(September 7, 2018 at 5:37 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 6, 2018 at 4:07 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Even in this thread, although we haven't really finished discussing it, you haven't responded to my point about atonement.

actually I did in my last post.) at the end below the black line

You said that you had responded to my last post on that subject, but I am not finding your response anywhere. As far as I can see, my response here was the last word on the subject. Could you provide a link to where you replied and perhaps a quotation of it?

(September 10, 2018 at 11:47 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 10, 2018 at 11:45 am)Khemikal Wrote: The fact that we identified the hole in the ozone layer and then passed effective regulations to curtail cfcs is how we dodged that bullet.

It's difficult to imagine a worse example as a defense of climate science denial.  In any case, I don't know that carbon taxes are -the- way to go, and they certainly aren't the only way to go...but it's worth mentioning that we already pay them.  Remediation isn't free or cheap, nor is environmentally spurred migration.

here's the thing sport.. CFC... are heavier than air, much. In Fact if there is a leak in a container it can stay indefinitely in an open air container if the material is not blown out or the container not tipped over.

Ozone... is 15 to 30Km high

it was said when we first were made to take our freon tests it would take 75 years to drop the levels low enough to effect the ozone layer. why? because it was supposedly the chlorine which broke apart from the molecule chain which caused atmospheric saturation takes a very long time to decay in the open air. so we should technically be getting worse/hole bigger for the next 50 years.

yet the hole is gone.

Mysterious rise in banned ozone-destroying chemical shocks scientists

Quote:A sharp and mysterious rise in emissions of a key ozone-destroying chemical has been detected by scientists, despite its production being banned around the world.

Unless the culprit is found and stopped, the recovery of the ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging UV radiation, could be delayed by a decade. The source of the new emissions has been tracked to east Asia, but finding a more precise location requires further investigation.

A month later


Mysterious source of illegal ozone-killing emissions revealed, say investigators

Quote:A mysterious surge in emissions of an illegal ozone-destroying chemical has been tracked down to plastic foam manufacturers in China, according to an on-the-ground investigation published on Monday.

And then there's the following from 1953  (cited in the comments of your article):



I think you misread the realclimate.org article. It says, «Not only has the current spate of global warming been going on for about 35 years now, but also the term “global warming” will have its 35th anniversary next week. On 8 August 1975, Wally Broecker published his paper "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" in the journal Science. That appears to be the first use of the term “global warming” in the scientific literature (at least it’s the first of over 10,000 papers for this search term according to the ISI database of journal articles).» Note that this is claiming that Broecker's paper was the first to use the term "global warming," not that it was the first paper to predict global warming. Even if that is true, that is not of any importance to your claim that the graph and paper cited in the Wikipedia article you quoted is wrong. Additionally, you claimed "hundreds" of papers citing global cooling in that Wikipedia article, yet a close reading of that article reveals something else entirely. Very few papers extolling global cooling are cited in that article. And your claim that the Wikipedia entry supports your claim that global cooling was "scientific fact" in the 70s is simply false.

(September 10, 2018 at 11:47 am)Drich Wrote: here's the thing sport.. CFC... are heavier than air, much. In Fact if there is a leak in a container it can stay indefinitely in an open air container if the material is not blown out or the container not tipped over.

Ozone... is 15 to 30Km high

Does the atmosphere, even..like..mix..bro?  

Quote:F. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California at Irvine, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry, answers:

"This is indeed a persistent question--so much so that the most recent report of the World Meteorological Organization, entitled 'Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994,' included it among a list of common questions that have been persistently raised and long since answered. Susan Solomon of NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder and I are listed in the document as the Coordinators of Common Questions about Ozone. We had as many as 22 of them, but pared them down to the most frequently asked ones.

"The response to this particular question reads as follows."

HOW CAN CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) GET TO THE STRATOSPHERE IF THEY'RE HEAVIER THAN AIR?

Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. Gases such as CFCs that are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 10 kilometers) are quickly mixed and therefore reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight.
Much can be learned about the atmospheric fate of compounds from the measured changes in concentration versus altitude. For example, the two gases carbon tetrafluoride (CF4, produced mainly as a by-product of the manufacture of aluminum) and CFC-11 (CCl3F, used in a variety of human activities) are both much heavier than air. Carbon tetrafluoride is completely unreactive in the lower 99.9 percent of the atmosphere, and measurements show it to be nearly uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere as shown in the figure. There have also been measurements over the past two decades of several other completely unreactive gases, one lighter than air (neon) and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride. CFC-11 is unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 15 kilometers) and is similarly uniformly mixed there, as shown. The abundance of CFC-11 decreases as the gas reaches higher altitudes, where it is broken down by high energy solar ultraviolet radiation. Chlorine released from this breakdown of CFC-11 and other CFCs remains in the stratosphere for several years, where it destroys many thousands of molecules of ozone.

"The measurements of CFC-11 in the stratosphere were first described in 1975 by two research groups in Boulder, Colorado, and have been similarly observed innumerable times since. The uniform mixing of CF4 versus altitude was reported from balloons around 1980 and many times since, and from an infrared instrument aboard the space shuttle Challenger (which exploded in 1986) in 1985. My own research group has measured CFC-11 in hundreds of air canisters filled while flying in the NASA DC-8. We once did a descent directly over the North Pole and found uniform mixing in the lower atmosphere, and slightly less CFC-11 in the stratosphere.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...bons-cfcs/

Just for you....sport, lol.

Take extra care to notice the dates. 24 years ago, that was already a question answered 19 years prior. Itself an example of something known since before chemistry split off from alchemy. Suspension.

(September 10, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: One final note.  Your latest citation only states that Broecker was the first to use the term global warming in a paper, not that he was the only one who made that claim that year, so your conclusion that there was only one paper suggesting warming in 1975 simply doesn't follow.  But then, in this case, as in the others, you are hoist on your own petard.  The very article you cited says the following:

Quote:Broecker was not the first to predict CO2-induced warming. In 1965, an expert report to US President Lyndon B. Johnson had warned: “By the year 2000, the increase in carbon dioxide will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate.” And in 1972, a more specific prediction similar to Broecker’s was published by the eminent atmospheric scientist J.S. Sawyer in Nature (for a history in a nutshell, see my newspaper column here). ... Overall, Broecker’s paper (together with that of Sawyer) shows that valid predictions of global warming were published in the 1970s in the top journals Science and Nature, and warming has been proceeding almost exactly as predicted for at least 35 years now.

Happy 35th birthday, global warming!

"That appears to be the first use of the term “global warming” in the scientific literature (at least it’s the first of over 10,000 papers for this search term according to the  of journal articles)." never mind the crux of the article... let look for common words even if they are used to describe something else.


The long and short of it is in 1972 the only thing we/al gore's picture of global warming has in common is the term co2 emmissions mentioned in that paper was the idea that co2 raises temps.. which that in itself has been debunked. Co2 does indeed work as a green house gas but it is not the only one nor is it the best example./have very little impact on the planet's temp over all, considering all of the other contributors. water vapor is 70% of the earth's total green house effect. far more potent than co2. yet we are focused on the gas humans least contribute to. As it sits the primary contributor of co2 is the earth it self specifically in the pacific ring of fire where trillions of tons of the gas are released due to underwater volcanic activity. not to mention all the arobic contributors. 

Why are we worried about a .07% human contribution to carbon emissions when there was a 25% increase in water vapor?
https://www.popsci.com/environment/artic...es#page-11

So again, even if I backed into this one everything about co2/global warming is wrong.

what is right?
The planet is warming, but it has been since the last ice age. as the ice diminishes the planet warms faster.. why? because the ice acted like a solar reflector, now that it is gone the ground absorbs more energy. co2 does play a part, but the sun and water vapor plays a much larger part. but we can't tax that yet can we?

These global warming sky is falling people are simply trying to cash in (google the kyoto conspiracy or carbon credit, carbon tax. ) and see who was to benfit in the way of hundreds of trillions of dollars... just so happen to be everyone who was screaming the sky was falling/ telling us about global warming.

If the US whored itself out for billions in taxable revenue created by the CFC scare, how much more would the blood thirsty in politics be willing to cash in on a world market/scam to tax globally people companies and countries a carbon credits?

which was the point I was making. we went from co2 to global warming, to global climate change as a catch all phrase that encapsulates the sky is falling without even giving you the details any more. Some are pushing co2 emissions still other push the destruction of the rainforests while other still point to the ocean as being our reasons for climate change and our only hope.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/solutions/stop-deforestation/tropical-deforestation-and-1.html#.W5fdskZKjIU
the next one says deforrestation adds more co2 than all the cars and truck in the whole world ever could
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

here the ocean is the largest solar energy conductor on the planet... fix the ocean fix global warming..
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

The point I was originally making was science is a faith based system of belief not unlike Christianity.. that's all. you can't deny this, rather you nit pick facts. 

so lets throw everything I just said away and let me conceed everything here is wrong. 


Now I will still say science is a faith based system of belief. then I will site the changes made as new things are learned. the faith comes in in the way on believing that what you know now is the truth, in this case climate change... Despite the evidence I've shown you that science is being used to manipulate the way people think, and even spend their money. My final point would be to show that people who have faith or 100% faith in science to the point where belief and faith seem to be seperate things. Those people can be manipulated into believing anything if the lie is simply presented to them into the correct 'scientific box.'

This blind faith was what was used to sell the german people on their racial superiority. Science was used because people were conditioned to implicitly trust every scientific 'fact' as it were that the government backed! How are things now any different?

I'm going to go with appears to be the standard comment these days to gibberish...

What?

(September 11, 2018 at 11:47 am)Drich Wrote: Now I will still say science is a faith based system of belief.

You say alot of things.

Tell you what...though, howsabout we challenge each others respective "faith based systems of belief"?

Imma sit here and call your silly god a motherfucker until he gives me boils....and you can go test out the theory of gravity somewhere really high up?

Conversely, I'll look both ways before I cross the street, and you can pray to the lord for safe passage?

The only thing you've made evident in this thread...is that you don't know shit...sport.

I accept your concession that you were wrong about the mini-ice age claim. If you had addressed it in that thread, perhaps we could have moved on to addressing other issues, but you didn't. And now it is too late. As noted in my original reply in which I conceded your point about the meaning of the Latin word fetus, contrary to your claim that I have not been engaging you substantially lately, I in fact have been doing so, including in this thread. So you were wrong about the overall point I was making, regardless of the state of play regarding your contentions about science. I do not intend to address your renewed interest in debating that subject here. If you are so inclined, start another thread about it and argue your case there. As far as I could see, you didn't really demonstrate your point in that thread, but then I kind of tuned out when you started misrepresenting your own sources. I may or may not participate if you do.

I may address the rest of your claims regarding specific issues that you feel I have incorrectly concluded you were wrong about at another time, but given the repeated mishandling of your own sources in this thread, I'm not overall encouraged to do so.

(September 10, 2018 at 11:47 am)Drich Wrote: here's the thing sport.. CFC... are heavier than air, much. In Fact if there is a leak in a container it can stay indefinitely in an open air container if the material is not blown out or the container not tipped over.

Ozone... is 15 to 30Km high

it was said when we first were made to take our freon tests it would take 75 years to drop the levels low enough to effect the ozone layer. why? because it was supposedly the chlorine which broke apart from the molecule chain which caused atmospheric saturation takes a very long time to decay in the open air. so we should technically be getting worse/hole bigger for the next 50 years.

yet the hole is gone.

Which makes some in 'science' say we have no idea why the hole is or as there and why it is seal. but if the hole is seal then there is no way for the CFC's to split if less time cause the reduced saturation let alone regeneration of the O3 layer. This is not chemically possible.

A more sensible theory has to do with solar winds.. when the sun's output is very high it bombards the earth with actual particles of solar energy which could indeed break down O3 into O2 or just O (o3 being ozone into just oxygen) but you can't tax the sun and duponte (the makers of cfc refrigerant) isn't gong to pay the government billions to make people buy the 'new stuff' because the cfc they were making patent ran out...

Oh, guess what else! the Chfc/HFC (the stuff we converted to in the 90s to save us from the CFC of the 60 70 and 80) you know the stuff we used to replaced the cfc that ate a hole in the ozone???, That 'new stuff of the 1990s patents are running out, and guess what is next on the government chopping block for bad refrigerants! YES the SAME Chfc and HFC's that saved us from the ozone hole, are now global warming/climate change contributors so we have to stop using them Just as Duponts patents and licenses agreements are expiring! and guess who use has a newer replacement?!?! That right DUPONTE!!!! Dupont's new replacement which will be good for 20+ years until those patent run out are here to save us from our own.....  It just cost 10x as much!!! plus the pressures are crazy/more repair bills and home a/c system change out time cut in 1/2!! plus it is crazy toxic and some said highly flammable as it contains a high amount of natural gas.

And here are the non-mad facts.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Quote:Ozone facts
What is ozone?
Ozone is a colorless gas. Chemically, ozone is very active; it reacts readily with a great many other substances. Near the Earth’s surface, those reactions cause rubber to crack, hurt plant life, and damage people’s lung tissues. But ozone also absorbs harmful components of sunlight, known as “ultraviolet B”, or “UV-B”. High above the surface, above even the weather systems, a tenuous layer of ozone gas absorbs UV-B, protecting living things below.
What is a Dobson Unit?
The Dobson Unit (DU) is the unit of measure for total ozone. If you were to take all the ozone in a column of air stretching from the surface of the earth to space, and bring all that ozone to standard temperature (0 °Celsius) and pressure (1013.25 millibars, or one atmosphere, or “atm”), the column would be about 0.3 centimeters thick. Thus, the total ozone would be 0.3 atm-cm. To make the units easier to work with, the “Dobson Unit” is defined to be 0.001 atm-cm. Our 0.3 atm-cm would be 300 DU.
What is the ozone hole?
Each year for the past few decades during the Southern Hemisphere spring, chemical reactions involving chlorine and bromine cause ozone in the southern polar region to be destroyed rapidly and severely. This depleted region is known as the “ozone hole”. The area of the ozone hole is determined from a map of total column ozone. It is calculated from the area on the Earth that is enclosed by a line with a constant value of 220 Dobson Units. The value of 220 Dobson Units is chosen since total ozone values of less than 220 Dobson Units were not found in the historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979. Also, from direct measurements over Antarctica, a column ozone level of less than 220 Dobson Units is a result of the ozone loss from chlorine and bromine compounds.

(September 5, 2018 at 5:03 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Seeking atonement is in addition to not wanting this sin, so it is not "just" not wanting this sin.

I don't understand your division. Sin is a stain. if you do not want the stain you have it removed. the only way to remove the stain is through atonement. so Not wanting sin not wanting the stain having the stain removed are all the same as they all channel through atonement. how can you separate atonement though this process?

Quote: The two are separate things and you can have one without the other.  If I do not want this sin, but I do not believe that Christ dies for my sins, I'm still going to not want this sin, yet I am not going to believe.

no.. that is claiming you don't want sin.. it is like me giving you a vanilla ice cream and you want strawberry, then I say if you want straw berry then come to the table and get it your self...

You may prefer strawberry but if you want is not great enough you will not get up and get it.

The same is true here when I say want I mean the type of want a man 2 days in the desert wants water or a man on fire wants the fire put out.. I'm not speaking of a lackadaisical preference that has no power of motivation.

Lets say your going out and you are wearing your favorite shirt, but notice a 18" round stain on your shirt. can I assume you hate stains? to the point where you would change your shirt, and if you favored your shirt you would make an effort to remove said stain. Otherwise who could claim they hate a stain on a nice shirt if they did nothing to fix it, and wore it out?

Your sin is that stain, atonement is the oxyclean. again how can you hate a stain and not make any effort to do anything? here the only thing that can be done for a hated stain is to attone.

Quote: Believing requires an additional step so just wanting isn't enough.

want and belief birth action everytime. other wise one of the elements is missing.

Quote: If I want to live to be 100, I'll need to exercise and eat right.  Just wanting not to die young is not enough to actually accomplish that feat.  So, no, you're wrong here as well.

I'm wrong to one who seeks to ignore how the phrases I used are used in the culture. You are not first year english. you understand varying degrees of want. you are smart enough to know all action has a catalyst, and in this case I described the catalyst as hate of sin. You should be able to see the truth in what I said. how ever if your need to be right out weight your need for truth, then you can have the arguement, and nothing I sad changes. Real want demands action.

Here's the 2nd half.

once you are redeemed once God has granted atonement then the sin we are apart of is solely judged on whether or not you 'want' that sin or not. will you make excuse for it or will you hate the sin? that is what is judged after we become a member of the body. Actual sin no longer becomes the issue that righteousness is determined by.

Paul illustrates this in romans 7

---

Sorry did not see you 2nd response, I did not have anything else so I wrote a response which s what is above.

---

(September 11, 2018 at 12:01 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 11, 2018 at 11:47 am)Drich Wrote: Now I will still say science is a faith based system of belief.

You say alot of things.

Tell you what...though, howsabout we challenge each others respective "faith based systems of belief"?

Imma sit here and call your silly god a motherfucker until he gives me boils....and you can go test out the theory of gravity somewhere really high up?

Conversely, I'll look both ways before I cross the street, and you can pray to the lord for safe passage?

The only thing you've made evident in this thread...is that you don't know shit...sport.

But again the principles of gravity and the idea that everything in the whole universe condensed down to the size of a basket ball are not an apples to apples comparison when it comes to science and you know it!