels started to kill them off. The Asteroid did take out vast numbers of smaller dinosaurs but that was because all the plants died due to lack of sunshine. Of course by this time, a "dinosaur" was hard to tell apart from a "bird" so the smaller dinosaurs did live on and fly all around us every day. And the really small critters ... they evolved to humans.

Horseshoe crabs still don't understand this "evolve" thing but they are perfect already.

tzor wrote:

2dimes wrote:Well, there used to be these animals called dinosaurs. Then it got like 40 below and they didn't wear jackets or build huts so they froze.

As others have pointed out, NO, just NO. Dinosaurs did not have diaphragms; the largest dinosaurs were dependent on the high oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere which was due to volcanic activity. When that died down the slow drop in oxygen levels started to kill them off. The Asteroid did take out vast numbers of smaller dinosaurs but that was because all the plants died due to lack of sunshine. Of course by this time, a "dinosaur" was hard to tell apart from a "bird" so the smaller dinosaurs did live on and fly all around us every day. And the really small critters ... they evolved to humans.

Horseshoe crabs still don't understand this "evolve" thing but they are perfect already.

how do you know the dinosaurs didn't wear jackets...?

NomadPatriot wrote:how do you know the dinosaurs didn't wear jackets...?

When you wear magnificent plumage, you generally don't want to cover it up.

tzor wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:how do you know the dinosaurs didn't wear jackets...?

When you wear magnificent plumage, you generally don't want to cover it up.

Feathers on animals are developed for Thermal Insulation.. so technically Dinosaurs did wear jackets.. maybe to keep them from freezing ..

Although feathers cover most of the bird's bodies, they arise only from certain well-defined tracts on the skin. They aid in flight, thermal insulation, and waterproofing. In addition, coloration helps in communication.

nietzsche wrote:where's notyou2?

i'm not worried this time though, so he's fine.

Right here. Where are you?

As Eccles said,

Everybody's gotta be somewhere!

So, more evidence is warranted. Here is more support for man-made Global Warming, referred to ACC in the article below. Note that the publication is from the PNAS:

About PNAS
PNAS is one of the world's most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals, publishing more than 3,200 research papers annually.
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. The journal is global in scope and submission is open to all researchers worldwide.

Expert credibility in climate change
William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider
PNAS July 6, 2010 107 (27) 12107-12109; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short

For those that missed (or perhaps, ignored) this evidence in other threads on this topic:

Global Warming is due to man-made activity, to greater than 95% probability. The main factor is release of Greenhouse gases, mostly CO2, which has now reached unprecedented levels, over 300 ppm. What is the source of all this CO2? Simple: burning of fossil fuels, such as octane, a main component in gasoline: 2C8H18 + 25 O2 ...> 18 H2O + 16 CO2

Note that 2 moles of octane (C8H18) yields 8 times as many moles of CO2, carbon dioxide. Simple Chemistry. Ergo, CO2 levels go up, Greenhouse effect occurs, and heat is trapped and the average temperature of the earth increases. Ergo: Global Warming.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

Also:

"The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months."

All quotes from the same source, cited below;

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

problem solved.. it only took a few MIT guys to figure out a solution.. thanks engineers..
engineering = results


--> MIT Engineers Find New Way to Remove CO2 From Air

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, October 29, 2019 (ENS) – A new way of removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from a stream of air could provide a valuable tool in the battle against climate change say the engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, who developed the new system.

It can work on the heat-trapping gas at virtually any concentration level, even down to the roughly 400 parts per million currently found in the atmosphere.

Most methods of removing CO2 from a stream of other gases require higher concentrations, such as those found in the flue emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants. A few variations have been developed that can work with the low concentrations found in air, but the new method is less energy-intensive and expensive, the researchers say.

The technique, based on passing air through a stack of charged electrochemical plates, is described in a new paper in the journal “Energy and Environmental Science,” by MIT postdoc Sahag Voskian, who developed the work during his PhD, and T. Alan Hatton, the Ralph Landau professor of chemical engineering.


https://ens-newswire.com/2019/10/29/mit ... -from-air/

can JP explain co2 & the theory of man-made global warming for everyone again.. we didn't hear him the 498 previous times he said it...
it's like being stuck in a room with a fanatical left-wing extremist science teacher who does the same thing day after day after day for decades on end & doesn't know how to separate out his work life from his social life....

oh wait..

sophistry & obfuscation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO, silly one, you got it WRONG, AGAIN. What a failure.

Try again.

And avoid the hyperbole; it is JUS sound and fury, and signifies NOTHING.

Here, try this one:

The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.”
― William Faulkner, The Sound and the Fury

JP4Fun

NomadPatriot wrote:can JP explain co2 & the theory of man-made global warming for everyone again.. we didn't hear him the 498 previous times he said it...
it's like being stuck in a room with a fanatical left-wing extremist science teacher who does the same thing day after day after day for decades on end & doesn't know how to separate out his work life from his social life....

oh wait..

sophistry & obfuscation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread seems to one of the more complete thread on the topic of Global Warming. Those wanting to discuss the matter can do so here.

BTW: Thank goodness we no longer have to deal with NomadPatriot. He is a good example of someone who posted JUS to read about himself. He talks JUS to be heard and offered little real thought. He wanted to argue and not debate. He was, to quote Shakespeare "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

My apologies to those offended by mentioning his name. I know that some of you have so many bad memories of this guy.

While searching "Global Warming" in this thread, only 27 pages of quotes were given in that search.

I think COVID and the vaccines supplanted this topic. Of course, there are a few other topics that also got some attention.

Bottom line: this topic has been discussed LOTS before today and has been largely ignored in the past several months by most of us who read and post in this Forum.