debate
Discord ID: 634548436280016906
3,636 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/15
| Next
n
uh?
Angry was here
no he wasn't
Uh huh
All trees are blue.
wtf
did you delete my post?
Banjod was here.
God exists.
yes
Prots r dumb
finally someone with a brain
who deleted my first post, you sore loser
in which I gave the proof of god and jesus, i guess you'll never know now
There's proof of Jesus?
yes
it's called this BIBLE
<:dab:395562678153904128>
The Bible is proof of Jesus like Spiderman-Comics are proof for Spiderman. It is a proof of a story which does not necessarily took place in the real world.
wasn't there even other suff ther proves that Jesus lived??
ike other historical documents
Yes.
Historical facts:
- After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
- On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
- On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
- The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
Even if you don't believe in the miracles, it's widely acknowledged by historians that a man called Jesus did exist in the flesh and blood around 2k years ago
bruv just hit the emojis
alot of the stories ascribed to said man might not even be him, or true
the bible is the jj abrahams version of a bunch of urban legends 500 years earlier
I personally think Jesus may have been heir to the Hasmonean throne.
I personally think Jesus may have been a mushroom
Badgers
There is no true Scotsman.
Prove me wrong.
Fallacy.
Done.
ol skool
mushroom MUSHROOM
Newgrounds gang-gang
I can honestly see why God would save Catholics over Protestants
Not on their own, @The Eternal Swede , but if every conventional measure of normal evidence gets undermined by technology, they eventually CAN use that to argue the case for...say, state enforced DNA banks. Or tracking software.
They can use that to argue for those things already, as they know about the existence of deep fakes
Where the tech goes from here, publicity-wise, doesn't affect that very much
They can and will make whatever arguments they like, and if not these arguments, they will make other ones
I don't think the existence of deep fakes *meaningfully* affects their ability to create a deeper police state, is what I'm trying to say
We'll see if this won't be used past making porn video's about AOC
no such thing as state overreach
ยฏ\_(ใ)_/ยฏ
I don't have any numbers on it, but i'd be curious to know what are the predominant evidence methods currently used to convict criminals.
None of you believe there will be a transition period for stuff like this? People will be instantly redpilled? I dont buy it. Especially in Europe where people get convicted for tweets they cant even prove were written by them.
I bet the jews love this though, it means soon you can personify your stepmom pornhub fantasies
no people are selected by the redpill
and people like u and i will only propogate if the redpill selection machine helps with fertility and lifestyle
haha, soonโข
I am Muslim ama
When will you leave our countries
does your mother make good curry?
<:basedmama:396156349676781569>
Her mother is in the curry
Hey whatโs up guys
I believe global warming is a real phenomenon
Debate me
Explain how historic levels of atmospheric CO2 did not contribute towards runaway warming. Then I might consider debating.
I'm specifically talking about periods in history when atmospheric CO2 was at levels ~1500ppm
@oojimaflip can you give me one instance of this? There are different reasons for different time periods.
Carboniferous period will do. As far as I can see the contention of climate scientists is that increased atmospheric CO2 will lead, via the greenhouse effect, to Earth becomming more like Venus.
if this were true, Earth would already look like Venus.
What was the carbon dioxide ppm at that time
~1500ppm
I mean Venus has an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide it says Iโm not sure having a atmosphere of 1500 ppm would make it turn into Venus
not in terms of atmospheric compostition, no. But that's not the contention.
What
"atmospheric CO2 levels >400ppm (current) will lead to catastrophic temperature rise."
that's the contention, is it not?
So there is a difference between these things. In ones instance the temperature gain were slower. The ecosystem is able to adapt over the 100,000 or what ever time period. 10000 years maybe. Human beings are raising co2 levels a lot more a quickly and this is why it will lead to catastrophic effects
it's also a fallacy that "Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is 96% CO2"
Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is much thicker than Earth's
Well itโs actually 2 things. Itโs high co2 levels and itโs thicker atmosphere. We can observe the green house effect of co2 in experiments. High schoolers do this.
So we know co2 has this effect
the rate of temp change does not explain why 1500ppm would not cause further (increasing) temp rise
where's the runaway greenhouse effect?
What do you mean? What it seems is the carbon dioxide increased more plants started to over grow took the carbon dioxide out of the air.
And the temperature went down
whilst CO2 is correlated to temp quite well, data clearly shows that CO2 increases as a result of increased global temp
not the other way round
Why would higher temperature cause higher co2 levels
This doesnโt make any sense
What is the phenomenon
CO2 is exhaust from animal life, higher stable temps mean more life.
It also means a lot more plants that take carbon dioxide out of the air and it seems plants have more an effect on co2 levels then animals do at least on land. For the time period you have shit tons of plants grew took carbon dioxide out of the air and the world almost ended up in an ice age
Do you deny that carbon dioxide has a green house effect? Do you deny the high schoolers experiments done that show this effect on heat retention? @oojimaflip
plant cycle for captuuring CO2 is much slower to react and time between max plant biomass (governed by CO2 levels) and min plant biomass is muuch longer
So for example
it is a false equivalence to equate a greenhouse and Earth's atmosphere
If you take a jar fill it with carbon dioxide and put it under a heat lamp it is hotter then the jar with lower amounts of carbon dioxide
our atmosphere is not a jar
No of course not but it shows in the small scale the effect that carbon dioxide traping light energy and because of this higher temperature
a greenhouse retains heat because warm air inside cannot leave and equalise temp with the outside air
You have a misunderstanding
it's a lack of convection, nothing to do with radiation
Green house effect is not the same as a green house
These are too different phenomenon
And things
atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on TSI values, yes?
They are called the same just because scientist name things badly
What do you mean based off TSI values
it only calculates based on total solar irradiance
the greenhouse effect is all about radiated heat, yes?
Yes I guess.
well, it's wrong, as far as I can tell.
Why
We can see in small scale experiments the effect co2 has on temperature
In closed environments
sure, but when doing small scale experiments they are concerned with very high CO2 levels
not 0.04%
secondarily
how can 3% (human produced CO2) of the total annual flux of CO2 be more potent than the natural 97%?
(3% of 0.04< 97% of 0.04)
how come temps were so high in the early industrial period (low CO2) and so cold in the late industrial period(high CO2)? (1940 vs 1969)
it isnt mroe potent
they can barely calculate the supposed manmade share in temperature change
Okay first off. Just because there is a small percent change. Doesnโt mean it will have a large effect. Nature can only absorb so much of it and adding more doesnโt get absorbed. Thatโs why it might seem like a small percent but itโs actually big.
how come NASA and NOAA are having to resort to data modification?
Data modification? We modify all data
its cherrypicked data
only if you want to fit it to a model
data is data
I mean you got to show evidence for this
yes i agree data is data
just dont tell people to trust data
science doesnt work if you politicise the data
this ^
and the science process itself
Show me proof nasa cherry picks data
already did
go look at any Tony Heller yt video, he's been showing the data tampering for years
its on the frontpage of their hockeystick
page
amazing what youu can find when youu take a copy of original data
Oh the supposed data mixing he cries about?
homogenizing is something else that's laughable;; including low quality data does not increase precision
Do you know that you need to use data mixing to compare co2 levels now co2 levels before? Of course you should try to avoid data mixing but itโs impossible in this circumstance.
so they've added thousands of data points.... from airports!! ๐
urban heat islands
yeah, sure, that won't skew the data at all
Iโm not sure if I would take tony hellers word on any of this
don't have to
that's the beautiful thing, it's clear in the data itself
Yeah we canโt do ice core data of co2 levels now. So if you want to compared co2 levels now to millions of years ago how do you do this without data mixing
I've looked at both datasets
the later one has been modified
often with no oversight
data mixing isnโt inherently wrong it should be avoided but if you know that one data is accurate and the other data is accurate you can mix them. Nothing is wrong with this
tbqh I don't care about CO2 levels, it's irrelevant to me. I only care about temp records
Why we can observe the green house effect on a small scale that co2 causes
it doesn't matter how accurate the data is, if it's coming from an airport or other urban heat island it is entirely irrelevant, not just low quality
Earth's atmosphere not small scale though
Idk dude co2 levels we calculate arenโt from airports or urban heat islands
the temp data is
Sure but it proves the green house effect carbon has.
only in a container
on a small scale
Okay so why doesnโt this phenomenon scale?
it doesn't account for the multitude of variables in Earth's climate
it doesn't account for anything other than TSI
and even when it does that, climate science tells us that atmospheric CO2 is more powerful at driving our climate than the sun
it doesn't account for high energy particles
it doesn't account for magnetosphere effects
Sure many of these factors are constant
And donโt change
At least
no.
assumption
From the human perspective
milankovitch cycles
Co2 levels thought out history created drastic change in the temperature
no
We can see this after the time period you talked about
it was warm in the 1940s
when CO2 was low
it was cold in the 60's-70's
when CO2 was high
except the evidence of these periods is being changed or removed
Okay so in a couple years In the 1940s it was warm and in the 70s it was slightly colder so that means the green house effect isnโt real.
You are the one cherry picking data
rubbish
go look for yourself
if you can find an untainted source
there are emails between climate scientists talking about how problematic the 70's cold period is
We can see historical records of how much change the co2 levels change from plants and volcanoes see the drastic change in temperature and see how it changed.
and how they can massage the data to better fit the trend they want to show
Okay I donโt care about a couple scientist somewhere massaging data
I do, when they control the political landscape it's dangerous
I mean I donโt care if they with the broader scope of if something is true or not.
you never adequately explained how high CO2 levels didn't lead to ever increasing temps
Carboniferous period had CO2 levels ~1500ppm and yet temp was 3~12 degrees higher
why did the high temps not lead to more CO2 and the runaway effect?
it doesn't matter how much time anything has to adapt, your contention is that CO2 produces a temp increase
why did this not occurr during the carboniferous and other high CO2 periods?
Why didnโt it lead to a runaway effect? Because plants grew because of higher co2 levels and took co2 out of the air
you think plants can grow faster than the sun can input energy into the atmosphere?
I don't
for plants to stop a net increase in temp they wouuld have to lock away CO2 at an alarming rate
especially at ~1500ppm
What do you mean input energy into a system? co2 levels change equilibriums so temps raise it doesnโt keep trapping energy for ever
So energy canโt leave
uuhhhh, isn't that what you call the greenhouse effect?
if 400ppm co2 will cause a catastrophic rate of temp increase, what rate of temp increase do you think 1500ppm would produce?
how would plants even catch up?
Catch up with what
the rate of temp increase
it increases with increasing CO2
Do you think if you have 1500ppm of co2 the temperature of earth will keep rising to infinite?
no, that would be ridiculous
So co2 levels and temperature have a equilibrium.
Temperature wonโt just keep increasing
To infinity
it should get as hot as venus, if climate scientists are to be believed
No it shouldnโt Venus is 96% carbon dioxide and has a thicker atmosphere. While 1500ppm is waaaaaay less then what Venus has.
We would expect a huge temperature difference and we do
I think Venus has 86 million ppm
It what it says
I've never heard a single climate person talk about equilibriums, it's always about a runaway greenhouse effect
Yes I a closed system
Iโm a closed system
Letโs say a jar
The temperature doesnโt increase to infinity
If you shine a light on it
black body radiation and entropy would like a word
it's not a closed system
it can be considered closed for some investigations
As energy levels increase more energy leaves.
Changing co2 changes this
Allowing for more energy to stay to a point till more energy starts to leave
So the temperature is higher
if you continually heat a gas in a container, does it reach an equilibrium, or does it get so hot the pressure increases to the point where the jar explodes?
๐
@johny1846 The earth's atmosphere is not a closed system
Weโll shine constant light on the container the amount it radiates equals the amount it gains after a while
gasses, heat, light etc. all escape the atmosphere
I'm done here, it's impossible to debate with someone who is ideologically possessed
You can do this experiment yourself. Get a jar start with just air shine a light on it measure the temperature after a while it will reach and equilibrium. Slowly increase the co2 concentrations and see how the equilibrium changes. @Downfall Vision these changes arenโt going to change the temperature as much as changing this equilibrium point
"A light" is not equatable to our Sun! FFS
im going to put the jar into a fire
along with this debate
@johny1846 if you then put in some living organisms which soak up CO2 and exhaust Oxygen what happens?
also what control measures are in place for this "experiment"?
how can you be sure that the light level coming from the light to the jar is comparable to the light coming from our sun to earth?
Sure having living organisms fuck up the equilibrium point they will increase the co2 levels and decrease.
Them
So your experiment is meaningless in terms of earth's climate
3,636 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/15
| Next