Nuclear Winter and Global Warming?

[GeneralVeers]

5 minutes ago, Chakat Firepaw said:

Translation:  You can't actually defend your position and

I already did.

The three previous warm periods are common fact (actually there were eleven). That the next one is scheduled for right now is obvious. Science doesn't know what caused the previous ones, therefore there's no way to prove the same cause isn't happening now. Conclusion: it's possible today's (alleged) warming is entirely natural, and there's no way to disprove it. Anybody who tries is pulling shenanigans.

[peadar1987]

1 hour ago, WedgeAntilles said:

 

Wrong. I don't "think" greenhouse gases block more incoming than outgoing. They DO block more in than out. Huge difference.

Nope. A greenhouse gas is by definition one that blocks a greater proportion of outgoing energy than ingoing. You are wrong on the most fundamental of levels here.

[Chakat Firepaw]

12 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

I already did.

The three previous warm periods are common fact (actually there were eleven). That the next one is scheduled for right now is obvious.

I already pointed out that your pattern was bogus and your claim of eleven earlier warm periods patently false.

I'm looking at a graph of Holocene temperatures _right now_ and to even get ten warm periods means you have to be really generous with a 'not quite as cool' period 8500 years ago and treat a double peak 4200-4800 years ago as two warm periods.  Getting an eleventh Holocene warm period means adding a barely there peak about 2500 years ago which destroys your claims of a pattern even more.

To get eleven peaks every thousand years means you have to go into the last glacial period.

12 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Science doesn't know what caused the previous ones, therefore there's no way to prove the same cause isn't happening now.

Both clauses in your sentence are false.

My request for you to name the natural cause for the current warming still stands.  Are you going to run away from it a third time?

12 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Conclusion: it's possible today's (alleged) warming is entirely natural, and there's no way to disprove it. Anybody who tries is pulling shenanigans.

Your conclusion is invalid due to false premises.

[magnemoe]

25 minutes ago, Chakat Firepaw said:

those forecasts in the 1970s were specifically for what was then considered "conventional oil".  That doesn't include anything like deap-sea drilling, fracking, shale oil or tar sands.

There's a reason we have been going after crude that's more expensive to extract.

The predictions back in 1970s was pretty nutty with risk of running out of most raw materials, some also included iron and aluminum. 
Nothing else than conversational oil was known, yes they had started some offshore drilling in shallow water.
They simply used existing production and the estimated reserves and looked then they would run out ignoring that nobody bothering looking for more if it was enough 
Yes this was back just after the oil crisis, peak oil was popular then the oil price was over $100 barrel, yes its probably random.
Oil price increased last was because of increased demand not reduced production, priced dropped then supply increased a lot while demand dropped a lite. 
 

[K^2]

9 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Nope. A greenhouse gas is by definition one that blocks a greater proportion of outgoing energy than ingoing. You are wrong on the most fundamental of levels here.

Stop it, both of you are completely wrong. At equilibrium temperature, there is equilibrium between incoming and outgoing energy. By definition of equilibrium.

What greenhouse gas does is alter the thermodynamic balance of short and long wavelengths at different altitude, establishing higher equilibrium temperature on the surface. It's a very complex process, which includes thermal radiation, absorption, and convection to make it work. All of the typical explanations of "it works like a greenhouse" are completely wrong, and serve only for illustration. And even our best models have limited capacity of describing the full process.

But the net effect is higher surface temperature with higher concentration of greenhouse gasses. How much higher and where saturation points lie is still somewhat debated. The most powerful greenhouse gas on Earth, and one with by far the highest contribution to global temperature is water vapor. Most IR channels are saturated with the GH effect of water vapor. The problem with other greenhouse gasses is that they block IR at wavelengths that water vapor does not.

If you want to learn actual physics behind all of that, I would need to point you to several thermodynamics texts to get you started on the basics first.

[GeneralVeers]

15 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Nope. A greenhouse gas is by definition one that blocks a greater proportion of outgoing energy than ingoing. You are wrong on the most fundamental of levels here.

You're wrong. Should I say "most fundamental level" there, or just skip that one? Yeah, I'll skip it, that one's too easy.

(okay, wait--how are there different kinds of wrong?? 2 plus 2 is either four or something else, "wrong on a fundamental level" just makes no sense at all, I got no idea what he's----)

 

Sorry, ran off on a tangent there. Anyway: a greenhouse gas does not "by definition" block more outgoing than ingoing. A greenhouse gas simply blocks some amount of outgoing, and the amount incoming is irrelevant.

Something most people don't know about the Moon: its daytime side is literally hot enough to boil water. Why? Lack of greenhouse gases. No, it's not lack of an atmosphere. Convection of heat off the surface by non-greenhouse gases won't do it. Proof? Deserts. Deserts on Earth get much hotter than non-deserts; obviously convection of heat away from the desert surface is failing to keep it cool. That's how we can see convection failing to keep Earth's daytime side cooler than the Moon's. The only way Earth's daytime side can stay cool is if something blocks some of the Sun's radiation from reaching the ground at all. I've seen the math; only about half the Sun's radiation reaches the ground. Add to that the fact that the Earth itself is a heat source (hot core and radioactive elements) and there you have it.

 

Quote

Translation:  You can't actually defend your position and have decided to run away with the classic pseudoscience believer's cry of "he said something mean to me!"

Quick tip to everybody, from a master debater (lol): never insult the other guy. Because it gives them a legit reason to dump the conversation and walk away in a huff.

[Vanamonde]

Well, the thread has gone from whether nuclear winter was a sound theory to calling each other names over climate change, with a little detour through genocide. Time to go do something else before we have to give out more infractions and you all hate each other. 

Say, how about playing a spaceflight game full of cute little green people instead?