thirdworld19 0 #176 May 19, 2008 QuoteNowadays, the increase in CO2 (and to a lesser extent methane) has increased the amount of heat retained by approximately 2 watts per square meter. This is the "forcing" that is gradually increasing the temperature of the planet. By itself it is not going to do much in the short term. But as the years go by, and there is that steady increase in heat retained by the earth, the climate will warm. This seems to be somewhat different from your earlier post that global warming is happening in decades versus thousands of years. So, now you are saying that the CO2 will not do much in the short term, but as the years go by, the climate will warm. How does this fit in your scale of decades versus thousands of years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #177 May 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteActually, no. So, a single data point is enough if it supports your preconceived ideas, but not if it disputes them. QuoteI have read enough information that convinces me that CO2 is not a significant factor in the warming/cooling trends of the Earth. Or, maybe it is. QuoteWater vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. Scientists don't deny that, but it doesn't mitigate the significance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. QuoteInstead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the theory. Perhaps, instead of assuming the theories are wrong simply because you don't understand the topic, you should try asking questions to get explanations for the things that appear to you to be inconsistent. Boy, you totally missed what I was saying. Try rereading my post without any preconceived ideas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #178 May 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Instead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the theory. Since you are admittedly a non-expert, why would anyone believe anything you have to say about theoretical inconsistencies? You don't have to believe me - go look for yourself. I didn't realize everyone here was an expert. I'll have to keep my opinions to myself from now on - huh?!? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #179 May 19, 2008 Quote Quote Quote So to link the Earth's recent warming with the increase in CO2 is incorrect. There are many other, and far more significant, things that go into the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles. To say that it's man made is simply not correct. Wow. I wish climatologists understood the earth's climate as well as you do. There is a reason there is consensus among scientists. There is a reason that there aren't any peer reviewed studies from the past five years claiming global warming does not have an anthropogenic component. Heck, there's probably even a reason it took those climatologists several years to get their PhD's. Perhaps you should read the science instead of the propaganda propagated by those who stand to lose if the unsustainable status quo is changed. Here is a good place to start. Here is another good source. A couple questions to ask yourself when you encounter claims regarding global warming: What peer reviewed study are these claims based upon? In which scientific journal was the study published? Wow - so you're a climatologist? No, I'm not. Nor have I claimed to be. Quote Obviously you can distinguish between the BS/political slants and the correct science - right?!? Usually. Those two questions I mentioned in the previous post (quoted above) are outstanding tools in that regard. Quote Why resort to name calling and puffery? Not needed. You're right. They are not needed, Which is why I didn't use them (except for a little sarcasm to highlight to fact that you were contradicting a scientific consensus). Quote We can throw websites at each other all day long. And then we can spend time debunking each by attacking the sources of funds for each. If you have reason to believe that Real Climate lacks credibility with respect to climate science, please share. Also, notice that Real Climate links to their sources and/or primary data. Quote Real Climate - left-wing political site funded by friends of Gore. Contrary to popular belief, climate scientists are not partisan. From their About page: RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. Quote Where does that get us? Nowhere if you're not willing to acknowledge that the debate regarding global warming is purely political, that the scientists have already reached a consensus based on evidence. Sure, some of the details remain to be understood, but we know with virtual certainty that global warming is real, and it has a significant anthropogenic component. No amount of public debate is going to change that. Quote So let's just skip past all of that. Sure. There's no reason to debate the reality of anthropogenic global warming. What we should be debating are the best solutions and public policies to implement in order to mitigate and arrest the anthropogenic component.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #180 May 19, 2008 QuoteI didn't claim that 1998 was the warmest year. You may want to revisit some of the previous posts. No, you claimed, inaccurately, that global warming stopped in 1998, despite the fact that there have been warmer years since then.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #181 May 19, 2008 QuoteBoy, you totally missed what I was saying. Try rereading my post without any preconceived ideas. I went back and read it, and stand by my reply. Perhaps you didn't say what you intended.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #182 May 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteHuh ... where did CO2 come in? You must’ve missed the earlier posts where someone claimed that the CO2 that man is producing is causing the global warming. Fair enough ... altho’ still find it odd that you entangled it with your response to me. But, eh, that’s my opinion. QuoteI didn't claim that 1998 was the warmest year. You may want to revisit some of the previous posts. Really? Following through on your suggestion: [post #148] "Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down." [post #151] "1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then." [post #153] "Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998." Would you re-evaluate your claims if temperatures (facts) have been shown to have not not gone down every year since 1998? Aka “Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998?” (i.e., the initial question in [post #155], which was precise, did not refer to CO2, and did not refer to causal factors … just directly measured facts). It really was a very easy question with lots of conceivable ‘outs’ and explanations: Singer may not have updated his analyses (it’s not your responsibility to keep him updated); it could be new information that you hadn’t seen before (didn’t want to assume); or you could have presented contradictory data (not aware of any but proving a negative is usually a challenge). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #183 May 19, 2008 >This seems to be somewhat different from your earlier post that >global warming is happening in decades versus thousands of years. How fast climate changes depends on how much "forcing" we see. Milankovitch cycles, which occur over geologic timescales, cause forcings of a few tenths of a watt. These cause slow changes in temperature, but over long enough time periods can significantly affect climate. We are now seeing forcings of over a watt, so changes are correspondingly more rapid. What would ordinarily take centuries is now taking decades. >So, now you are saying that the CO2 will not do much in the short term . . . It will not have much effect over the course of a year. Over the course of a decade it will have a small effect. Over the course of a century it will have a larger effect. Since we've been tracking temperature changes over more than a century, we are starting to see significant temperature changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #184 May 19, 2008 Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I find this conflict ironic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Could you be more specific what you see as "conflicted" and what you see as "ironic"? I tried to disentangle the two concepts, apparently my response (quoted above) was not successful. The struggle that we seem to have over population is ironic. On the one hand, we say that we need to be shed of a few million, and then wring our hands, and act concerned when 1/2 million get swallowed up by the ocean. Quote I'm not sure what your concept of "absolute evolution" means. The two ideas you write are not in conflict. Part of evolution is our cogitive abilities that allow us to not conceive of such stewardship because it benefits our species. That's completely consonant with evolution. First, let me say that I do not believe the whole lightning bolt struck a pool a goo, and voila, but using that concept, that things are what they are, by some random roll of the dice, if we TRULY believe that, why should we be working so hard to stay the entire process, if we are truly nothing more than a cog in the wheel? Quote Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution" becuase what you describe above is wrong. Evolution has produced 'dead-ends,' e.g., Neanderthals. Again, if we are nothing more than a blip on the screen of evolution, why are we so concerned about becoming a dead end? Quote What you seem to be describing seems more like the argument against transhumanism, from what I can tell. I looked up transhumanism, but being slightly ADD, I only got so far, what with all of those big words.The gist is that "It's all about me." That topic could become a thread in itself. The bottom line is, either we, as humans, are something special; i.e. made by God;[punctuation]and we have been given the responsibility of stewardship of the Earth, or we are a random byproduct of evolution, in which case, we should have a laissez faire attitude about everything, because, in the end, it'll all work out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #185 May 19, 2008 Quoteor we are a random byproduct of evolution, in which case, we should have a laissez faire attitude about everything, because, in the end, it'll all work out. Unless, of course, we want to avoid driving ourselves to extinction.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #186 May 19, 2008 >On the one hand, we say that we need to be shed of a few million, >and then wring our hands, and act concerned when 1/2 million get >swallowed up by the ocean. Personally I see a difference between not having as many children and seeing people killed by an earthquake. I suspect you would too if you thought about it for a second. > Again, if we are nothing more than a blip on the screen of evolution, why >are we so concerned about becoming a dead end? Because we have the intelligence to overcome our evolutionary programming, and decide our own fate. >we should have a laissez faire attitude about everything, because, in >the end, it'll all work out. It will indeed. We could kill ourselves off. However, I have a vested interest in seeing a different outcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #187 May 20, 2008 . I'll have to keep my opinions to myself from now on - huh?!? If you don't, it will be claimed you get your talking points and thoughts from somewhere other than your own mind. Here is the difference between conservatives and liberals when it come to differing opinion. First, if a conservative thinks a liberal is wrong then the conservative think thats it, they are wrong. Conversly, if a lib thinks a conservative is wrong well, they are too stupid to understand anything and they only way they can say anything in a sentence it to get the idea from somewhere else. And then they get all puffed up with pride because they think they have helped the poor uneducated because they can not know what is good for them. (sorry to hyjack your post)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #179 May 19, 2008 Quote Quote Quote So to link the Earth's recent warming with the increase in CO2 is incorrect. There are many other, and far more significant, things that go into the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles. To say that it's man made is simply not correct. Wow. I wish climatologists understood the earth's climate as well as you do. There is a reason there is consensus among scientists. There is a reason that there aren't any peer reviewed studies from the past five years claiming global warming does not have an anthropogenic component. Heck, there's probably even a reason it took those climatologists several years to get their PhD's. Perhaps you should read the science instead of the propaganda propagated by those who stand to lose if the unsustainable status quo is changed. Here is a good place to start. Here is another good source. A couple questions to ask yourself when you encounter claims regarding global warming: What peer reviewed study are these claims based upon? In which scientific journal was the study published? Wow - so you're a climatologist? No, I'm not. Nor have I claimed to be. Quote Obviously you can distinguish between the BS/political slants and the correct science - right?!? Usually. Those two questions I mentioned in the previous post (quoted above) are outstanding tools in that regard. Quote Why resort to name calling and puffery? Not needed. You're right. They are not needed, Which is why I didn't use them (except for a little sarcasm to highlight to fact that you were contradicting a scientific consensus). Quote We can throw websites at each other all day long. And then we can spend time debunking each by attacking the sources of funds for each. If you have reason to believe that Real Climate lacks credibility with respect to climate science, please share. Also, notice that Real Climate links to their sources and/or primary data. Quote Real Climate - left-wing political site funded by friends of Gore. Contrary to popular belief, climate scientists are not partisan. From their About page: RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. Quote Where does that get us? Nowhere if you're not willing to acknowledge that the debate regarding global warming is purely political, that the scientists have already reached a consensus based on evidence. Sure, some of the details remain to be understood, but we know with virtual certainty that global warming is real, and it has a significant anthropogenic component. No amount of public debate is going to change that. Quote So let's just skip past all of that. Sure. There's no reason to debate the reality of anthropogenic global warming. What we should be debating are the best solutions and public policies to implement in order to mitigate and arrest the anthropogenic component.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #180 May 19, 2008 QuoteI didn't claim that 1998 was the warmest year. You may want to revisit some of the previous posts. No, you claimed, inaccurately, that global warming stopped in 1998, despite the fact that there have been warmer years since then.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #181 May 19, 2008 QuoteBoy, you totally missed what I was saying. Try rereading my post without any preconceived ideas. I went back and read it, and stand by my reply. Perhaps you didn't say what you intended.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #182 May 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteHuh ... where did CO2 come in? You must’ve missed the earlier posts where someone claimed that the CO2 that man is producing is causing the global warming. Fair enough ... altho’ still find it odd that you entangled it with your response to me. But, eh, that’s my opinion. QuoteI didn't claim that 1998 was the warmest year. You may want to revisit some of the previous posts. Really? Following through on your suggestion: [post #148] "Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down." [post #151] "1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then." [post #153] "Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998." Would you re-evaluate your claims if temperatures (facts) have been shown to have not not gone down every year since 1998? Aka “Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998?” (i.e., the initial question in [post #155], which was precise, did not refer to CO2, and did not refer to causal factors … just directly measured facts). It really was a very easy question with lots of conceivable ‘outs’ and explanations: Singer may not have updated his analyses (it’s not your responsibility to keep him updated); it could be new information that you hadn’t seen before (didn’t want to assume); or you could have presented contradictory data (not aware of any but proving a negative is usually a challenge). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #183 May 19, 2008 >This seems to be somewhat different from your earlier post that >global warming is happening in decades versus thousands of years. How fast climate changes depends on how much "forcing" we see. Milankovitch cycles, which occur over geologic timescales, cause forcings of a few tenths of a watt. These cause slow changes in temperature, but over long enough time periods can significantly affect climate. We are now seeing forcings of over a watt, so changes are correspondingly more rapid. What would ordinarily take centuries is now taking decades. >So, now you are saying that the CO2 will not do much in the short term . . . It will not have much effect over the course of a year. Over the course of a decade it will have a small effect. Over the course of a century it will have a larger effect. Since we've been tracking temperature changes over more than a century, we are starting to see significant temperature changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #184 May 19, 2008 Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I find this conflict ironic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Could you be more specific what you see as "conflicted" and what you see as "ironic"? I tried to disentangle the two concepts, apparently my response (quoted above) was not successful. The struggle that we seem to have over population is ironic. On the one hand, we say that we need to be shed of a few million, and then wring our hands, and act concerned when 1/2 million get swallowed up by the ocean. Quote I'm not sure what your concept of "absolute evolution" means. The two ideas you write are not in conflict. Part of evolution is our cogitive abilities that allow us to not conceive of such stewardship because it benefits our species. That's completely consonant with evolution. First, let me say that I do not believe the whole lightning bolt struck a pool a goo, and voila, but using that concept, that things are what they are, by some random roll of the dice, if we TRULY believe that, why should we be working so hard to stay the entire process, if we are truly nothing more than a cog in the wheel? Quote Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution" becuase what you describe above is wrong. Evolution has produced 'dead-ends,' e.g., Neanderthals. Again, if we are nothing more than a blip on the screen of evolution, why are we so concerned about becoming a dead end? Quote What you seem to be describing seems more like the argument against transhumanism, from what I can tell. I looked up transhumanism, but being slightly ADD, I only got so far, what with all of those big words.The gist is that "It's all about me." That topic could become a thread in itself. The bottom line is, either we, as humans, are something special; i.e. made by God;[punctuation]and we have been given the responsibility of stewardship of the Earth, or we are a random byproduct of evolution, in which case, we should have a laissez faire attitude about everything, because, in the end, it'll all work out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #185 May 19, 2008 Quoteor we are a random byproduct of evolution, in which case, we should have a laissez faire attitude about everything, because, in the end, it'll all work out. Unless, of course, we want to avoid driving ourselves to extinction.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #186 May 19, 2008 >On the one hand, we say that we need to be shed of a few million, >and then wring our hands, and act concerned when 1/2 million get >swallowed up by the ocean. Personally I see a difference between not having as many children and seeing people killed by an earthquake. I suspect you would too if you thought about it for a second. > Again, if we are nothing more than a blip on the screen of evolution, why >are we so concerned about becoming a dead end? Because we have the intelligence to overcome our evolutionary programming, and decide our own fate. >we should have a laissez faire attitude about everything, because, in >the end, it'll all work out. It will indeed. We could kill ourselves off. However, I have a vested interest in seeing a different outcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #187 May 20, 2008 . I'll have to keep my opinions to myself from now on - huh?!? If you don't, it will be claimed you get your talking points and thoughts from somewhere other than your own mind. Here is the difference between conservatives and liberals when it come to differing opinion. First, if a conservative thinks a liberal is wrong then the conservative think thats it, they are wrong. Conversly, if a lib thinks a conservative is wrong well, they are too stupid to understand anything and they only way they can say anything in a sentence it to get the idea from somewhere else. And then they get all puffed up with pride because they think they have helped the poor uneducated because they can not know what is good for them. (sorry to hyjack your post)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #188 May 20, 2008 Quote Here is the difference between conservatives and liberals when it come to differing opinion. Or how about sometimes people make mistakes (remember that thread from the end of April?) Most people don't like to their mistakes pointed out -- fairly consistent reaction regardless of political leanings, eh? Some own up, some get quiet, and some dig in deeper. There's a fine line between stubborn & tenacious -- goodness knows I've pushed if not crossed it: remember the story about my Digitude and the Nepali soldier w/M16 coming out of the rhododendron forest who wanted it? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #189 May 20, 2008 All good points. Especially the one on (my) generalization. (Thank you for calling me on that) I should have said "some of the elite liberal" instead of generalizing all liberals. Please forgive me. As for calling out a mistake. It shows character and humility to admit a wrong. Which then shows a self confidence as opposed to the lack of same. Thanks Marc"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #190 May 20, 2008 QuoteObviously you can distinguish between the BS/political slants and the correct science - right?!? QuoteUsually. If this were the case, you would know that the hype behind anthropogenic global warming is just that - hype. QuoteIf you have reason to believe that Real Climate lacks credibility with respect to climate science, please share. Also, notice that Real Climate links to their sources and/or primary data. Contrary to popular belief, climate scientists are not partisan. From their About page: And of course they would state in their About page if they had any political slants or funding, right? (Much of what they post relies on the IPCC report which is a bunch of BS.) If you truly want to know, you can look it up yourself, and either believe or disbelieve. I like to keep an open mind. QuoteNowhere if you're not willing to acknowledge that the debate regarding global warming is purely political, that the scientists have already reached a consensus based on evidence. Sure, some of the details remain to be understood, but we know with virtual certainty that global warming is real, and it has a significant anthropogenic component. No amount of public debate is going to change that. I do admit that the whole anthropogenic gloabal warming is political - completely and totally. We agree! With regard to your scientific consensus, please show me what consensus you are referring to. More and more scientists are questioning the "science" behind those that make these GW claims. Are you referring to the IPCC consensus? Hope not - because it's all BS. Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” Please go to the following link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cbhttp://epw.senate.gov:80/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cbhttp://epw.senat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #191 May 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteI didn't claim that 1998 was the warmest year. You may want to revisit some of the previous posts. No, you claimed, inaccurately, that global warming stopped in 1998, despite the fact that there have been warmer years since then. Please refer to the post where I stated this. I believe there is some confusion in my posts. I have not said that global warming has started or stopped. I merely pointed out that the causation between CO2 and temperatures is a load of crap. And I used the example of temps decreasing from 1998 - 2007 while CO2 continued to increase to show that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #192 May 20, 2008 QuoteReally? Following through on your suggestion: [post #148] "Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down." [post #151] "1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then." [post #153] "Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998." Would you re-evaluate your claims if temperatures (facts) have been shown to have not not gone down every year since 1998? Aka “Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998?” (i.e., the initial question in [post #155], which was precise, did not refer to CO2, and did not refer to causal factors … just directly measured facts). It really was a very easy question with lots of conceivable ‘outs’ and explanations: Singer may not have updated his analyses (it’s not your responsibility to keep him updated); it could be new information that you hadn’t seen before (didn’t want to assume); or you could have presented contradictory data (not aware of any but proving a negative is usually a challenge). VR/Marg Look at the chart of global temperatures at friendsofscience.org. This shows the decrease in temps (not point for point, but the trend) which contradicts those claiming that CO2 is causing the global warming. CO2 is going up when temps are decreasing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #193 May 20, 2008 QuoteLook at the chart of global temperatures at friendsofscience.org. This shows the decrease in temps (not point for point, but the trend) which contradicts those claiming that CO2 is causing the global warming. CO2 is going up when temps are decreasing. Okay, so now it's starting to become clear(er). "Friendsofscience.org" is using uncorrected lower troposphere (lower atmosphere) measurements. Corrected data here. Discussion and primary data from Science article here, which includes John Christy's/UAH data & analysis -- even his trend line is going up. Temperature is not measured directly in the atmosphere. FOS also doesn't cite how they drew their line that you are citing; "best fit" is a colloqialism. They do note, however, that "FOS does not do any original scientific research," right on the front page. At the bottom of this NASA data you can see data on stratosphere (upper lower atmosphere) temps. The temperature data from the stratosphere are *really* going down. Do think that's evidence against climate change? Again, I have not been citing anything related to CO2 (as I've mentioned repeatedly) but direct temperature measurements. Again, here's NASA direct data plotted (no CO2), which shows 2005 global mean temperatures -- directly measured increased from 1998. Here's another data set again of directly measured temperatures (no CO2) showing 2005 higher than 1998. And a write-up on 2005 temperatures (previously cited). Data released earlier this year (that I cited previously) shows 2007 global temps also did not decrease compare to 1998. Again, all directly measured temperatures -- not trend lines -- showing unambiguously that 2005 & 2007 temperatures did not decrease compared to 1998. No "best fit" just directly measured data. Why was the 1998 contribution so anomolously warm in the year-to-year comparisons? El Nino, and a very strong one. Why did the 1999 & 2000 temperatures decrease relative to 1998? La Nina. It's worth noting that 1999 & 2000 global surface temperatures were still higher than anything before 1985. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #194 May 20, 2008 >I merely pointed out that the causation between CO2 and temperatures is a load of crap. Where do you think the additional watt or so of heat is going, then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #195 May 20, 2008 QuoteIf this were the case, you would know that the hype behind anthropogenic global warming is just that - hype. Can you find a single peer reviewed scientific study from the past five years backing your claim? There are hundreds that contradict your claim. QuoteAnd of course they would state in their About page if they had any political slants or funding, right? (Much of what they post relies on the IPCC report which is a bunch of BS.) If you truly want to know, you can look it up yourself, and either believe or disbelieve. You mean the IPCC report that includes primary data? A bunch of BS? what science class did you take? QuoteI like to keep an open mind. Apparently, you don't. You dismiss studies based on primary data in favor of opinions based purely on rhetoric. QuoteI do admit that the whole anthropogenic gloabal warming is political - completely and totally. We agree! You should reread my post. I said nothing of the sort. QuoteWith regard to your scientific consensus, please show me what consensus you are referring to. More and more scientists are questioning the "science" behind those that make these GW claims. Are you referring to the IPCC consensus? Hope not - because it's all BS. Like I said, find one single peer reviewed study from the past five years that claims that global warming does not have an anthropogenic component. Without such a study, there is, indeed, a consensus. QuotePlease go to the following link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cbhttp://epw.senate.gov:80/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cbhttp://epw.senat I've gone to the link many times. I've also checked the academic backgrounds of many of the so called "scientists" only to find they had very little credibility in the field of climatology. The minority report was simply politics, not science.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #196 May 20, 2008 QuotePlease refer to the post where I stated this. I believe there is some confusion in my posts. I have not said that global warming has started or stopped. I merely pointed out that the causation between CO2 and temperatures is a load of crap. And I used the example of temps decreasing from 1998 - 2007 while CO2 continued to increase to show that. Let's look at your exact quotes: Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down. 1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then. Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998. The problems with your argument are that there have been hotter years than 1998 since then, and you are trying to use single data points to define a trend. Both problems are caused by intellectual dishonesty.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #197 May 21, 2008 QuoteLike I said, find one single peer reviewed study from the past five years that claims that global warming does not have an anthropogenic component. Without such a study, there is, indeed, a consensus. OK - so find one single peer reviewed study from the past five years that claims that rubbing bear shit all over you does not double your lifespan. Without such a study, there is, indeed, a consensus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #198 May 21, 2008 >so find one single peer reviewed study from the past five years that >claims that rubbing bear shit all over you does not double your lifespan. > Without such a study, there is, indeed, a consensus. That would make sense if you were trying to refute thousands of studies that showed it DID double your lifespan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #199 May 21, 2008 QuoteOK - so find one single peer reviewed study from the past five years that claims that rubbing bear shit all over you does not double your lifespan. Without such a study, there is, indeed, a consensus. That’s not was asked. It’s about as relevant as the classic “have you stopped beating your children?” or “why are you so argumentative?” You are making strong claims. Strong claims require strong evidence. Multiple folks have asked you to provide some citation, data, something to support those unsubstantiated claims. That’s all. VR/Marg p.s. If you search some of my posts, you'll actually find a list article citations and links from peer-reviewed technical journals that challenge specific claims (with data) or provide alternative analysis of data that contribute to anthropogenic climate change. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #200 May 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteOK - so find one single peer reviewed study from the past five years that claims that rubbing bear shit all over you does not double your lifespan. Without such a study, there is, indeed, a consensus. That’s not was asked. It’s about as relevant as the classic “have you stopped beating your children?” or “why are you so argumentative?” You are making strong claims. Strong claims require strong evidence. Multiple folks have asked you to provide some citation, data, something to support those unsubstantiated claims. That’s all. VR/Marg p.s. If you search some of my posts, you'll actually find a list article citations and links from peer-reviewed technical journals that challenge specific claims (with data) or provide alternative analysis of data that contribute to anthropogenic climate change. I disagree. I think those people throwing everyone into a tizzie are making the strong claims, not me. The IPCC report is finally shown for what it is - a bunch of crap. And people are still relying on it. In addition, no one seems to be taking into account the fact that this is what the Earth does - warms and cools - long before man was around and long after man is gone. I cited several websites that include boatloads of information, but others choose not to look because it doesn't support them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
