collapse

Poll

Do you believe that man's emission of Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 are (and will) signifcantly affecting the Climate?

Yes
28 (75.7%)
No
7 (18.9%)
Unsure
1 (2.7%)
D
1 (2.7%)

Total Members Voted: 37


bicing

  • I'm a bot.
  • Domestique
  • Country: ht
  • Posts: 679
  • Liked: 148
  • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
  • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
Re: Global warming my a.s
« Reply #90 on: February 13, 2012, 08:35 »
Francois' posts are alarmist? Oh boy this should be good. I await your rebuttal of anything in his posts eagerly. :D
It's important to recognise that until now, there has been no rebuttal of anything said in the science. At this stage, the creature has used the following arguments:

  • Making a statement seen as contradictory to everyone except itself.
  • Labelling something as "shonky science" without giving a reason for it.
  • Correctly rebutting points that have nothing to do with the actual topic: climate science.

When I have a bit more time I certainly will but not tonight as I am preoccupied with things I should be doing. What I meant by "alarmist" is that the science he is supporting is supported by the IPCC's models which are widely known as unreliable and many of their claims are known as alarmists.

This is absolutely incorrect. The IPCC is a global panel of climate scientists, their work represents the conservative end of climate science thought. They are not alarmist, they are understated.

I invite you to share with me an article by a peer reviewed scientist that says the IPCC are unreliable and alarmist.
  • ReplyReply
  • Cycman: Sagan Greipel Brajkovic Breschel CA.Sorensen Porte Wegmann Sutton Zubeldia Fedrigo Lastras Roux Selig Morabito Dumoulin T.Meyer
    CQ game-breakers: Boom Ciolek DeGendt Steegmans Bertagnolli Blythe Masciarelli Stetina Boeckmans Vaugrenard

    Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2293
    • Liked: 518
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #91 on: February 13, 2012, 08:38 »
    So if it is commonly thought to be true that skeptics are pests then they must be. This logic also summarises many of the arguments by the alarmists like yourself and Francois. If it is common it must be true. Secondly, could put put in the full post that I had a go at you for. That would be much presented. We would hate for you to cherry pick many arguments. Another alarmist trait. That fact that it is "undisputed" (according to you) means you have closed your mind off to other arguments. Clearly you like to support shonky science from your buddies at the IPCC.

    Also, from what you have said on cycloo you think I have been told to believe it yet firstly I used to be on your side on this debate and secondly most of my peers disagree with me on this issue anyway so your point that I just don't think for myself is null and void.

    Oh and this is only the beginning.  8)

    Then where does one go to for the ethical "science" on this issue? The novels of Ian Plimer and the speeches of Monckton?
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 08:39 by The Arbiter »

    Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #92 on: February 13, 2012, 08:41 »
    Hey fundamentalist ;D, I just found sea shell in my front yard it is so cool to believe that once ocean was here 8)
    When Al Gore with his payed UN scientist try to save the world it is always time for be careful.
    But let heard Polish Academy of Sciences: " Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.” 

    In short we are monitoring temp just over 200 years and only on 28% of earth, there is lot of things to be answered, again Polish dudes
    "The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.”

    In short payed of UN scientists are greedy ;D
  • ReplyReply
  • Reverend Fred Saves!!

    Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2293
    • Liked: 518
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #93 on: February 13, 2012, 08:42 »
    I invite you to share with me an article by a peer reviewed scientist that says the IPCC are unreliable and alarmist.

    Yet you will probably find one saying that they are too optimistic in the emissions scenarios?
  • ReplyReply

  • bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #94 on: February 13, 2012, 08:46 »
    Hey fundamentalist ;D, I just found sea shell in my front yard it is so cool to believe that once ocean was here 8)
    When Al Gore with his payed UN scientist try to save the world it is always time for be careful.
    But let heard Polish Academy of Sciences: " Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.” 

    In short we are monitoring temp just over 200 years and only on 28% of earth, there is lot of things to be answered, again Polish dudes
    "The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.”

    In short payed of UN scientists are greedy ;D
    Can you give me a date for that quote?
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #95 on: February 13, 2012, 08:46 »

    I invite you to share with me an article by a peer reviewed scientist that says the IPCC are unreliable and alarmist.
    Open your eyes dude, open your eyes :-*
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #96 on: February 13, 2012, 08:48 »
    Can you give me a date for that quote?
    Of course http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/polish-academy-of-sciences-position-on-the-global-warming-hysteria/.
    And I must go now to recycle papers, cans and run to the nearest store to buy eco food, what a joke :'(
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7850
    • Liked: 934
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #97 on: February 13, 2012, 09:01 »
    Welcome to lesson one of "The Life of Skeptics", where I teach you about the behaviour of these fascinating animals, which are commonly thought of as pests.....


    ....I hope you've enjoyed the first episode.

    (Dedicated to Ramjamtrike)
    Why thank you bicing. Now, I'll make way for the top men. Where's the arbiter on this topic? ;)

    Never mind, there he is.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 09:03 by Kriss Akabusi's fantabulous pegs »

    Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #98 on: February 13, 2012, 09:18 »
    More than 100 scientific articles, and a leader in the field? Wow. Can you name one peer-reviewed published in the area we are actually discussing: climate science? Can you explain why someone with ZERO publications is on your list of 3, and not, for instance, one single name out of the many many scientists who have actually published in the relevant area, and do not share his opinion at all?

    Well I can not change them do I, or make them better? They published papers that s it, for more info you should write to them. I just copy/ paste things :-*

    I would (again) suggest better sources to start from, but somehow I suspect that you simply don't trust the experts in their fields, or the sites worth following, as I fail to understand why you would otherwise drag in non-experts and fringe figures and long debunked objections, and depict them as leaders and unanswered problems? And ignore the many expert voices that have already explained or addressed, time and time again, several of the issues you raised?

    Whom I should trust Al Gore & UN, please dude take a break. I trust local academics who works for 700 euros for month :'(, and says that western UN climate alarmist is nonsense. Please let me choose my trusty dudes. Again Polish Academics also do not trust ;), call them mate, just call them.

    The earth is warming pretty much exactly as expected and predicted by models, and any genuine expert in the field ought to be able to produce the data that shows the predictions by the various models, and how they stack up against our actual measurements. You are happy to echo the claims about recent developments that you like. How do you address graphs like this? Which, btw, is also up to date, not a claim from 2007, as if we didn't know what happened next.

    Just predictions and non linear models, I believe in ice core Vostok measurement and common sense, others they are just arguing against themselves, not against opinion opposition. So pretty much payed predictions and models in order to put guilty as charge India, Brasil and China :D.


    Indeed, a learning opportunity: how many people and institutes have changed their mind in the opposite direction? If you don't know, why did you not ask that question first, before regurgitating "there is a list of 700"? And to be more precise, how many of those 700 are genuine experts in the appropriate field, with up to date understanding? And (in general) how many experts have become more sceptic, and how many have become less sceptic? Isn't that a more relevant question?

    Well to answer your concerns, there is more and more people on earth who thinks that human CO2 are crap. Today 700 tomorrow 70000000 :-[

    You keep saying that you aren't sure, and what that suggests is that you are willing to learn, and look at arguments fairly. Then why on earth do you then keep listening (only) to people who are less likely to give you accurate answers? And seemingly ignore the people who actually have current understanding of the issues at hand?

    Again when Al Gore is your leader I choose Vikings :-*

    Before you post more of those links, can you check with places like http://www.skepticalscience.com/  to find out what the already established counter-arguments are (usually sourced from peer-reviewed articles) for the well-trodden issues you raise (presented in understandable English). That is something that anyone who wants to learn would do automatically, not? Seek out pros and cons, and make your mind up if it is worth posting here, before plastering link after link of debunked alternative suggestions, add the opinion of "expert" people to the conversation, whose actual expertise is highly questionable. And/or whose not-so-peer-reviewed theories have already received a good picking over, and usually with the rather predictable result that what is left is not matching actual observations, is ignoring important context, or is only half the story.

    There are a lot of questions left to be answered. There are also peer-reviewed sceptics who ask good questions, or propose interesting new angles. But it helps if people asked the right questions first, to the right people, rather than take any parrot in their camp that appears to have gravitas and throw it "out there".

    If you can't get hold of seriously boring nitty gritty peer-reviewed magazines, this is an alternative point of view that addresses several of the issues (and people) you have raised, within a few post, with actual counter-argumentation:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html

    Thanks

    It is indeed never too late to start a genuine examination of your own talking point lists.

    And vice versa.

    BTW, the comments are usually worth reading as much a the article above it. If the article glossed over something, or missed a beat, it usually gets brought up by the people who scrutinize the articles to academic standards, there.

    Thanks for that mate
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 09:26 by Humpy Jam »

    bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #99 on: February 13, 2012, 09:33 »
    Whom I should trust Al Gore & UN, please dude take a break. I trust local academics who works for 700 euros for month :'(, and says that western UN climate alarmist is nonsense. Please let me choose my trusty dudes. Again Polish Academics also do not trust ;), call them mate, just call them.

    I hear that you read stuff, you just don't read much...

    The Polish Academy of Sciences support the IPCC and believe climate change is an important priority.
    "Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times."

    This quote you brought up was written by a GEOLOGIST, not a CLIMATE SCIENTIST. Many of the points he makes are incorrect. There is extensive multidisciplinary research involving climate change. Oceanography has been around for much longer than 40 years. It is well estaiblished that human activity is the main influence.

    I had not heard of Vostok before you mentioned it, so i looked it up and found what appears to be its legacy.
    What do you believe in when you see this graph olbborn? It's saying that there is a very strong relationship between atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and temperatures.
  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2293
    • Liked: 518
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #100 on: February 13, 2012, 09:44 »
    I actually can't disagree with too many of the points from that link, I like this one in particular:

    "9. There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions. It is equally important to take up and pursuit appropriate adapting actions that will mitigate the effects of the current warming trend."
  • ReplyReply

  • bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #101 on: February 13, 2012, 09:48 »
    I actually can't disagree with too many of the points from that link, I like this one in particular:

    "9. There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions. It is equally important to take up and pursuit appropriate adapting actions that will mitigate the effects of the current warming trend."
    Nice! I didn't click the link.

    Arbiter/bicing/Francois 1
    oldporn/auscyclefan 0
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7850
    • Liked: 934
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #102 on: February 13, 2012, 10:08 »
    What be this- contestants awarding themselves points?
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #103 on: February 13, 2012, 10:16 »
    I rather believe in solid proof like geologist can found (ice core, rocks, earth etc) than climatologists cheap mathematics predictions models. Geology does not lie 8)

    Let s back on ice core and Vostok project, which simple show us that global warming and global ice ages are here long before us, if you look carefully at last 150 years (which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels) they found higher levels of CO2 but in the same time they did not find corresponding increase in temperature during this time period ;)

    Other interesting patterns in the Vosok data include the extreme increases and decreases in temperature preceding and following the interglacial phases (the five high temperature phases in the graph or up and down). long before cars dude, long before us.

    It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature (even from Vostok Ice core) changes have been due to GTGs (green house trace gasses), and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.

    CO2 would not kill us, it is all natural, just relax and smoke some bong for start.
  • ReplyReply

  • bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #104 on: February 13, 2012, 10:38 »
    I rather believe in solid proof like geologist can found (ice core, rocks, earth etc) than climatologists cheap mathematics predictions models. Geology does not lie 8)

    Let s back on ice core and Vostok project, which simple show us that global warming and global ice ages are here long before us, if you look carefully at last 150 years (which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels) they found higher levels of CO2 but in the same time they did not find corresponding increase in temperature during this time period ;)

    Other interesting patterns in the Vosok data include the extreme increases and decreases in temperature preceding and following the interglacial phases (the five high temperature phases in the graph or up and down). long before cars dude, long before us.

    It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature (even from Vostok Ice core) changes have been due to GTGs (green house trace gasses), and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.

    CO2 would not kill us, it is all natural, just relax and smoke some bong for start.

    Climate scientists use those very techniques that you attribute as exclusive to geologists. So you're wrong there.

    Everyone acknowledges that global warming and ice ages have been occurring long before us.

    There have been an increase in temperatures as a result of the fossil fuel period. So you're wrong there.

    If you agree with the Vostok data then you agree with anthropogenic global warming. The main point of that research was the positive relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, and methane and temperature: If carbon dioxide and methane concentration in atmosphere increases, then temperature increases. Human activities generate carbon dioxide and methane, therefore increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.

    The point is, human activity is accelerating a natural phenomena, therefore making it unnatural.

    You are so wrong and ignorant about this subject.
  • ReplyReply

  • Francois the Postman

    • Domestique
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 748
    • Liked: 789
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #105 on: February 13, 2012, 11:06 »
    When I have a bit more time I certainly will but not tonight as I am preoccupied with things I should be doing. What I meant by "alarmist" is that the science he is supporting is supported by the IPCC's models which are widely known as unreliable and many of their claims are known as alarmists.

    Widely known to be unreliable by whom exactly? Based on what?

    You made a bold claim there ACF, and it is also a claim that goes to the heart of the issue, about who is making claims we can trust (more) to be (more) right. Who should we listen to (more), and who should we listen to less?

    So I hope you will give me a thorough support for that claim, please, all the more since the recent incoming data suggest that the exact opposite is true, for their key predictions and current modelling anyway.

    Since you made the claim that the models are widely known to be unreliable, I kinda hope you will name the IPCC models that the IPCC is paying most attention to, and how their forecast ranges are matching real data so far, with a source for the data on which you base your claim. Specifically, I am dead curious to hear your take on how their (key) claims, across the board, are holding up vs the real data that is incoming (or what/who your sources for those claims are - I suspect you rely on the opinion of others as much as I do).


    Two things:

    1) I have mainly argued that some poorly supported claims made by others should have been fact-checked with a bit more rigour by those that dragged them into the discussion, before doing so. On both sides. And that I regret how politicised this debate has become, on both sides.

    2) I have made remarkably few claims about what I expect to happen going forwards. Mostly, because I don't know. I rely on others to inform me about this. So it is important that I listen to the right people too, and keep an open mind. Which is one of the reasons why I still look into solid-sounding "new" claims I get presented with, sceptic and not. I have found that some sources have a far better predictive track-record, and comprehensive outlook, than others, so I would be lying if I said that I was paying more attention to the people who, so far, have given me the least reason to trust them. I have not discarded the possibility that I (or the next generation) might end up (happily) surprised. Even if the current figures are not looking good, there is still a lot we don't know. For all I know, we might still trigger processes that we haven't foreseen, and which are thus not part of the current models either. That could work out in both directions, btw.

    I am curious why you have me down as an alarmist, but I will ignore that easier-to-reject label, and look forward to a post on issues only.

    Oh, and nice to see you on the site! 
  • ReplyReply

  • Francois the Postman

    • Domestique
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 748
    • Liked: 789
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #106 on: February 13, 2012, 11:32 »
    I rather believe in solid proof like geologist can found (ice core, rocks, earth etc) than climatologists cheap mathematics predictions models. Geology does not lie 8)

    1) please tell me you are not so ill-informed that you assume that there is no predictive modelling involved with geology?

    2) and it isn't just climate models predictions that we are looking at. We have has several years of actual data, which is as real as the stuff that geologist are measuring. So we are perfectly equipped to reflect on what the models have predicted vs what we have measured. Answer: the constantly improving models have been predicting ranges that we are currently measuring all along.

    3) geology is as likely to "lie" as climatology. Both are specialist subjects which are trying to make sense of a subject of which not everything is known yet, with instrumentation that is constantly upgraded. By applying the scientific method. Combining accumulating data, and combining that with informed speculation, proposing a hypothesis, creating theories which can be replicated and/or falsified. Aspects of geology just happen to overlap with some of of the aspects that are used for figuring out how some aspects of climatology work. Geologists, across the history of the subject, also propose theories that haven't been proven yet, expect data that hasn't been measured yet, and base this on informed expectations.

    You appear to show a misunderstanding of both the science of climatology and geology.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 13:04 by Francois the Postman »

    Francois the Postman

    • Domestique
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 748
    • Liked: 789
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #107 on: February 13, 2012, 12:17 »
    Let s back on ice core and Vostok project, which simple show us that global warming and global ice ages are here long before us, if you look carefully at last 150 years (which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels) they found higher levels of CO2 but in the same time they did not find corresponding increase in temperature during this time period ;)
    Ok, "let's", as this too has been widely covered in the past.

    Actually, looking back over 420,000 years, the experts did find that temperature and CO2 concentration were definitely correlated, with a correlation coefficient of 0.86, excluding Law Dome and Mauna Loa data. Although, strictly speaking, we are looking for forcing, not temperature.





    The 2nd image also screams something else at us: that over the last 170 years, there is an odd shift taking place (as indicated by the line that moves completely outside the settled and related variations and increasingly so). This is so different from the 420,000 years preceding it, that whatever is driving our climate just now, it must be something that is significantly different from all that went before.

    [more here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-temperature-and-CO2-in-the-past.html]

    If you add up all that we know about Vostok, the thing to note is that forcing is higher when our system is in a warm phase. This correlates with earlier findings that suggested the same. Slow feedbacks appear to be the cause.

    Indeed, as you say, geology (well done) doesn't lie. So you agree then that the Vostok data seriously suggests that we are well outside the natural ranges that were established over the past half a million years. And, apparently, increasingly so?

    You cannot use the example of Vostok and then ignore what the 420,000 years of reconstructed data are telling us more than anything else.

    Something that is significantly different over the last 170 years compared to the previous 420,000... now what could that be?

    EDIT: Rather than engage me on issues, I see that you have suddenly insinuated that I "follow" my "leader" Al Gore, a couple of times even. Seriously? It means that you have not understood a single word of what I have actually written, and stressed over and over, about the importance I place on preferring to listen to qualified experts, rather than politicians. If you want an honest debate, at least respond to what I actually write, rather than put words in my mouth and (try to) slam me down with arguments that were never made by me, but invented by you. It seems a bizarre path to take, given the amount of times I have made it clear that folk like Al Gore don't mean much to me, given the amount of genuine expert opinions that are easily accessible these days.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 13:03 by Francois the Postman »

    Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #108 on: February 13, 2012, 12:55 »
    You guys are alarmist 8), take it easy there is no Armageddon in sight ;D

    Hey take a read: "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions." in simple words 100 years (my country is still in industrial revolution ;D) few cars and chimneys are just that "nonsense" IMHO, too short period to happens anything.

    Of course there is possible relation between CO2 and temp rising, but  what kind? Temperature rises first, and then comes an increase in atmospheric CO2. Or, CO2 remains essentially unchanged while temperatures drop. Or, CO2 drops while air temperature remains unchanged or actually rises.
    You guys seems to know all answers  :-*
    Happy Whale Wars season ;)

    Full article http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #109 on: February 13, 2012, 12:58 »
    1) please tell me you are not so ill-informed that you assume that there is no modelling involved with geology?

    2) and it isn't just climate models predictions that we are looking at. We have has several years of actual data, which is as real as the stuff that geologist are measuring. So we are perfectly equipped to reflect on what the models have predicted vs what we have measured. Answer: the constantly improving models have been predicting ranges that we are currently measuring all along.

    3) geology is as likely to "lie" as climatology. Both are specialist subjects which are trying to make sense of a subject of which not everything is known yet, with instrumentation that is constantly upgraded. By applying the scientific method. Combining accumulating data, and combining that with informed speculation, proposing a hypothesis, creating theories which can be replicated and/or falsified. Aspects of geology just happen to overlap with some of of the aspects that are used for figuring out how some aspects of climatology work. Geologists, across the history of the subject, also propose theories that haven't been proven yet, expect data that hasn't been measured yet, and base this on informed expectations.

    You appear to show a misunderstanding of both the science of climatology and geology.

    This make me sleep, and already sleeping with prof. geologist, actually having kids :P
    So make your point in few words cos I am tired of geology  lessons ;)
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 12:58 by Humpy Jam »

    Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #110 on: February 13, 2012, 13:02 »
    Ok, "let's", as this too has been widely covered in the past.

    Actually, looking back over 420,000 years, the experts did find that temperature and CO2 concentration were definitely correlated, with a correlation coefficient of 0.86, excluding Law Dome and Mauna Loa data. Although, strictly speaking, we are looking for forcing, not temperature.





    The 2nd image also screams something else at us: that over the last 170 years, there is an odd shift taking place (as indicated by the line that moves completely outside the settled and related variations and increasingly so). This is so different from the 420,000 years preceding it, that whatever is driving our climate just now, it must be something that is significantly different from all that went before.

    [more here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-temperature-and-CO2-in-the-past.html]

    If you add up all that we know about Vostok, the thing to note is that forcing is higher when our system is in a warm phase. This correlates with earlier findings that suggested the same. Slow feedbacks appear to be the cause.

    Indeed, as you say, geology (well done) doesn't lie. So you agree then that the Vostok data seriously suggests that we are well outside the natural ranges that were established over the past half a million years. And, apparently, increasingly so?

    You cannot use the example of Vostok and then ignore what the 420,000 years of reconstructed data are telling us more than anything else.

    Something that is significantly different over the last 170 years compared to the previous 420,000... now what could that be?

    170 years is nothing my friend, nothing. We are talking about zillions of years here. Zillions, is there such a number?
  • ReplyReply

  • Francois the Postman

    • Domestique
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 748
    • Liked: 789
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #111 on: February 13, 2012, 13:11 »
    What be this- contestants awarding themselves points?

    I would prefer it if I was kept out of that. Although there might be something to be said for keeping track of claims made/claims refuted, it's not really how I'd like to engage others, even if I disagree strongly with them.
  • ReplyReply

  • Francois the Postman

    • Domestique
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 748
    • Liked: 789
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #112 on: February 13, 2012, 13:21 »
    170 years is nothing my friend, nothing. We are talking about zillions of years here. Zillions, is there such a number?

    Right, based on what you chose to ignore and supersize, can I take that you will ignore all serious points and objections I (and others) raise then, and you will just come out with bongs and dudes, and Al Gore's, and other zingers? This isn't about debate at all for you, is it?

    The very data that you yourself throw in as significant seriously suggest you are not understanding the material you are raising, as it is supportive of my points, not yours. When you realise that your argument is floored, you move the goal posts. If 420,000 doesn't matter, as we are talking zillions, you've got some nerve raising a point that is based on 150 years , from the that same data set, as a counter argument.

    If you are really keeping "an open mind and are willing to learn", I suggest you revisit the way you are going about it.

    ACF, please jump in, as at least I know you can argue honestly held beliefs honestly, like why you think that fringe-theories like "Cadel can win a Tour" might be worth listening to.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 13:26 by Francois the Postman »

    bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #113 on: February 13, 2012, 13:23 »
    Ram and Franc - the points thing was a joke don't take it to oseriously

    Back to oldborn,,, Let's take a look at this organisation CO2 Science that you referenced. Let's keep in mind that oldporn you said above that paying off scientists is bad, that political lobbying over science is wrong...

    The staff of this organisation are the Idso Family. They are funded by coal, mining and oil interests, receivng over $1 mil in total. They have been quoted as saying the organisation is "so poor" yet their tax records show a satisfactory bank balance with about 2/3rds of it going to the salary of one of the Idso family members.

    Here we see EVIDENCE that skeptics are being funded in a corrupt way, where is the evidence that Al Gore and the IPCC are doing this? Your imagination and fake-science-experts don't count.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #114 on: February 13, 2012, 13:27 »
    Right, based on what you chose to ignore and supersize, can I take that you will ignore all serious points and objections I (and others) raise then, and you will just come out with bongs and dudes, and Al Gore's, and other zingers? This isn't about debate at all for you, is it?

    The very data that you yourself throw in as significant seriously suggest you are not understanding the material you are raising, as it is supportive of my points, not yours. When you realise that your argument is floored, you move the goal posts. If 420,000 doesn't matter, as we are talking zillions, you've got some nerve raising a point that is based on 150 years , from the that same data set, as a counter argument.

    If you are really keeping "an open mind and are willing to learn", I suggest you revisit the way you are going about it.

    420, 000 really matter dude ;), but not 170 that was my point. Zillions was just metaphor.
    We should talk about zillions if there is such a deep ice core, but there is not, they only drilled how much 3000m or so?
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7850
    • Liked: 934
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #115 on: February 13, 2012, 13:29 »
    Ram and Franc - the points thing was a joke don't take it to oseriously
    Aye, mine was too. My point of contention is that contestants can't be the arbiters (bar the arbiter).
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 889
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #116 on: February 13, 2012, 13:32 »
    Ram and Franc - the points thing was a joke don't take it to oseriously

    Back to oldborn,,, Let's take a look at this organisation CO2 Science that you referenced. Let's keep in mind that oldporn you said above that paying off scientists is bad, that political lobbying over science is wrong...

    The staff of this organisation are the Idso Family. They are funded by coal, mining and oil interests, receivng over $1 mil in total. They have been quoted as saying the organisation is "so poor" yet their tax records show a satisfactory bank balance with about 2/3rds of it going to the salary of one of the Idso family members.

    Here we see EVIDENCE that skeptics are being funded in a corrupt way, where is the evidence that Al Gore and the IPCC are doing this? Your imagination and fake-science-experts don't count.
    And what is wrong with coal, mining and oil industry again?
    Stay well, I must walk my dog, then rollers and 100 minutes of running ;)
  • ReplyReply

  • Amsterhammer

    • Proud owner of Vacansoleil
    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1030
    • Liked: 16
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #117 on: February 13, 2012, 13:51 »
    This isn't about debate at all for you, is it?

    Has it really taken you this long to figure that out? ;)
  • ReplyReply
  • Rock On and keep the Faith

    Francois the Postman

    • Domestique
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 748
    • Liked: 789
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #118 on: February 13, 2012, 13:56 »
    You guys are alarmist 8), take it easy there is no Armageddon in sight ;D
    Reading what we actually write isn't your strong point, is it?

    The problem with not reading is that you keep asking questions, issues and problems (from 2003), which have answers (from 2012) which are already given, in posts above you, and in links before this one. And which are in posts about as long as the one you quote, so spare me the "it's too long" nonsense. Or do you only read long stuff when it suits you?
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 13:57 by Francois the Postman »

    Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2293
    • Liked: 518
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #119 on: February 13, 2012, 14:27 »
    And what is wrong with coal, mining and oil industry again?
    Stay well, I must walk my dog, then rollers and 100 minutes of running ;)

    They have a vested interest in a world free of CO2 mitigation, just like there would be outrage if a "pro-CC" group were funded by the owners of CO2 mitigation technologies.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 14:28 by The Arbiter »

     



    Top
    Back to top