943,878 Members | Top Members by Rank

Community Center > Geeks' Lounge > Global warming!!
Ad:
You are currently viewing page 15 of this multi-page discussion thread; Jump to the first page
Permalink
Aug 17th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

Also, I am no science expert and I certainly don't claim to be, but I know enough about it to know that if CO2 was proven to be the cause in a true experiment, then it could be reproduced and easily referenced. If the proof is there, where is it?
Reputation Points: 358
Solved Threads: 89
Posting Shark
R0bb0b is offline Offline
986 posts
since Jun 2008
Permalink
Aug 17th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

It can be relatively easily shown (and has been, repeatedly) that the effect of CO2 on the surface temperature of the planet is miniscule, as well as that in the past temperatures were a lot higher with lower CO2 levels and at other times far lower with higher CO2 levels.

Like the entire "the earth is heating up" farce, so the "it's all because of human released CO2" claim is a farce.

The earth at the moment (and for the last decade) has been getting slowly colder, despite rising atmospheric CO2.
And that atmospheric CO2 is rising far slower than the rise in output from human activity, indicating that there are potent natural processes at work to counteract an increase in atmospheric CO2.
That process is of course increased plant growth. In a high CO2 environment, plants grow more lushly and quickly, trapping CO2 in their tissue.
And that's very good news for a planet where there are ever more mouths to feed, as those plants can help feed those people with increased yield from farms. It's not for nothing that operators of greenhouses pump CO2 into their buildings. This is not to increase the temperature (heaters are very good at that, as are glass roofs) but to act as fertiliser to the plants. And it works.
Team Colleague
Reputation Points: 1658
Solved Threads: 331
duckman
jwenting is offline Offline
7,719 posts
since Nov 2004
Permalink
Aug 18th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by zeroth ...
This "scientific" article is an example of the "proof" of the Theory that we are arguing against? It's conclusion, as you can plainly read in the last entry, here, I'll repeat it:

"stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected"

doesn't make sense. What tropospheric warming??
Do you know what the troposphere is? I hope you know what the stratosphere is. If you do not know what the troposphere is I don't think you will be able to follow the argument very well.
Quote ...
It's obvious, at least from this example, that no matter what data global warming folks consider, they are so biased that the conclusions always come out in their favor...
Wow, we look at the same data and see different things - no matter what data anti-global warming folks consider, they are so biased that the conclusions come out in their favor.
Quote ...
Computer models can't predict future climate because we don't yet understand enough about certain processes in the atmosphere. Look closely and you'll see that most of the studies done by proper scientists offer a disclaimer somewhere in their paper stating clearly that some climactic processes are not fully understood. Can you at least agree with that statement? And if that statement is true, then a model is only predicting part of the story?
I am not sure what to do with this paragraph. It implies that only perfect knowledge is acceptable for scientific research. What I have pointed out and referenced before in this thread, current computer climate models can start with recorded data from the past and arrive at the current climate patterns I will link to some intermediate info about climate modeling.
Quote ...
Just because there are lots of scientists saying global warming is real does not make it so. Science does not work by consensus - that's called politics. Reproducible results are the fodder for truth. I've just shown you how greenhouse scientists have concluded that the earth is warming when accepted scientific data show both the atmosphere and ice packs exhibit cooling trends. That's science?
Where's the rant?
zeroth
This is the rant; you disputed the data at the links I provided w/o actually providing any data of your own. You called the science I link to 'politics'. You seem to think that there is no such thing as scientific consensus. You do not offer any scientific data to buttress your side of the argument. I am honestly beginning to think that you are a troll and are only interested in tweaking the thread.

I looked at the graphs that you posted; here is the same data mapped onto one grid with the timeline reversed along with some explanation of what you are looking at. Your picture does not prove or disprove anything unless you can place it in context.
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1448
Solved Threads: 21
Posting Maven
GrimJack is offline Offline
2,735 posts
since Feb 2004
Permalink
Aug 18th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by R0bb0b ...
GrimJack, I have read your references and the first is exactly that (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html). It goes through some temperature statistics and some graphs and at the end assumes that you assume that CO2 is the main cause when I don't see any references to any experiment isolating CO2 as the true cause.
I was trying to spare you but if you want more than pretty pictures, here it is. You will have to understand the difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere - you might want to start at the top of the page.
Quote ...
When I mentioned chlorofluorocarbon it was to show a comparison of the scientific work done with it compared to the scientific work done with CO2. I can reference several articles talking about experiments that have been done with chlorofluorocarbon to prove that the ozone hole is a direct effect. I cannot find the same thing with CO2 causing global warming.
When I responded to your mention, it was to show that when you look back 30 years you will see that it was not just a couple of scientists wrote a couple of papers and the world was wowed and stopped producing the evil CFCs. It was a struggle from the day that a grad student noticed an odd cycle in the ozone data - it would drop down to '5' repeat there then climb back to a normal looking cycle. With a little digging, he discovered that the person who wrote the monitoring program did not expect ozone to drop to zero so whenever the data showed less than '5', the data was set to '5' (really lazy programming, but then...). There was a 20 year struggle to bring this to world attention then get something done about it. I am interested in the papers you are referencing so that I can see where in the process they were written. I worked at NOAA during the time the ozone discussion finally made it into the papers; I lived in Arizona during the phase out of the production of CFCs in the US and watched as black marketers would drive down to Mexico to smuggle CFCs back into the US.
Quote ...
I also read another of your articles tearing apart years of a scientist's work with a couple of graphs. (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...ence_16.php#mo) This is the example that I keep referencing to, hard work on one side of the argument and some graphs on the other.
I don't know what you are saying here. Did you read any of the supporting text? Did you follow any of the links?
Quote ...
I have not seen enough proof to convince me that the world should go into a global "Project Destroy Economy" because of this. The evidence is way to premature and the cost of doing so outweighs it by several fold.
This is the part of the discussion that I really do not understand. We have a chance to create an entirely new infrastructure based on R&D that we will be able to export the rest of the world. As it stands, we will sit on our thumbs, while some other country will develop the tech, build it and sell it to us.
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1448
Solved Threads: 21
Posting Maven
GrimJack is offline Offline
2,735 posts
since Feb 2004
Permalink
Aug 18th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by GrimJack ...
I am interested in the papers you are referencing so that I can see where in the process they were written.
I am referring specifically to NOZE I in Antarctica, 1986(http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6856609), unfortunately the real documentation is not available but it is obvious that this expedition created an extreme turn of events. Also, from what I understand, it wasn't necessarily arguing back and forth that created this turn of events but old fashion hard work and until that same level of quality is put towards "Global Warming" all you have is the same colorful graphs that people have been desensitized to and continuous arguing back and forth.
Last edited by R0bb0b; Aug 18th, 2008 at 4:02 am.
Reputation Points: 358
Solved Threads: 89
Posting Shark
R0bb0b is offline Offline
986 posts
since Jun 2008
Permalink
Aug 18th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by R0bb0b ...
I am referring specifically to NOZE I in Antarctica, 1986(http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6856609), unfortunately the real documentation is not available but it is obvious that this expedition created an extreme turn of events. Also, from what I understand, it wasn't necessarily arguing back and forth that created this turn of events but old fashion hard work and until that same level of quality is put towards "Global Warming" all you have is the same colorful graphs that people have been desensitized to and continuous arguing back and forth.
Did you look at any of my links?
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1448
Solved Threads: 21
Posting Maven
GrimJack is offline Offline
2,735 posts
since Feb 2004
Team Colleague
Reputation Points: 2780
Solved Threads: 312
long time no c
Dave Sinkula is offline Offline
4,790 posts
since Apr 2004
Permalink
Aug 19th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by GrimJack ...
Do you know what the troposphere is?
and that's your idea of a fair dialog?

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by GrimJack ...
This is the rant; you disputed the data at the links I provided w/o actually providing any data of your own.
Guy, I've never disputed any data from a reputable source, just the interpretation of same. I contributed data in the form of temperature & CO2 history derived from the study of ice cores. In any case, no matter how you slice the numbers, temperature is on a cooling trend since the present interglacial began ~18K BP, according to any vetted data you choose.

zeroth
Reputation Points: 343
Solved Threads: 40
Nearly a Posting Virtuoso
zeroth is offline Offline
1,220 posts
since Mar 2005
Permalink
Aug 19th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

Global Warming is just a liberal propaganda tool aimed at the dumbasses who fall for that shit. Seriously.. Do some research yourself. Almost every scientist (not paid by the democrats) acknowledges the fact that the Earth natrually warms and cools itself, and that humans have had a negligible affect on this process. Why don't you find a graph of the average temperature on Earth for the past few hundred years... Al Gore is a moron.. Politicians are not scientists. Al gore knows jackshit about science, but he does know how to make an impact in Liberal America. Believe what you will.
Last edited by joshSCH; Aug 19th, 2008 at 7:01 pm. Reason: Lick my balls
Reputation Points: 1315
Solved Threads: 10
Banned
joshSCH is offline Offline
4,845 posts
since Jul 2005
Permalink
Aug 20th, 2008
0

Re: Global warming!!

Josh, heh,heh - what a gas! Your argument against defines any scientist who disagrees with you to be in the pay of Democrats; then you take a shot at Al Gore for not being a scientist (and call him a moron - not a particularly intellectual or apt description) - sigh!

I don't need to argue about Al Gore - he has a Nobel prize and I don't so let's stick with the topic.
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1448
Solved Threads: 21
Posting Maven
GrimJack is offline Offline
2,735 posts
since Feb 2004

This thread is more than three months old

No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.
Message:
Previous Thread in Geeks' Lounge Forum Timeline: Vote Google in US Election
Next Thread in Geeks' Lounge Forum Timeline: Returning to pre-9/11 Childish Fantasies





About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Acceptable Use Policy
Forum Index | Build Custom RSS Feed


Follow us on Twitter


© 2011 DaniWeb® LLC