Global warming, global cooling, or sloppy science? - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Andrewl · #91 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

I would neither deny nor confirm anything of the sort based on that particular graph, Andrew.

Consider that the temperature is a function of the amount of CO2. Then you would see an immediate response between the amount of CO2 and temperature in present times, right? The graph doesn't show that.

Consider that the amount of CO2 is a function of the temperature. If the amount of CO2 increases to, well, unprecedented scales, would you see a corresponding rise in temperature? No, of course not. Now tell me, do we in that very graph see a rise in temperature that corresponds to the amount of CO2? Even though the present amount of CO2 skyrockets on a scale that hasn't been seen previously, we see no rise in temperature that actually exceeds previous records. Why?

We know CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm up after an increase in CO2, not immediately. This works the other way as well, as we know from the Antarctic ice cores that an increase in temperature can lead to a later increase in CO2. Neither relationship is immediate. It takes time for the temperature to climb or the co2 to be released.

I did not present the graph to prove there is such a thing as a 'greenhouse' effect, i presented it to show that significant amounts (measured in PPM) of human emissions of CO2 are in the atmosphere. I took the fact the there is a greenhouse effect as a result of CO2 a priori. Are you disputing that there is such a thing?

Andrew

Traveler · #92 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

Why am I not surprised with your boilerplate response, It is clear there are many things you don't understand. However, I do believe there is one post somewhere, where even you agree with me.

I am sure your a fine young man and feel strongly about your beliefs - but to pass them off as facts is simply not good enough.

No, the reason i can't make head nor tail of what you wrote is not because i can't comprehend things but because what you wrote is gibberish.

As for passing off youropinion as facts, well that's exactly what Global warming is. Nothing but greedy scientists who want more funding trying to pass off their phony baloney views as fact. Pathetic.

quacker76 · #93 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

I think your pretentious if you consider your opinions as facts. You make reference to others that agree with your opinions. If it is facts you are talking about, then why do you have to make emotional references to "big oil and coal" It shows that you believe this stuff because you want to. There are scientists who disagree. You just ignore them and pretend they don't really exist.

ViPER · #94 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

No, the reason i can't make head nor tail of what you wrote is not because i can't comprehend things but because what you wrote is gibberish.

As for passing off youropinion as facts, well that's exactly what Global warming is. Nothing but greedy scientists who want more funding trying to pass off their phony baloney views as fact. Pathetic.

I don't claim my opinion represents science - I have posted Scientific fact to support my claims however. My claims may be right or wrong - the Science is fact. You can dispute my claims - but clearly you AND bush got nothing on the Science.

ViPER · #95 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by quacker76

I think your pretentious if you consider your opinions as facts. You make reference to others that agree with your opinions. If it is facts you are talking about, then why do you have to make emotional references to "big oil and coal" It shows that you believe this stuff because you want to. There are scientists who disagree. You just ignore them and pretend they don't really exist.

Who me?

read my posts - I put little weight into Exxon funded science regarding GW.

SMadsen · #96 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I did not present the graph to prove there is such a thing as a 'greenhouse' effect, i presented it to show that significant amounts (measured in PPM) of human emissions of CO2 are in the atmosphere. I took the fact the there is a greenhouse effect as a result of CO2 a priori. Are you disputing that there is such a thing?

That CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas? No, I don't dispute that. As for stipulating the effect that the current level of CO2 has on a global level, I'm in no position to dispute it or agree with it, due to lack of the information required for such a purpose. In fact, the only thing I dispute is the belief that we have all the information needed in order to conclusively say that we know the effect on the global climate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

We know CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm up after an increase in CO2, not immediately.

Exactly how do we know that? As for 'immediately', the graph shows occurrences where temperature variations caused by CO2 level variations would be so immediate that the temperature rises and falls before the CO2 level rises and falls. I'd say that's a great deal faster than immediately.

Andrewl · #97 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Well firstly we don't have conclusive data of what went on thousands of years ago, if we did it may well show just as significant an increase back then as there is now. Possibly greater, which would explain the changes in severity. Can you state what exactly it is that makes man responsible?

Many things. Deforestation, industrial farming, population, emissions, coas etc... these all contribute. The key is the scale it is on - which is global.

Quote:

And then what it is that is different now (with what man does) to what was done hundreds maybe thousands of years ago to make the temperatures go up so (sensationally) drastically?

The rate, duration, and size and span of our activities.

Quote:

Also can you give statistical data of temperatures of the last however many thousands of years? Put it into comparison as to howlong our planet has been around compared to the percentage increase you cite and then see what the percentage of years worth of data you have in relation to the amount of time the planet has been in existance. You can't make any sort of credible analysis or come to any reasonable conclusion with 5 to 10% fluctuation based on 3 or 4% of overall data, that's absurd. And then finally after all that can you tell me, for the love of God, what is wrong with the temperatures going up? Just a few questions if you can answer, the burden of proof lays with you here seeing as you're claiming this mythical nonsense exists.

How long our planet has been around is irrelevant. What we need to know is what kind of environment is habitable for our species. And we know that quite well. And we also know quite well the mechanisms and systems that support it. We know these are sensitive to temperature and to chemistry because ti is revealed quite clearly in our geological records.

Andrew

The temperatures going up will combine with our massive deforestation projects to desertify much of our growing surface. It will

iTaliAN_ICe · #98 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

hmmmm... i did.

Global warming, global cooling, or sloppy science?

The graph you provided only goes back to what, 1945?

You can't draw conclusions from a graph that only measures temperatures back ~60 years. Your data proves absolutely nothing.

ViPER · #99 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007

This is the longest record we have of ocean temps

iTaliAN_ICe · #**100** (**permalink**) 08-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

This is the longest record we have of ocean temps

Then I'm afraid we simply don't have enough data to conclude that our actions contribute noticeably to global warming, or throw the natural cycle off-track in any way.

ViPER · #**101** (**permalink**) 08-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

Then I'm afraid we simply don't have enough data to conclude that our actions contribute noticeably to global warming, or throw the natural cycle off-track in any way.

I will rest easy knowing you disagree with the scientific community regarding the facts of global warming.

iTaliAN_ICe · #**102** (**permalink**) 08-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

I will rest easy knowing you disagree with the scientific community regarding the facts of global warming.

If these "scientists" are willing to accept ~120 years of ocean temperature readings as indisputable evidence of human-induced global warming, science may not be the best line of work for them. I have yet to see any compelling evidence. Feel free to post any you come across.

ViPER · #**103** (**permalink**) 08-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

If these "scientists" are willing to accept ~120 years of ocean temperature readings as indisputable evidence of human-induced global warming, science may not be the best line of work for them. I have yet to see any compelling evidence. Feel free to post any you come across.

It is you that based your decision on that one aspect, information you asked for and I provided. I do not claim it is the sole source of data regarding global warming.

Here is some info on cycles and peak events.

Global Climate Change & Peak Oil Part III

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office

iTaliAN_ICe · #**104** (**permalink**) 08-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

It is you that based your decision on that one aspect, information you asked for and I provided.

And thank you for doing that.

I base my opinion on the fact that, when you look at the "big picture" of temperature patterns and paleoclimatology, you see that there is no deviation in temperatures from the natural cycle. Without the "warming" part, the theory of "global warming" seems to fall apart...

ViPER · #**105** (**permalink**) 08-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

And thank you for doing that.

I base my opinion on the fact that, when you look at the "big picture" of temperature patterns and paleoclimatology, you see that there is no deviation in temperatures from the natural cycle. Without the "warming" part, the theory of "global warming" seems to fall apart...

its the rate.

ScienceDaily: Global Warming Doubles Rate Of Ocean Rise

Arctic sea ice melting at record rate - Climate Change - MSNBC.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode