dairygirl4u2c Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 yeah i thought i posted a reply that said you skillfully took care of that graph issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) notice in the second picture that we really started increasing at 1960, same time as the industrial revolution or greenhouse gases prime time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years it seems like don said 'it's cycle' and 'we cant just assume it's man made just cause we've decided against all the main causes we suspect' yet we see it going up, very suspeciouusly quicker than it should [img]http://science.kukuchew.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/comic_6__global_warming_by_sugarpolyp.jpg[/img] [img]http://betterlife.lovinggodmind.com/blogweb/uploads/btl_globalwarming.jpg[/img] Edited May 13, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305317948' post='2240995'] You stole sixpence's jab. You've hereby convinced me of my errors. Global warming is a hoax. It's moronic. Any idiot can see that. I need to listen to more Rush. Edit: made nicer. [/quote] Rush? The fact you even mention that is very telling. Edited May 13, 2011 by Papist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305330103' post='2241078'] [img]http://science.kukuchew.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/comic_6__global_warming_by_sugarpolyp.jpg[/img] [/quote] That's phat. [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1305330437' post='2241082'] Rush? The fact you even mention that explains everything. [/quote] I guess I crossed the line there. Sorry dude. hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I have to say Sean, I've always been a skeptic of AGW, but after hearing your position I'm thinking that I need to take the time to seriously reevaluate what I actually know and do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 it's curious when sites like this pop uip, seeming authoritative [url="http://nov47.com/words.html"]My link[/url] when the standard science is here... [url="http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png"]My link[/url] and in all the other Co2 demonstrating stats sited in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305330545' post='2241084'] I have to say Sean, I've always been a skeptic of AGW, but after hearing your position I'm thinking that I need to take the time to seriously reevaluate what I actually know and do not know. [/quote] Cool. I didn't think anyone was really reading my posts. Anyway, yeah, if you find some killer argument (or more realistically a comprehensive set of arguments, etc) which vindicates GW denial let me know. If you've read my posts you know more or less where I stand on that atm. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305325230' post='2241038'] 1. All of your "examples" were very different among themselves, and yes, global warming is "very different." You're conflating pretty hardcore dude. This is how bad your logic looks: Galileo was a scientist. Galileo was wrong about many things. Therefore climate scientists are wrong about global warming. Anyway, I don't remember ever saying that global warming was "proven" and I can't imagine myself ever saying such a thing. The global warming consensus is a fact, but sure, hypothetically speaking the science could change considerably. This property of science doesn't justify any of your denialist positions I'm afraid. Do you think that it does? First I'm supposed to be ridiculously skeptical of the incredulous science of climate, and now you're dogmatically pontificating about it as if you have super-scientific insight into reality. Just for fun let me ask: where is your evidence? What are your sources? Why should I believe you? Does your theory explain the preponderance of evidence? Does your theory of climate make predictions like the leading models of climate science? Etcetera. Oh, I see, just a historical fact. Off-limits to science. I'll just take your word for it then. You're obviously an expert on all this. You should write some letters to the editor of teh major journals. Do it man! You have to include this insight in your report too. The world must know. Yeah. It's just crank pseudoscience. smh... [/quote] Youmust really be being hit prettyhard on this subject in real life. because you make many assumptions, and seem veryvery upset. I have never disputed that the Earths temperature is rising, I have disputed the way it is being discussed and treated. I am hostile to the treatment of the human cause hypothesis as settled science. Many hypothesises have been presented as such and have turned out to be false. I have made no other claims to defend. It is a historical fact that humans expanded and during the periods of the warmer temperature. Yes,on that matter I am an expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305331436' post='2241089'] Cool. I didn't think anyone was really reading my posts. Anyway, yeah, if you find some killer argument (or more realistically a comprehensive set of arguments, etc) which vindicates GW denial let me know. If you've read my posts you know more or less where I stand on that atm. ;-) [/quote] If I get spare time in the near future (and remember this), I might pop off an email to you and maybe you can set me up with a couple introductory studies that are going to give me a good, unbiased view of things...? While I'm thinking about it though, if you were to recommend to me say... a total of three hours of reading to introduce me in an unbiased way to the science behind this, what would I read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote]"If you study everything their scientists have done. It all boils down to a claim that carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere. Put there by our burning of fossil fuels is going to turn the climate of earth into an oven and we're all going to bake and die. Well that is sheer nonsense. We have burned fossil fuels for 100 years and what have we done so far? We might have raised the temperature by 1/10th of one degree, maybe. CO2 is a natural compound in the atmosphere, it's not a pollutant. Plants have to have it. Everytime I breathe out...***breath sound***... I create it. It is no big deal and it's certainly not going to end the world." - John Coleman [Founder of The Weather Channel] [/quote] I have to agree with him, when CO2 levels have increased, they haven't necessarily always meant temperature increases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305331154' post='2241088'] it's curious when sites like this pop uip, seeming authoritative [url="http://nov47.com/words.html"]My link[/url] [/quote] What do you mean dairy? Are you not sure about the legitimacy of that guy's website? Considering the multitude of crackpots on the internet I'm disinclined to trust random ppl's websites. Just for fun what about those ten baloney questions from earlier? 1. How reliable is the source of the claim? Climatology is done by collaborations of scientists affiliated with research institutions or whatever so a lone rando with a website calling himself an "Independent Scientist" sends up "crank" red flags right away for me. 2. Does the source make similar claims? Yeah, first thing I noticed is his pile of crackpot physics. Also his about page describes his view that science (presumably all science) is broken and evidently he's here to single-handedly fix it. 3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else? After a brief search I'm not finding publications from this guy in the professional literature. Hmmm.. Any peer reviewed research, anywhere? His one claim to fame seems to be a microbiology paper of unknown repute published in 1981 in the [i]Canadian Journal of Microbiology[/i]. Question 3 was gratuitous; this guy fails at question one, and is completely exposed by question two. Cookie cutter crackpot. Keanu is sad. Edited May 14, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305331563' post='2241091'] I am hostile to the treatment of the human cause hypothesis as settled science. [/quote] The absolutist claims that I encounter on this tend to be from deniers who don't know the troposphere from the mesosphere. The genuine scientific literature tend to speak in terms of probabilities when it comes to anthropogenic factors. Even the IPCC reports frame the matter in probabilistic terms. To my knowledge the latest synthesis reports indicate a very high probability for anthropogenic warming. I'm not inclined to take denials of this seriously without pretty compelling and scientifically proper evidence. P.S. I apologize for any and all instances of as[s][/s]shattery during the course of this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) edit Edited May 14, 2011 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Everybody always has these charts of temperatures. Maybe this is a stupid question but how do we know how hot or cold it was 1,000 years ago? I mean they didn't have thermometers did they? Can they tell from the tree rings in redwood trees or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1305333789' post='2241112'] Everybody always has these charts of temperatures. Maybe this is a stupid question but how do we know how hot or cold it was 1,000 years ago? I mean they didn't have thermometers did they? Can they tell from the tree rings in redwood trees or something? [/quote] Word. And you're right, dendroclimatology (deriving climatological data from tree rings) is pretty important in our understanding of the past thousand years or so. My personal fave is ice core records, i.e., composition of layers, air bubbles, preserved organic matter, oxygen isotope content, etc. Also corals, sediments, and microfossils. Each thing can be a specialized field and I imagine doing the field work is fun. I think it's all pretty amesome. Here's a customary but subdued link dump. [url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html"]NOAA Paleoclimatology[/url] [url="http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_paleo.html"]Paleoclimatology[/url] [url="http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html"]Paleoclimatology: How Can We Infer Past Climates?[/url] Edited May 14, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now