home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.skeptic      Skeptics discussing pseudo-science      95,770 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 95,601 of 95,770   
   Dawn Flood to Paul Aubrin   
   Re: If predictions fail your hypothesis    
   31 Jan 26 19:56:58   
   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/31/2026 3:00 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:   
   > Le 31/01/2026 à 20:20, Dawn Flood a écrit :   
   >> On 1/31/2026 11:42 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:   
   >>> Le 31/01/2026 à 16:59, Dawn Flood a écrit :   
   >>>>> NB : "Natural" systems are more or less stable over extended time   
   >>>>> periods, thus they cannot have have "positive feedbacks".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What, then, ended the last ice age?   
   >>>   
   >>> Noone really knows, but astronomical parameters are probably the main   
   >>> cause. Feedbacks follow a cause, temperatures variations precede CO2   
   >>> variations. Natural systems must have a large stability margin around   
   >>> their current state. Systems with positive feedbacks are inherently   
   >>> instable or at the brink of instability (which is visible).   
   >>   
   >> And, so, you acknowledge climate feed backs just so long as humans are   
   >> not involved?   
   >   
   > CO2 variations, follow temperature variations.   
      
   Do you understand the Conservation of Mass?  Go to your local gas   
   station, buy a gallon of gasoline for your lawnmower (if you have one,   
   and if not, this example is, for you, completely hypothetical, as   
   gasoline is an incredibly dangerous substance!), and when you get home,   
   weigh it.  (Weigh your gas can, while empty, and then, when containing   
   gasoline and do the subtraction.)  Now, use it in your mower over the   
   course of the next year (or, longer, if your yard is as small as mine!)   
   The weight of the liquid gasoline, via combustion, will be virtually   
   equal to the weight of the gaseous molecules that result from that   
   combustion.  Once again, the reactants of this reaction go on the left   
   side, the products on the right; the Conservation of Mass says that the   
   weight (which, of course, is a unit of force, not mass, but if you take   
   your measurements in the same spot on Earth, such does not matter) will   
   be the same before and after the reaction.  In other words, weight of   
   reactants == weight of products.   
      
   Ergo, virtually all of the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations   
   has been the result of burning fossil fuels.  The increase in global   
   temperatures is only releasing, at this point in time, a tiny fraction   
   of CO2 from non-fossil fuel sources.   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca