The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!
Well i wont argue with that type of thinking it would just be a wast of time.
Yup when your convinced your convinced right ?
Link me to what convinced you. I offer that challenge to everyone I debate, I have yet to see a link that didnt include the words "probably", "if", maybe or "likleyhood" and the most liberal use of those terms was in the IPCC report.
To call GW theory an inexact science is a tremendous compliment.
Ocean tempetures go up, more moisture in the air means an increase in things like clouds, in particular storm clouds. The increase in clouds will mean that there are more storms. Places that see more rain will get more rain, those places that get more snow will see more snow in some places. The jet stream will shift causeing climactic changes in parts of the world. Resulting in places that normaly have heavy rain and snow fall to lessen; while places that didn't get that much get more.
When the UK suffers a period of colder seasons places in south america suffer a drought. The cold air over EU sucks up most of the moisture as the jet streams pass over, resulting in places that should be getting rain, not getting it.
Snow in a place that hasn't seen it in 89 years isn't an indicator that global warming isn't happening. It could actually be the result of it to.
Carbon dioxide and methane levels are indicators of global warming. An over abundance of these greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere prevents heat that would otherwise escape the earth to become trapped, wich in turn warms the atmosphere itself up, resulting in global warming.
The rate at wich greenhouse gasses are being released into the atmosphere is increasing substantially, and it's not a result of nature. It's us. Along with the gasses we're releasing, the earth itself is releasing it's own, this is causing a snowball effect as the polar caps melt and release even more. We are contributing to a natural process, and the reult of that isn't good for the planet.
Venus is a fine example of a planet with to much greenhouse gass. While the earth isn't headed in that direction, it's a good indicator of what these gasses can do to a planet when there is to much.
Any levels beyond what the earth naturally produces is going to be to much, and will effect the atmosphere in a way that it otherwise wouldn't, if left to it's own devices.
Edit: The sun isn't as big a contributor to the tempeture of the earth as people tend to believe. It's how well the atmposphere retains heat.
Global warming is big business, the scientific concensus is that scientists recieve massive amounts of funding to perpetuate half truths in order to continue their cash flow while people like Al Gore laugh all the way to the bank.
Someone said that they live in the UK...so you should be familiar with a woman by the name of Margaret Thatcher...are you aware that she is the one that actually started the current global warming scare in an effort to "wag the dog" so to speak? This climate scare, just like every other one before it (you think this is the first time that humans have decided that we are destroying the Earth?) will go away when people realize that their homes aren't all under water in a decade or two.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Global warming is big business, the scientific concensus is that scientists recieve massive amounts of funding to perpetuate half truths in order to continue their cash flow while people like Al Gore laugh all the way to the bank. Someone said that they live in the UK...so you should be familiar with a woman by the name of Margaret Thatcher...are you aware that she is the one that actually started the current global warming scare in an effort to "wag the dog" so to speak? This climate scare, just like every other one before it (you think this is the first time that humans have decided that we are destroying the Earth?) will go away when people realize that their homes aren't all under water in a decade or two.
I live on the east coast, near a beach, well what's left of it anyways.
The beach is almost gone because water levels continue to rise every year. We're also experiencing more frequent heat waves, more humidity, higher ozone levels, and the average tempeture is higher then 20 years ago. Our winters are becoming milder, with less snow acumulation.
Edit: I was just thinking. I believe that people with a strong religious belief are less likely to believe in global warming. With the exception of the end time fanatics who think it's god's work. I could see were thier inherent belief that everything is gods will would mean that global warming couldn't happen because it would have to be gods doing and he's not doing it. Something like that. Just sort of pondering that. I wonder.
I'd like all the doubters to conduct a little experiment right in their own living rooms.
Imagine the room is like the planet's biosphere. It's very important that all windows and doors be closed for this test. Step one...Set your couch on fire. Step two...Notice how quickly both heat and pollutants begin to build up. Step three...Notice how all life in the room responds to the gradual change. Step four...As you roll your eyes back in your head and gasp your last, reflect on what a fool you've been for denying the obvious.
Um yeah Jade Im re-evaluating my thoughts on the basis of a pooly though out peice of pseudo logic I saw over a month ago.
An argument with so many holes in it that it barely rates a response.... but the resposnse I will give is this..
Pascal's Wager was a bad argument when Pascal thought it up and some gimp putting his even worse thought out version of it in youtube like 200 years after pascal came out with it doesnt make it better. It just makes him look rather silly for being such a poor student of history and you look rather unresearched for using it as a defence for anything, let alone physical science.
Toddle off now and look up pascals wager. Return when you you are informed and we may continue if I deem your next response worthy.
So please try to make it better than "it rains a lot here now" LOL
And Pyrite.... one small problem. Heat radiates out of the atmosphere and into space my friend. You experiment is fataly flawed as a model. Almost as fataly flawed as the models used to predict our hyper complex climate.....
Waste of time mate... waste of time...
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!
Well i wont argue with that type of thinking it would just be a wast of time.
Yup when your convinced your convinced right ?
Link me to what convinced you. I offer that challenge to everyone I debate, I have yet to see a link that didnt include the words "probably", "if", maybe or "likleyhood" and the most liberal use of those terms was in the IPCC report.
To call GW theory an inexact science is a tremendous compliment.
If you are going to talk doo doo. At least play with the big boys! By the way.. Instead of probably, ifs and likelyhood. You will get Have, does, and "is".
Powder that site is really flakey. If you read the assertions on it carefully it starts from a position of linking Co2 with rising temperatures without proving that link in any way. Then proceeds to the predictible catastrophe scenarios by paragraph 2.
A. RUTH CURRY: Global warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community. Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures.
Just have a close read of that. Its absolute double speaking nonsense I kid you not.
"Globally warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community" What exactly does "pretty well" mean ? I mean thats just hilarious.
Then
"Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures."
With not even an attempt to link the two concepts....
Honestly.... its laughable that anyone could take a statement like that seriously and it just goes down hill from there.
See its like I said in my second or third post.
Link me ot the information that convinces you Co2 drives our climate. That website does nothing of the sort.
I have said that so many times on these forums in the last 2 years or so, yet all I get in reply is....
"but there are 928 peer reviewed papers" - well my response is concencus does not equal fact or the earth would have been proven to be flat.
"you can see the climate is changing and warming" - really ? who would have thought that a constantly and consistently changing, complex system would continue to change in average and extreme ways. It doesnt prove man made Co2 is doing it. In fact it doesnt support that proposition in any way whatsoever.
"it rains more where I live now" - get a grip
etc etc etc..... all emotive personal contributions lacking one convincing factor...........substance.
Remember the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Want to come to these forums and say C02 drives the climate. Then show me some evidence...
Thats about a dozen challenges and counting.... I yawn with anticipation.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Q. Are all these changes really caused by human behavior, or natural causes, or a combination?
A. RUTH CURRY: We have a pretty good idea of how CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. We have cores of glacial ice that have accumulated in Antarctica over 650,000 years, and they have trapped in them tiny bubbles from the atmosphere in the past. Scientists can figure out what atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels were in each year in the past.
Throughout that entire 650,000-year time span, the natural CO2 fluctuation is 190 to 280 parts per million. Today we’re at 381 parts per million, and almost all of that extra 100 or so ppm increase has happened in the last 100 years—that is, since the Industrial Revolution. There’s not much doubt that the increase is due to anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.
KAREN BICE: We are taking carbon from deep in the Earth and putting it into the atmosphere. Rather than allowing carbon-rich sediments to remain buried and be naturally exposed and eroded over the course of millions and tens of millions of years, we’re reaching down into the Earth, and we’re pulling those carbon-rich sediments and liquids and gases out of the geology of the Earth and putting them into the atmosphere.
That is why the CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere is going to be with us for a while. Because if we want to return to a preindustrial-like atmosphere, it would take millions of years for that carbon to be put back where we got it. It’s going to require erosion of silicate rocks and the chemical reactions that go with that.
The only explanation for the increase in CO2 that we’ve observed in the past 100 years is that we are taking carbon out of rocks and putting it into the atmosphere.
Humans are doing that. Other animals aren’t doing that. Plants aren’t doing that. It’s humans drilling for and burning fossil fuel.
And at the same time, we also know that, through deforestation, we’re taking way one of the short-term sinks for CO2, which is forest growth.
Look at tha balance in that chart of ocean temperatures from your site.
The rise in temperatures now is almost exactly the same as the fall 100 years ago.
Thats because the climate is (broken record) variable.
In order to acheive an average you will have extremes. None of which points to causality of a nature that can be explained by human activity.
Consider this. If your saying human activity made the temperatures in that chart rise. What caused them to go so low before 1930 ?
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Powder that site is really flakey. If you read the assertions on it carefully it starts from a position of linking Co2 with rising temperatures without proving that link in any way. Then proceeds to the predictible catastrophe scenarios by paragraph 2. Example. Q.Is there is a warming trend?
A. RUTH CURRY: Global warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community. Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures. Just have a close read of that. Its absolute double speaking nonsense I kid you not. "Globally warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community" What exactly does "pretty well" mean ? I mean thats just hilarious. Then "Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures." With not even an attempt to link the two concepts.... Honestly.... its laughable that anyone could take a statement like that seriously and it just goes down hill from there. See its like I said in my second or third post. Link me ot the information that convinces you Co2 drives our climate. That website does nothing of the sort. I have said that so many times on these forums in the last 2 years or so, yet all I get in reply is.... "but there are 928 peer reviewed papers" - well my response is concencus does not equal fact or the earth would have been proven to be flat. "you can see the climate is changing and warming" - really ? who would have thought that a constantly and consistently changing, complex system would continue to change in average and extreme ways. It doesnt prove man made Co2 is doing it. In fact it doesnt support that proposition in any way whatsoever. "it rains more where I live now" - get a grip etc etc etc..... all emotive personal contributions lacking one convincing factor...........substance. Remember the burden of proof is on the claimant. Want to come to these forums and say C02 drives the climate. Then show me some evidence... Thats about a dozen challenges and counting.... I yawn with anticipation.
Razorback,WHOI is the most respected and most trustworthy science group in the world. Entire governments look for WHOIs guidance. Why I understand your reluctance, I do know that when WHOI makes a model it is always correct. There are no ifs wit them. or could of, would of ect. You asked specifically about manmade CO2. Hope you enjoyed the answer.
"but there are 928 peer reviewed papers" - well my response is concencus does not equal fact or the earth would have been proven to be flat.
Generally, scientific consensus is as close to fact as someone who is not a scientist in that particular field is ever going to get.
Further, the idea that scientific consensus existed that the Earth was flat is, in itself, a ridiculous and untrue notion, so it in no way invalidates scientific consensus as our most useful yardstick. By 240 BC, the first scientist to get around to actually performing, you know, scientific studies on the Earth (and not just philosophizing on the topic), managed to not only deduce that the Earth was spherical, but calculated it's circumference to within 20% of its true value. Within 300 years, the scientific consensus (and, indeed, the popular belief) was pretty much universal that the Earth was spherical. The modern and completely incorrect belief that people thought the Earth was flat up to and including the middle ages is due almost entirely to a fictitious account of Columbus presented in 1828.
I hope you enjoy having the most irrelevant part of your post illuminated for the pure fallacy and hyperbole that it is. Since I suspect the remainder of your arguments are of equal "quality", I'll just go ahead and stop there.
And for the rest of us... a friendly reminder to please not feed the trolls!
Nice cut and paste job.... let me add to it. Look at tha balance in that chart of ocean temperatures from your site. The rise in temperatures now is almost exactly the same as the fall 100 years ago. Thats because the climate is (broken record) variable. In order to acheive an average you will have extremes. None of which points to causality of a nature that can be explained by human activity. Consider this. If your saying human activity made the temperatures in that chart rise. What caused them to go so low before 1930 ?
lol, Razor, you are looking at sea surface temperature. Not global temperature. If you read, the temperature change is mostly due in part to a natural cycle.
Nice cut and paste job.... let me add to it. Look at tha balance in that chart of ocean temperatures from your site. The rise in temperatures now is almost exactly the same as the fall 100 years ago. Thats because the climate is (broken record) variable. In order to acheive an average you will have extremes. None of which points to causality of a nature that can be explained by human activity. Consider this. If your saying human activity made the temperatures in that chart rise. What caused them to go so low before 1930 ?
lol, Razor, you are looking at sea surface temperature. Not global temperature. If you read, the temperature change is mostly due in part to a natural cycle.
LOL Powder READ MY POST!!
I said ocean temperature..... I swear man.... you are barely worth debating.
And "mostly due in part" your really serious when you make staments like that arnt you ?
So is it "mostly" or "in part" due to a natural cycle.
And whichever it is, how are you seperating that from our aleged impact with your planet sized brain and flakey data ?
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Ocean temperature is different than Sea Surface temperature Razorback. If that was a chart showing Ocean temperature then the world would be more jacked up than it already is.
Ocean temperature is different than Sea Surface temperature Razorback. If that was a chart showing Ocean temperature then the world would be more jacked up than it already is.
Ah so your going to debate this on the basis of the difference between the word "ocean" and "sea"
And what do you mean by "jacked up", you really are floundering arnt you.
Well if I was standing on the kind of thin ice of logic you are. Id be looking for a diversion to.
Nice work, you must be very proud.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Ocean temperature is different than Sea Surface temperature Razorback. If that was a chart showing Ocean temperature then the world would be more jacked up than it already is.
Ah so your going to debate this on the basis of the difference between the word "ocean" and "sea"
And what do you mean by "jacked up", you really are floundering arnt you.
Well if I was standing on the kind of thin ice of logic you are. Id be looking for a diversion to.
Nice work, you must be very proud.
No debate is necessary. I recommend looking up Oceanic Conveyor and Thermalhaline Circulation. Ocean /Sea are quite different.
I am glad you are taking a interest in Global warming.
Ocean temperature is different than Sea Surface temperature Razorback. If that was a chart showing Ocean temperature then the world would be more jacked up than it already is.
Ah so your going to debate this on the basis of the difference between the word "ocean" and "sea"
And what do you mean by "jacked up", you really are floundering arnt you.
Well if I was standing on the kind of thin ice of logic you are. Id be looking for a diversion to.
Nice work, you must be very proud.
No debate is necessary. I recommend looking up Oceanic Conveyor and Thermalhaline Circulation. Ocean /Sea are quite different.
Pathetic
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
No debate is necessary. I recommend looking up Oceanic Conveyor and Thermalhaline Circulation. Ocean /Sea are quite different.
Pathetic
You know i see you do say a lot but ive yet to see you actually post facts could you do that a bit more than just Chatting as its hardly evidence against global warming.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand
No debate is necessary. I recommend looking up Oceanic Conveyor and Thermalhaline Circulation. Ocean /Sea are quite different.
Pathetic
You know i see you do say a lot but ive yet to see you actually post facts could you do that a bit more than just Chatting as its hardly evidence against global warming.
If you knew anything about science you would know that you cannot disprove anything.
If you had ACTUALLY read my posts you would know that I have already stated the burden of proof is on the party making the claim.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
No debate is necessary. I recommend looking up Oceanic Conveyor and Thermalhaline Circulation. Ocean /Sea are quite different.
Pathetic
You know i see you do say a lot but ive yet to see you actually post facts could you do that a bit more than just Chatting as its hardly evidence against global warming.
If you knew anything about science you would know that you cannot disprove anything.
If you had ACTUALLY read my posts you would know that I have already stated the burden of proof is on the party making the claim.
Yes thats why i want you to disprove global warming because you claim that what we are seeing is naturall and humans have littel or nothing to do with it so the burden of proof is also on you and ive yet to see you post any real proof on your claim that global warming doesant exist.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand
A big thing that doesn't help global warming's claim to be legitimate is evironmentalist that use it as a cause for other things. So they make ridiculous claims and blame global warming.
For example the recent forest fires in the west. I was watching a news broadcast and the evironmentalist that was on started to blame global warming for causing the super fires. Even though he admitted that a build up of "fuel" (trees that the evironmentalists wouldn't allow to be burned down by man or even by nature, they wanted any fires stopped instantly over the last 50 years or so to protect the trees) was what caused the super fires to happen. But then he still tried to turn it and bring up global warming. When I hear a crackpot try to blame global warming for a problem caused by something else, it makes me less inclined to believe in the real problem of global warming.
Now does that mean I think the Earth isn't getting warmer? No of course not, that is a proven fact. Do I think that Man has caused the increase in warming? Well it is possible, but nothing I have read makes me think it is a fact yet. Could we just be finally leaving an Ice age? Sure we could. We have no idea how long that process takes.
But that movie about global warming with Dennis Quaid in it was an awesome movie imo.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
If you knew anything about science you would know that you cannot disprove anything.
Yes thats why i want you to disprove global warming
/ le sigh
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Comments
The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!
Well i wont argue with that type of thinking it would just be a wast of time.
Yup when your convinced your convinced right ?Link me to what convinced you. I offer that challenge to everyone I debate, I have yet to see a link that didnt include the words "probably", "if", maybe or "likleyhood" and the most liberal use of those terms was in the IPCC report.
To call GW theory an inexact science is a tremendous compliment.
Ocean tempetures go up, more moisture in the air means an increase in things like clouds, in particular storm clouds. The increase in clouds will mean that there are more storms. Places that see more rain will get more rain, those places that get more snow will see more snow in some places. The jet stream will shift causeing climactic changes in parts of the world. Resulting in places that normaly have heavy rain and snow fall to lessen; while places that didn't get that much get more.
When the UK suffers a period of colder seasons places in south america suffer a drought. The cold air over EU sucks up most of the moisture as the jet streams pass over, resulting in places that should be getting rain, not getting it.
Snow in a place that hasn't seen it in 89 years isn't an indicator that global warming isn't happening. It could actually be the result of it to.
Carbon dioxide and methane levels are indicators of global warming. An over abundance of these greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere prevents heat that would otherwise escape the earth to become trapped, wich in turn warms the atmosphere itself up, resulting in global warming.
The rate at wich greenhouse gasses are being released into the atmosphere is increasing substantially, and it's not a result of nature. It's us. Along with the gasses we're releasing, the earth itself is releasing it's own, this is causing a snowball effect as the polar caps melt and release even more. We are contributing to a natural process, and the reult of that isn't good for the planet.
Venus is a fine example of a planet with to much greenhouse gass. While the earth isn't headed in that direction, it's a good indicator of what these gasses can do to a planet when there is to much.
Any levels beyond what the earth naturally produces is going to be to much, and will effect the atmosphere in a way that it otherwise wouldn't, if left to it's own devices.
Edit: The sun isn't as big a contributor to the tempeture of the earth as people tend to believe. It's how well the atmposphere retains heat.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Global warming is big business, the scientific concensus is that scientists recieve massive amounts of funding to perpetuate half truths in order to continue their cash flow while people like Al Gore laugh all the way to the bank.
Someone said that they live in the UK...so you should be familiar with a woman by the name of Margaret Thatcher...are you aware that she is the one that actually started the current global warming scare in an effort to "wag the dog" so to speak? This climate scare, just like every other one before it (you think this is the first time that humans have decided that we are destroying the Earth?) will go away when people realize that their homes aren't all under water in a decade or two.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I live on the east coast, near a beach, well what's left of it anyways.
The beach is almost gone because water levels continue to rise every year. We're also experiencing more frequent heat waves, more humidity, higher ozone levels, and the average tempeture is higher then 20 years ago. Our winters are becoming milder, with less snow acumulation.
Edit: I was just thinking. I believe that people with a strong religious belief are less likely to believe in global warming. With the exception of the end time fanatics who think it's god's work. I could see were thier inherent belief that everything is gods will would mean that global warming couldn't happen because it would have to be gods doing and he's not doing it. Something like that. Just sort of pondering that. I wonder.
Wish Darkfall would release.
I'd like all the doubters to conduct a little experiment right in their own living rooms.
Imagine the room is like the planet's biosphere. It's very important that all windows and doors be closed for this test. Step one...Set your couch on fire. Step two...Notice how quickly both heat and pollutants begin to build up. Step three...Notice how all life in the room responds to the gradual change. Step four...As you roll your eyes back in your head and gasp your last, reflect on what a fool you've been for denying the obvious.
Or you could just visit this link www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19463513/
The most important part of reading is reading between the lines.
Um yeah Jade Im re-evaluating my thoughts on the basis of a pooly though out peice of pseudo logic I saw over a month ago.
An argument with so many holes in it that it barely rates a response.... but the resposnse I will give is this..
Pascal's Wager was a bad argument when Pascal thought it up and some gimp putting his even worse thought out version of it in youtube like 200 years after pascal came out with it doesnt make it better. It just makes him look rather silly for being such a poor student of history and you look rather unresearched for using it as a defence for anything, let alone physical science.
Toddle off now and look up pascals wager. Return when you you are informed and we may continue if I deem your next response worthy.
So please try to make it better than "it rains a lot here now" LOL
And Pyrite.... one small problem. Heat radiates out of the atmosphere and into space my friend. You experiment is fataly flawed as a model. Almost as fataly flawed as the models used to predict our hyper complex climate.....
Waste of time mate... waste of time...
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
there was a debate last month in geneva featuring all the major players on both sides.
the scientists saying we have nothing to worry about were quite convincing..here's a clip of their main arguments
The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!
Well i wont argue with that type of thinking it would just be a wast of time.
Yup when your convinced your convinced right ?Link me to what convinced you. I offer that challenge to everyone I debate, I have yet to see a link that didnt include the words "probably", "if", maybe or "likleyhood" and the most liberal use of those terms was in the IPCC report.
To call GW theory an inexact science is a tremendous compliment.
ok, here is what convinced me! www.whoi.edu/page.doIf you are going to talk doo doo. At least play with the big boys! By the way.. Instead of probably, ifs and likelyhood. You will get Have, does, and "is".
Powder that site is really flakey. If you read the assertions on it carefully it starts from a position of linking Co2 with rising temperatures without proving that link in any way. Then proceeds to the predictible catastrophe scenarios by paragraph 2.
Example.
Q. Is there is a warming trend?
A. RUTH CURRY: Global warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community. Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures.
Just have a close read of that. Its absolute double speaking nonsense I kid you not.
"Globally warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community" What exactly does "pretty well" mean ? I mean thats just hilarious.
Then
"Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures."
With not even an attempt to link the two concepts....
Honestly.... its laughable that anyone could take a statement like that seriously and it just goes down hill from there.
See its like I said in my second or third post.
Link me ot the information that convinces you Co2 drives our climate. That website does nothing of the sort.
I have said that so many times on these forums in the last 2 years or so, yet all I get in reply is....
"but there are 928 peer reviewed papers" - well my response is concencus does not equal fact or the earth would have been proven to be flat.
"you can see the climate is changing and warming" - really ? who would have thought that a constantly and consistently changing, complex system would continue to change in average and extreme ways. It doesnt prove man made Co2 is doing it. In fact it doesnt support that proposition in any way whatsoever.
"it rains more where I live now" - get a grip
etc etc etc..... all emotive personal contributions lacking one convincing factor...........substance.
Remember the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Want to come to these forums and say C02 drives the climate. Then show me some evidence...
Thats about a dozen challenges and counting.... I yawn with anticipation.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Q. Are all these changes really caused by human behavior, or natural causes, or a combination?
A. RUTH CURRY: We have a pretty good idea of how CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. We have cores of glacial ice that have accumulated in Antarctica over 650,000 years, and they have trapped in them tiny bubbles from the atmosphere in the past. Scientists can figure out what atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels were in each year in the past.
Throughout that entire 650,000-year time span, the natural CO2 fluctuation is 190 to 280 parts per million. Today we’re at 381 parts per million, and almost all of that extra 100 or so ppm increase has happened in the last 100 years—that is, since the Industrial Revolution. There’s not much doubt that the increase is due to anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.
KAREN BICE: We are taking carbon from deep in the Earth and putting it into the atmosphere. Rather than allowing carbon-rich sediments to remain buried and be naturally exposed and eroded over the course of millions and tens of millions of years, we’re reaching down into the Earth, and we’re pulling those carbon-rich sediments and liquids and gases out of the geology of the Earth and putting them into the atmosphere.
That is why the CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere is going to be with us for a while. Because if we want to return to a preindustrial-like atmosphere, it would take millions of years for that carbon to be put back where we got it. It’s going to require erosion of silicate rocks and the chemical reactions that go with that.
The only explanation for the increase in CO2 that we’ve observed in the past 100 years is that we are taking carbon out of rocks and putting it into the atmosphere.
Humans are doing that. Other animals aren’t doing that. Plants aren’t doing that. It’s humans drilling for and burning fossil fuel.
And at the same time, we also know that, through deforestation, we’re taking way one of the short-term sinks for CO2, which is forest growth.
Nice cut and paste job.... let me add to it.
Look at tha balance in that chart of ocean temperatures from your site.
The rise in temperatures now is almost exactly the same as the fall 100 years ago.
Thats because the climate is (broken record) variable.
In order to acheive an average you will have extremes. None of which points to causality of a nature that can be explained by human activity.
Consider this. If your saying human activity made the temperatures in that chart rise. What caused them to go so low before 1930 ?
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Razorback,WHOI is the most respected and most trustworthy science group in the world. Entire governments look for WHOIs guidance. Why I understand your reluctance, I do know that when WHOI makes a model it is always correct. There are no ifs wit them. or could of, would of ect. You asked specifically about manmade CO2. Hope you enjoyed the answer.
Generally, scientific consensus is as close to fact as someone who is not a scientist in that particular field is ever going to get.
Further, the idea that scientific consensus existed that the Earth was flat is, in itself, a ridiculous and untrue notion, so it in no way invalidates scientific consensus as our most useful yardstick. By 240 BC, the first scientist to get around to actually performing, you know, scientific studies on the Earth (and not just philosophizing on the topic), managed to not only deduce that the Earth was spherical, but calculated it's circumference to within 20% of its true value. Within 300 years, the scientific consensus (and, indeed, the popular belief) was pretty much universal that the Earth was spherical. The modern and completely incorrect belief that people thought the Earth was flat up to and including the middle ages is due almost entirely to a fictitious account of Columbus presented in 1828.
I hope you enjoy having the most irrelevant part of your post illuminated for the pure fallacy and hyperbole that it is. Since I suspect the remainder of your arguments are of equal "quality", I'll just go ahead and stop there.
And for the rest of us... a friendly reminder to please not feed the trolls!
I said ocean temperature..... I swear man.... you are barely worth debating.
And "mostly due in part" your really serious when you make staments like that arnt you ?
So is it "mostly" or "in part" due to a natural cycle.
And whichever it is, how are you seperating that from our aleged impact with your planet sized brain and flakey data ?
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Ocean temperature is different than Sea Surface temperature Razorback. If that was a chart showing Ocean temperature then the world would be more jacked up than it already is.
If global warming caused by Co2 is a fact I will be amazed how you could predict it from rainy weather. And in the UK.
Ah so your going to debate this on the basis of the difference between the word "ocean" and "sea"And what do you mean by "jacked up", you really are floundering arnt you.
Well if I was standing on the kind of thin ice of logic you are. Id be looking for a diversion to.
Nice work, you must be very proud.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
And what do you mean by "jacked up", you really are floundering arnt you.
Well if I was standing on the kind of thin ice of logic you are. Id be looking for a diversion to.
Nice work, you must be very proud.
No debate is necessary. I recommend looking up Oceanic Conveyor and Thermalhaline Circulation. Ocean /Sea are quite different.
I am glad you are taking a interest in Global warming.
And what do you mean by "jacked up", you really are floundering arnt you.
Well if I was standing on the kind of thin ice of logic you are. Id be looking for a diversion to.
Nice work, you must be very proud.
No debate is necessary. I recommend looking up Oceanic Conveyor and Thermalhaline Circulation. Ocean /Sea are quite different.
Pathetic
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
If global warming caused by Co2 is a fact I will be amazed how you could predict it from rainy weather. And in the UK.
You are not English you wouldnt understand.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
Pathetic
You know i see you do say a lot but ive yet to see you actually post facts could you do that a bit more than just Chatting as its hardly evidence against global warming.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
Pathetic
You know i see you do say a lot but ive yet to see you actually post facts could you do that a bit more than just Chatting as its hardly evidence against global warming.
If you knew anything about science you would know that you cannot disprove anything.
If you had ACTUALLY read my posts you would know that I have already stated the burden of proof is on the party making the claim.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Pathetic
You know i see you do say a lot but ive yet to see you actually post facts could you do that a bit more than just Chatting as its hardly evidence against global warming.
If you knew anything about science you would know that you cannot disprove anything.
If you had ACTUALLY read my posts you would know that I have already stated the burden of proof is on the party making the claim.
Yes thats why i want you to disprove global warming because you claim that what we are seeing is naturall and humans have littel or nothing to do with it so the burden of proof is also on you and ive yet to see you post any real proof on your claim that global warming doesant exist.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
A big thing that doesn't help global warming's claim to be legitimate is evironmentalist that use it as a cause for other things. So they make ridiculous claims and blame global warming.
For example the recent forest fires in the west. I was watching a news broadcast and the evironmentalist that was on started to blame global warming for causing the super fires. Even though he admitted that a build up of "fuel" (trees that the evironmentalists wouldn't allow to be burned down by man or even by nature, they wanted any fires stopped instantly over the last 50 years or so to protect the trees) was what caused the super fires to happen. But then he still tried to turn it and bring up global warming. When I hear a crackpot try to blame global warming for a problem caused by something else, it makes me less inclined to believe in the real problem of global warming.
Now does that mean I think the Earth isn't getting warmer? No of course not, that is a proven fact. Do I think that Man has caused the increase in warming? Well it is possible, but nothing I have read makes me think it is a fact yet. Could we just be finally leaving an Ice age? Sure we could. We have no idea how long that process takes.
But that movie about global warming with Dennis Quaid in it was an awesome movie imo.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
/ le sigh
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon