Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #00
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Anyways, just because there are more factors involved in how the ocean works than convection, doesn't mean that we know everything about it. Convection plays a role as does changes in density. Moreover there are most certainly influences that are exerted in which we have little understanding of, case in point your not knowing as precisely as I do how pipes freeze. People seem to keep missing that heat travels from hotter to less hot, and when a temperature differential exists in liquids and gasses, there is almost always a corresponding current. Those currents behave different in a dynamic environment than they do in a closed loop like a giant theoretical tank. Those scenarios also assume you have a heat source of some type in a fixed location.
Good for you.
Wiki says the theory is about 17 years old (1997), meaning that in 2004 when Gore was pumping out his movie this influence was known of but yet somehow wasn't included as part of the mosaic of "settled science". Took alarmists almost another 10 years to pin this as the end all reason why warming has paused. You're still spouting the "settled science" part when you've been proven demonstrably wrong over and over again in your predictions. There's no reason to give you any legitimate credibility. If you're ocean cycle theory is indeed the likely cause of the pause in warming, what years will temps begin to rise again? What will it mean if temps begin to rise before that, after that? If the ocean currents play such a big role in our climate, how much of previous warming do we get to shove onto it instead of man? I mean if ocean cycles are capable of slowing a warming trend down to 0 or even negative if they work against it, then aren't they capable of making it look like there's a warming trend when there isn't one? Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » It's less dense than water. As water freezes, it expands. This same change in density breaks pipes open when they freeze. The point is, saying that Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Hot fluids rise don't they? Which is why all kinds of fun happen when you are in micro-g/zero-g environments. Well ya the pressure that occurs from pipes freezing is what causes them to burst, as water freezes it looks to occupy X more space. In a length of existing pipe, it doesn't have it. So as one section freezes the breakage will occur at the point where the pressure is greater than the integrity of the pipe. This is not always at the "weakest" section of the supply line system which is almost always a soldered joint (in copper water lines anyways). In any event: Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Anyways, just because there are more factors involved in how the ocean works than convection, doesn't mean that we know everything about it. Convection plays a role as does changes in density. Which is why when you make a generalization that certainly has known specific failures (hot fluid rises), where the specific failures are in particular interest for the systems at hand, it comes across poorly. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Moreover there are most certainly influences that are exerted in which we have little understanding of, case in point your not knowing as precisely as I do how pipes freeze. But again, back to unknown undersea volcanoes: a simple back of the envelope calculation would indicate that you would need a significant enough source of energy that it would likely not be unknown, as it would likely have significant other impacts. I mean, consider size, scope, and relative impact of the mid-Atlantic ridge. I thought hot air was caused by Congress?
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Good for you. Wiki says the theory is about 17 years old (1997), meaning that in 2004 when Gore was pumping out his movie this influence was known of but yet somehow wasn't included as part of the mosaic of "settled science". Took alarmists almost another 10 years to pin this as the end all reason why warming has paused. You're still spouting the "settled science" part when you've been proven demonstrably wrong over and over again in your predictions. There's no reason to give you any legitimate credibility. If you're ocean cycle theory is indeed the likely cause of the pause in warming, what years will temps begin to rise again? What will it mean if temps begin to rise before that, after that? If the ocean currents play such a big role in our climate, how much of previous warming do we get to shove onto it instead of man? I mean if ocean cycles are capable of slowing a warming trend down to 0 or even negative if they work against it, then aren't they capable of making it look like there's a warming trend when there isn't one? I've never ever used the phrase "settled science". That's your projection. Ocean cycles are not predictable enough to pinpoint them by year. You're not understanding the concept of an energy balance. If the ocean were heating the atmosphere, then the ocean would be getting cooler as it loses heat. It's not. What is happening now, in a super-simplified way, is the excess energy is being stored in the shallower waters and land temperatures are "cooling" (that is, warming is slower) as parts of the atmosphere shed excess heat. Once the cycle ends, we would expect the warming trend to continue. That is not to say there aren't still more factors to consider, but it seems to be the prevalent one. where's the list of things nausi doesn't understand?
we've got something to add gdi, & all I can come up with is earthquakes. Math
Economics Social Justice History Science Philosophy Tides Logic That there are more political perspectives than Good v. Liberal Offline
Posts: 35422
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » I thought hot air was caused by Congress? That and Al Gore. Offline
Posts: 35422
Odin.Jassik said: » People seem to keep missing that heat travels from hotter to less hot, and when a temperature differential exists in liquids and gasses, there is almost always a corresponding current. Those currents behave different in a dynamic environment than they do in a closed loop like a giant theoretical tank. Those scenarios also assume you have a heat source of some type in a fixed location. Witchcraft I tells ya ! Offline
Posts: 4394
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/
Quote: Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare. President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges. Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover. I don't even know where to begin... What a cluster *** this nation has become. Still illegal for the business to "hire" anyone without a work permit or who isn't legally allowed to work in the country.
Are we pretending that Americans and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs?
Offline
Posts: 4394
Jetackuu said: » Still illegal for the business to "hire" anyone without a work permit or who isn't legally allowed to work in the country. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Are we pretending that Americans and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs? Such good little liberals, as long as it doesn't effect the educated or well paid Americans why would you care. So much for caring about the "lower class" you guys are always trying to defend huh. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Are we pretending that Americans and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs? But basically my complaint would be in the tech sector, which we've discussed in the other thread already my (and others) disdain for that debacle, so no real point into getting into it again. There's a point though: those working legally should have to pay into the insurance nonsense as well, if only we had single payer. Altimaomega said: » Jetackuu said: » Still illegal for the business to "hire" anyone without a work permit or who isn't legally allowed to work in the country. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Are we pretending that Americans and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs? Such good little liberals, as long as it doesn't effect the educated or well paid Americans why would you care. So much for caring about the "lower class" you guys are always trying to defend huh. Offline
Posts: 4394
Jetackuu said: » Altimaomega said: » Jetackuu said: » Still illegal for the business to "hire" anyone without a work permit or who isn't legally allowed to work in the country. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Are we pretending that Americans and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs? Such good little liberals, as long as it doesn't effect the educated or well paid Americans why would you care. So much for caring about the "lower class" you guys are always trying to defend huh. Other than your gun fetish which a lot of liberals do have. Please enlighten all of us on your conservative views. Offline
Posts: 4394
Jetackuu said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Are we pretending that Americans and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs? But basically my complaint would be in the tech sector, which we've discussed in the other thread already my (and others) disdain for that debacle, so no real point into getting into it again. There's a point though: those working legally should have to pay into the insurance nonsense as well, if only we had single payer. Jetackuu said: » Still illegal for the business to "hire" anyone without a work permit or who isn't legally allowed to work in the country. Hypocrite much? Altimaomega said: » Other than your gun fetish which a lot of liberals do have. Please enlighten all of us on your conservative views. As for the other crap: na, not at all. Offline
Posts: 4394
Jetackuu said: » Altimaomega said: » Other than your gun fetish which a lot of liberals do have. Please enlighten all of us on your conservative views. As for the other crap: na, not at all. You're just naturally abrasive huh. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Good for you. Wiki says the theory is about 17 years old (1997), meaning that in 2004 when Gore was pumping out his movie this influence was known of but yet somehow wasn't included as part of the mosaic of "settled science". Took alarmists almost another 10 years to pin this as the end all reason why warming has paused. You're still spouting the "settled science" part when you've been proven demonstrably wrong over and over again in your predictions. There's no reason to give you any legitimate credibility. If you're ocean cycle theory is indeed the likely cause of the pause in warming, what years will temps begin to rise again? What will it mean if temps begin to rise before that, after that? If the ocean currents play such a big role in our climate, how much of previous warming do we get to shove onto it instead of man? I mean if ocean cycles are capable of slowing a warming trend down to 0 or even negative if they work against it, then aren't they capable of making it look like there's a warming trend when there isn't one? I've never ever used the phrase "settled science". That's your projection. Ocean cycles are not predictable enough to pinpoint them by year. You're not understanding the concept of an energy balance. If the ocean were heating the atmosphere, then the ocean would be getting cooler as it loses heat. It's not. What is happening now, in a super-simplified way, is the excess energy is being stored in the shallower waters and land temperatures are "cooling" (that is, warming is slower) as parts of the atmosphere shed excess heat. Once the cycle ends, we would expect the warming trend to continue. That is not to say there aren't still more factors to consider, but it seems to be the prevalent one. 1st, are you really suggesting that when I say it was discovered I meant it didn't exist before then? Clearly Columbus created America when he discovered it yo! 2nd, you've referenced the 97% consensus before, don't pretend you don't use it to bury skepticism via a mob fiat. 3rd, like the typical alarmist, you haven't answered any specifics. You're arguing that this ocean cycle is a variable modifier on the climate equation. On one hand in this particular cycle it is absorbing the excess energy in the atmosphere thereby cooling it. So once the cycle ends it will put all that heat back into the atmosphere right? So, if it oscillates between a dampening effect and not a dampening effect, how much of the largely agreed upon 1 degree warming over the last century can we attribute to being at a particular point on this ocean cycle? If we cannot attribute any previous warming to this cycle then you really can't argue it's cyclical effect on the climate. If you cannot predict it and it could last decades you're arguing that we could possibly see 30 years of cooling before we warm up again? Either way, you personally are just parroting the guesses of the "scientists" you read. As I've said before, alarmists have been proven wrong over and over again on their guesses. Why should they be afforded any more credibility? Ragnarok.Nausi said: » 1st, are you really suggesting that when I say it was discovered I meant it didn't exist before then? Clearly Columbus created America when he discovered it yo! Ragnarok.Nausi said: » 2nd, you've referenced the 97% consensus before, don't pretend you don't use it to bury skepticism via a mob fiat. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » 3rd, like the typical alarmist, you haven't answered any specifics. You're arguing that this ocean cycle is a variable modifier on the climate equation. On one hand in this particular cycle it is absorbing the excess energy in the atmosphere thereby cooling it. So once the cycle ends it will put all that heat back into the atmosphere right? So, if it oscillates between a dampening effect and not a dampening effect, how much of the largely agreed upon 1 degree warming over the last century can we attribute to being at a particular point on this ocean cycle? If we cannot attribute any previous warming to this cycle then you really can't argue it's cyclical effect on the climate. If you cannot predict it and it could last decades you're arguing that we could possibly see 30 years of cooling before we warm up again? Either way, you personally are just parroting the guesses of the "scientists" you read. As I've said before, alarmists have been proven wrong over and over again on their guesses. Why should they be afforded any more credibility? The influence of decadal cycles results in short-term variability. It's basically noise in the long-term climate trend. You wouldn't attribute warming directly to the ocean because it's not the primary mechanism through which the planet is accumulating heat. Think of it as a symptom. These cycles normally persist for around 20 years. This means temperature will still remain high but relatively stable for a few years more before increasing, yes. Yeah, I've read "studies" by "scientists" containing "evidence" and "reasoning". It's how one learns things, lol. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Columbus discovered it This was pretty funny Altimaomega said: » http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/ Quote: Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare. President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges. Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover. I don't even know where to begin... What a cluster *** this nation has become. Focus on fixing those exploitative practices (and the cultural permission which celebrates *** someone over as hard as you possibly can), and many of these peripheral issues will be resolved as well. Altimaomega said: » Jetackuu said: » Altimaomega said: » Other than your gun fetish which a lot of liberals do have. Please enlighten all of us on your conservative views. As for the other crap: na, not at all. You're just naturally abrasive huh. So I'll just go with, sure. I thought Muslims discovered America?
|
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|