This is why I don't debate climate change with krellin, 2WL.

Wow....all of you have suddenly redefiend science, huh? No laws exist?

What a bunch of retards. You truly are religious zealots...you will actually dismiss facts, and say no truth exists in your religious fervor to hold on to a theory and predictions that year after year after year fail to come true.

So instead of thinking, "Huh....maybe they were wrong...or off..." you instead will dismiss ALL of known science and say none of it is real....that is what you are saying now...NO facts are facts, NO scientific laws are laws...all so that you can justify that horrible inaccuracies of the global warming scammers?

Truly a collection of idiots.

"Wow....all of you have suddenly redefiend science, huh? No laws exist?"

That is why you a) don't misquote people, and b) don't pull things out of context.

"I say 'nothing' because in science you can never have something that is 100% accurate."

Bullshit. You apparently know *nothing* of science.

Here's a law for you:

Newton's first law of motion is often stated as:
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Tell me when this law does not apply.

It is slightly ironic that the people who are saying there is no dogma in science, are accused of religious zealotry.

bo_sox....and yet the global warming scientists often pull data out of context...and you eat it up...So i guess lying and cherry-picking is ok when you are a zealot...

zealot - a fanatically committed person. Would you not say that a person who believes in the assertions of a group of people (global warming scientists) are zealots when those people (the scientists) make predictions that almost 100% of the time FAIL to come true, and who constantly have to re-define their understanding of science (thus confessing that all their previous understandings upon which they made predication were WRONG...). I'd say that's a zealot, and global warming is their god upon which they pray - and no contrary facts will shake their belief. That's a religion.

Actually krellin, that law doesn't apply when the object approaches the speed of light or when the size of the object reaches the atomic level. Most laws break down when you reach the speed of light/get really small, because we don't know/don't understand what happens in there.

Also, that Bloomberg article that you quoted supported my side of the argument, so good job. If the deep oceans are getting warmer, the earth is still getting warmer. Water melts sea ice faster than air does.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/newton-law-of-motion5.htm

"Over the years, scientists in just about every discipline have tested Newton's laws of motion and found them to be amazingly predictive and reliable. But there are two instances where Newtonian physics break down. The first involves objects traveling at or near the speed of light. The second problem comes when Newton's laws are applied to very small objects, such as atoms or subatomic particles that fall in the realm of quantum mechanics."

I apparently know a lot more about science than you do

"Here's a law for you:

Newton's first law of motion is often stated as:
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Tell me when this law does not apply."

If we are in a multiverse, there's no way to say whether these laws apply throughout all other volumes.

"bo_sox....and yet the global warming scientists often pull data out of context...and you eat it up...So i guess lying and cherry-picking is ok when you are a zealot..."

I don't listen to global warming scientists. I simply look at the evidence where I live and where the majority of my family lives and it happens to match what the proponents of human-caused global warming suggest.

A scientific 'law' notes that something happens. A 'theory' explains why and how something happens. Newton's universal law of gravitation notes that bodies are gravitationally attracted to each other. It doesn't describe how - that's the job of the theory of gravity, of which there are still several notable exceptions that don't exactly fit the theory.

* Atomic structures are no objects.
* We have never witnessed an object at the speed of light.

re: Bloomberg....perhaps you ignored my analogy...the magic fire place. Sorry pal...if global warming is caused by atmospheric pollution / the green house effect, then the trapped heat can not magically bypass the atmosphere and warm the ocean alone....or DO you believe in magic?

If the data says the oceans are warming, then so be it...but it is by a different/unknown mechanism, not becaseu of atmospheric man-made pollution causing warming.

Yup...they threw data out (cherry picked...) that says "Looky looky, my zealots...we foudn the hidden warming!!!" and all the zealots gasped in awe, and fell to their knees in prayer to their priests...

So now bo must go to a magical multi-verse to deny newton's first law. Nice. Light a candle for me next time you worship your gods, bo...

"if global warming is caused by atmospheric pollution / the green house effect, then the trapped heat can not magically bypass the atmosphere and warm the ocean alone....or DO you believe in magic? "

Apparently boiling water is magic. If I light a gas stove, the heat moves from the air to the pot to the water. Same thing with the atmosphere.

And atoms are objects. They have mass. If it has mass, it is an object.

And since light is just a stream of photons - which are particles - which are objects - then we have observed objects moving at the speed of light. Also, what the hell do you think particle accelerators do? They bring particles close to the speed of light so they can smash them together.

Goldie...uh....what, you think the fire doesn't' heat the air underneath and around the pot as it boils the water? FAIL! that was silly, boy...

As for photons, sub-atomics, etc...I don't want to get in to meta-physics, but I do not consider quantum particles to be "objects", thus Newton's law stands. But that is getting in to the philosophy of existence and is an entirely different discussion.

" If it has mass, it is an object. "

What? is that a law? A definite statement?

I win. :P

Krellin, I thought you finished engineering. Didn't that have any effect on your logical understanding of the world around you? It's a fact that CO2 is trapping in heat from the sun that would have otherwise escaped into space. That CO2 is in part created by human activity. The Greenland ice sheet is slowly thinning, and glaciers are melting into the ocean faster and faster. If you look at earths history, ice ages have taken place during times of low CO2 levels, and periods of warming with higher levels. The earth has warmed and cooled throughout its history due to natural cycles. But completely denying that human emmisions of CO2 is having any effect, that is being a zealot.

See, logic. It's very helpful.

ILN - sorry pal...studies show that CO2 increases lag BEHIND temperature increases. CO2 decreases lag BEHIND temperature decreases. CO2 doesn't have *nearly* the effect that is claimed. Sorry....it is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and has far less impact than previously thought.

Glacier shrink/melt.....then glaciers <Gasp!!!> GROW. Oh my god!!!!

You live in a DYNAMIC world....temperatures go UP and DOWN. Sea levels RISE and FALL. Ice GROWS and MELTS.....

Oh my god....

But some zealots only look at *half* the data...

CO2 Lag....so **LOGIC** TELLS US....a LAGGING indicator can not CAUSE an effect.

Oh my....logic...

No, that's the definition of an object, actually. Objects are things that have shape. Anything that has mass has a shape. It is impossible for anything to move without mass, so anything that moves is an object.

And let me explain my analogy further. The fire is lit, and raises the temperature of the surrounding air. But once it reaches a certain point, it can't be raised any further because the air is losing energy to its surrounding objects (the pot) just as fast as it is gaining it from the flame. Thus the air is stuck at a temperature that is proportionate to the temperature of the pot. As the pot temperature rises, it allows that of the air to rise as well. But since the pot is full of water, the temperature rises slowly.

Now, replace pot with ocean and flame with greenhouse effect.

Candy from a baby...

I think a lot of people are going to have neat stuff to say here that either examines recent social trends, predicts the effects of various technology or exaggerates the impact of various geopolitical crisis.

I tell you what might make a slightly more interesting question is, what will our next disaster be? Like *big* disaster? And how will we bounce back from it. Because we will. As a species, we've bounced back from the plague, societal collapse, global warfare as well as nukeular brinkmanship. In most cases, we bounced back from all of those things far stronger than we were going into it.

So that's what I'm curious to know - what will the next disaster be, how will we weather it, and what will life look like on the other side of the tunnel?

As in Black Death big or as in Hurricane Sandy big?

Goldie -- you told me there are no absolutes...no definitions...no truths. Now you are telling me there are truths.

Anything that has mass has a shape. Uh....NO. Photons have no defined shape...

re: Boiling Pot...so you say the air has all the heat it can hold, so now the pot is boiling and the air isn't' increasing in temperature anymore.

So....back to global warming...you are saying that our atmospheric temperature is capped...it's got all the heat it can hold now, and that's why surface temperatures have stabilized....OR DROPPED...over the past decade...while the ocean warms up...

Sounds like we don't have much of a problem...

Thanks for playing.

I'm done with this for now....but I would like to take about metaphysics in another thread, and debate existence....but this I'm done with.

You ignore facts to hold tight to your religion (such as lagging CO2)....so it's just no fun arguing with a crazy religious zealot.

Well, from my answer before Al I would have to say it would be global flooding. This will have the biggest effect on China, Brazil, India, Europe and the US - all of the major growth areas.

Either we're going to have to learn how to tame the seas and build a lot of dykes and such, or we're going to have to consider abandoning some major population centers.

"You live in a DYNAMIC world....temperatures go UP and DOWN. Sea levels RISE and FALL. Ice GROWS and MELTS....."

I know, people now have this god complex where they believe that they need to (despite the earth throughout its entire history having higher and lower sea levels, higher and lower temperature etc) basically keep the earth exactly the same as it is now because they decided to build pretty cities near the shore.

However, denying that humans are having ANY effect (even if it may be small) is absurd. I think that if anything, humans should try to at least try to reduce CO2 emmisions, and if some affordable technology cones around enabling cheap carbon capture and storage, we trap the CO2 we emitted.

Also, did you not learn that kinetic energy is transferred between atoms? A warm air mass WILL heat up a water body near it as energy is transferred.

@bo re: "Candy from a baby..." Do you actually wear a cheer leader skirt when you start waving your pom-poms? 'cause, like any good cheerleader, your kind of dim-witted and have no idea what you are cheering for...

But we love you anyway. You have sexy legs...