Key phrase "a question of degree". "Unless insane or otherwise mentally defective, all humans - all animals - are <pick a word or term>"; Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, sexual sadists, thieves, liars, gay, blah, blah, blah.
There are no known laws governing the climate, so what you said has no meaning. But hey it sounds good
In the unlikely event that your cognitive bias will even allow you to entertain feedback...please, for the love of God and your own dignity, stop posting in threads that require critical scientific thinking. And I mean that with as much respect as I can muster. It's not meant as a personal attack.
You are spitting out nonsense, now if I am wrong you can now detail the laws governing climate change? Or you can post more nonsense. Prove me wrong kid, if u can that is
The 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the laws of Newtonian motion govern the climate. Note, they don't, by themselves, predict the climate, but they definitely govern it. FWIW, I left out the 3rd law of thermodynamics because it's mostly irrelevant in this context.
Dude, no one knows what is driving climate change. Furthermore a governing mathematical law is the most predictable thing possible because mathematics is always perfectly calculable. When you say that Newtonian mechanics do not predict, you are clearly clueless to the inadequacies of your statement
First, what I actually said was "they don't, by themselves, predict the climate". I never said Newtonian mechanics cannot be used to predict. Secondly, mathematics is NOT perfectly calculable. Non-linear partial differential equations can only be approximated. These PDE's, called primitive equations or governing equations, describe how the atmosphere and oceans behave and are derived from thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics and work in conjunction with an initial state to prognosticate the thermodynamic and mass flux variables into the future. They CANNOT be perfectly solved no matter how hard we try. There are two techniques in use for approximating the solutions: spectral method and finite differences method. The point...we know the laws governing the atmosphere/oceans and climate. But, there's a difference between knowing the laws and effectively making predictions based on that knowledge. And, by the way, we do know what drives the climate. We have a big laundry list of known drivers.
Describing how the atmosphere behaves is easy, knowing what the caused the last ice age to begin, and end is not currently possible. In one sentence tell us what caused the last ice age to end? You can't, if you could you would know what is causing the current warming, because they are the same thing. PS. You owe your life to climate change, because you could not exist or have evolved on snowball Earth.
Let's not ask what caused the Ice Age, let's ask what caused the second set of evolutions to come about again....
By the application of fundamental logic that your brain lacks and I'm being serious. See you have no ability to think, you merely repeat what you hear like a parrot. Facts, the last ice age peaked 20,000 years ago, which means that the last ice age began to abate 20,000 years ago. By 10,000 years ago most of the ice was melted, however it is continuing to melt today. These are facts, the ones that idiots who refuse to look at any graph that does not extend back more that 150 years will ever see. So if you use your brain you will see, but that is impossible since you are a parrot who can only repeat what others babble
I'm saying I don't know the answer to your question. This is your opportunity to educate me. Take a stab at it. I'm pretty receptive. You just told me it can't be known what ended the last ice age. How can you possibly know the same mechanisms that ended it are the same mechanisms causing the warming today?
So you do not know the answers, but want public policy changed based upon what you do not know. That's ignorant If warming has been happening unabated for 20,000 years, the mechanism for this does not change to suit your mood. Again this concept is ignorant
I don't care about public policy. That's your hang up; not mine. I ask again, how can you possibly know that "warming has been happening unabated for 20,000 years" if you deny all evidence? And besides warming has not be happening unabated for 20,000 years. In fact, we've been in a secular decline for the last 6,000 years or so. So that statement is wrong to begin with.
LOL now you say that you don't know what is causing climate change and want the answers from me. What happened to CO2 kiddy Again half the USA was covered in glaciation 20,000 years ago, it had a name, THE ICE AGE. It began melting without human help, and it is still melting now. These are facts that you ignore, the evidence are the highland hills in NJ, the terminal moraine of the glacier that once covered half the USA and ALL of Canada.
In thermodynamics things have a function that they heat and gain temperature in accordance to the energy being added. However things also have a rate of loss and room temperature will always be reached when the applied energy is stopped. Earth loses gained heat to space, I do not think space will ever reach a room temperature so heat will always disperse into space from bodies. In saying that, there is a problem of if the gain magnitude is greater than the loss magnitude. the bodies or atmospheres then become super heated proportional to the input magnitude. So in reality if the sun was to increase in magnitude (which it is) or one was to beam endless radiation transmissions at earth from orbiting satellites, this will effect the gain and loss ratio causing the bodies and atmospheres to become heated. So my answer is to your question is of two answers, yes the internal workings can cause global warming but also could planet or star displacement. For example if a distance star was to come closer to the dark side of our planet (night time), the planet would get hotter and we would only ever experience daytime.
Variations in distances cause a variation in magnitude of light in accordance with the inverse square law.
And previous uploads too. Equality: The totality is not that simple as repeated model failures demonstrate. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/i-knew-it-all-along.521989/ Here's a model that says we do have a geologic thermostat. And Gaia too, of course. Moi r > g ,
Sometimes things are that simple. Imagine a bucket full of water, without adding or taking away any water the bucket water level remains the same. Now if we was to add water , it would lose equal water to overflow as gained.
If you do not want to learn that is not my problem , I cannot force you to learn. If you didn't understand you could of asked. Let's complex things, there is no time dilation there is an ageing dilation. All related although you haven't a clue why....
