Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

climategateFollow

#202 Dec 03 2009 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just to be really clear, since I wasn't as specific as I should have been. When I say that the graph does not show a correlation between CO2 and temperature, I'm speaking specifically within the context of the increase CO2 levels during recent decades. Clearly, for most of the time period, there's a correlation shown, but that correlation breaks down when we look at the unusual increase of CO2 in recent times.


It absolutely does not show a correlation between CO2 and temperature which would lead us to assume that human behavior is having an impact on global temperature. We can speculate about the cause of the normal correlation between CO2 and temperature, but it's pretty clear that what is causing the increase in CO2 levels is *not* causing a similar increase in temperature. The temperature increases we've seen are completely in line with "normal" temperature patterns over hundreds of thousands of years. The CO2 increases are not.


Um... And if we assume that it's human activities that is causing the increase in CO2 levels, we can therefore *not* say that there's a correlation between human behavior and temperature. Since that's what Ash was claiming the graph showed, that seemed somewhat relevant...
So you admit that humans are causing the CO2 increases? Then where's the debate? It's almost as if you subconsciously disagree only as soon as it gets to the point where policy needs to be enacted that would go against conservative ideals.

Enforce policy to reduce CO2 emissions. Done.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#203 Dec 03 2009 at 6:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
bsphil wrote:
So you admit that humans are causing the CO2 increases? Then where's the debate? It's almost as if you subconsciously disagree only as soon as it gets to the point where policy needs to be enacted that would go against conservative ideals.


I answered this before, but you may have missed it. The argument is not about CO2 levels themselves. They aren't harmful (unless they're a whole hell of a lot higher). The argument is about temperature. Increased temperature will melt the icecaps, cause flooding, land erosion, crop failures, and god knows what else.

The CO2 levels aren't the problem. It's the temperature. It's not enough to just show that CO2 levels have increased.

Quote:
Enforce policy to reduce CO2 emissions. Done.


Why not enforce policy to reduce water emissions, or chocolate, or squid populations. They're just as likely to cause problems...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#204 Dec 03 2009 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
I guess it's the Chicken or the Egg.
Did the CO2 cause the increase in temperature, or vice versa.

But does it really matter? If we reduce CO2 emissions and it doesn't help temperature... what bad happened, other than promoted alternative sources of energy, which would be beneficial regardless?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#205 Dec 03 2009 at 7:50 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,159 posts
Gbaji, I find it ironic that you're attempting to argue that, because we aren't seeing vastly higher temperatures today, CO2 has no effect on temperature. This is foolish firstly because the sheer scale of the graphs leaves open the possibility that the last 150 years haven't been long enough to result in the change you're saying should have occurred. There's also the fact that, even if CO2 levels and temperature are correlated, that doesn't mean CO2 is the only factor involved - i.e., an X% rise in CO2 levels doesn't mean we should be seeing an X% rise in temperature.
#206 Dec 03 2009 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Majivo wrote:
Gbaji, I find it ironic that you're attempting to argue that, because we aren't seeing vastly higher temperatures today, CO2 has no effect on temperature. This is foolish firstly because the sheer scale of the graphs leaves open the possibility that the last 150 years haven't been long enough to result in the change you're saying should have occurred. There's also the fact that, even if CO2 levels and temperature are correlated, that doesn't mean CO2 is the only factor involved - i.e., an X% rise in CO2 levels doesn't mean we should be seeing an X% rise in temperature.
If the world isn't going to end within the current republican voting population's lifetime due to increases in CO2 levels, then they aren't going to vote to fix them.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#207 Dec 03 2009 at 7:57 PM Rating: Excellent
It's hard to take anyone who is so often just totally wrong as gbaji is. And thus it is almost counterproductive to reply. However just for clarification, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it will warm the Earth. Here is a very simple explanation:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html

When gbaji says: "The CO2 levels aren't the problem. It's the temperature. It's not enough to just show that CO2 levels have increased. " he is in effect saying carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. This is simply wrong.

What gbaji could say is that the amounts of carbon dioxide humans have put don't have the power to change the global temperature much. He almost says this when he says: "The argument is not about CO2 levels themselves. They aren't harmful (unless they're a whole hell of a lot higher)."

But in saying so, he indicates that current human emitted levels of CO2 have not increased global temperature at all (or a negligible amount). This is very, very unlikely to turn out to be true. There is simply no way to account for current global temperatures without human activities. With them it makes sense. Yes, this is based on computer simulations. They are complicated. That is why it is essential that many, many different groups with totally different programs achieve similar results.

And they have.

All climate skeptics need to do is find one credible model which actually accounts for temperatures without recourse to human activities. As we have discussed extensively in this forum in the past, many of these have occurred: such as solar activity. They don't work. Many others have tried.

But you actually have to do the math. It is very complicated and there is a chance due to a kind of groupthink that all models are wrong. You will never get certainty.

Instead of fixating on a single graph, to argue for or against the science, you'll probably have to actually read it:

https://www.up.ethz.ch/education/biogeochem_cycles/reading_list/cox_etal_nat_00.pdf

for example. First one that came up for me that is well written, you might have access to and addresses what we're talking about.

Next, what gbaji is (poorly) trying to point out is that there is not an immediate 1-1 correlation between increasing CO2 and temperature. Thus the recent spike in CO2 did not create a relatively equal size spike in temperature. Thus we should conclude either (A) there are other factors and/or (B) the effects of CO2 are delayed in temperature and/or (C) the correlation is not 1-1, or perhaps varies at high levels of CO2. In fact, all 3 are well known. The models handle them well and in various models, they all come out about the same. The time scale for the delay is about 50 years.

Instead gbaji says that there is NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE.

This is so naive, I can't really reply. Except I will note it could have been true.

The game gbaji is playing is that he doesn't know anything. If you give him that graph, alone, as your data, he can say it doesn't prove it. He hasn't heard of the greenhouse effect or what greenhouse gases are. You have to teach him all that. And about all the climate models. If it serves his purpose, he doesn't know what a computer is unless you tell him about it - even though he's typing on one. And even the dictionary is no barrier to him: even if two phrases such as "in addition to" and "above and beyond" are listed as synonymous, he can distinguish them. You can't talk sense into him - that isn't part of his game. There is no common background of sense (such as, perhaps, a dictionary) to which you can fall back to. No common ground. Nothing exists unless you prove it to him and he can state anything, however absurd, without proof.

Despite the generally nonsensical nature of his game, it occasionally rises to the level of quality at which it might confuse someone.
#208 Dec 03 2009 at 8:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
I guess it's the Chicken or the Egg.
Did the CO2 cause the increase in temperature, or vice versa.


It is nearly scientifically impossible for the cause to be anything other than the temperature though. Not only are there other gases which vary with the same exact pattern (methane for example), but when we examine the timeline more closely, we find that temperature changes precede gas level changes.

Normally, cause precedes effect. Not the other way around...

Quote:
But does it really matter? If we reduce CO2 emissions and it doesn't help temperature... what bad happened, other than promoted alternative sources of energy, which would be beneficial regardless?


Um... Tens of billions of dollars of lost productivity? Higher unemployment rates? Lower investment rates leading to sluggish development of new life improving technologies? The harm is the cost. It costs significantly more to produce goods while reducing CO2 emissions. In some cases, ridiculously more.

Just one example. Carbon sequestration, a technique President Obama has supported as a good use of our money, and promoted during his campaign as part of his energy policy, would double the cost of electricity from coal fired plants where it is deployed. Double. That's pretty significant, don't you think?

Cap and trade systems place the costs right on the head of the industries which make most of the products we consume. That cost will be passed right on to us, the consumer. They are also predicated on an assumption that carbon emissions will raise temperatures to dangerous levels if we don't do something to restrict them.


We're being told we must pay, not just a little bit more, but a whole hell of a lot more for the things we rely on. Not to make our air cleaner. Not to make our water cleaner. Not to improve our health. Nope. To reduce the concentration of a naturally occurring and necessary gas in our air, on the incredibly thin assumption that if we don't, temperatures will continue to rise and we'll all suffer horribly.


The "harm" is in the results of the political actions being pushed as a result of this movement. And I haven't even gotten into the more political aspects of that. Just looking at the direct economic effects are pretty horrific by themselves.


Arguing for cleaner technologies is a good thing btw. But the argument should rest on the benefits of those things themselves, not predicated by a fear of something which is at the very least being grossly exaggerated and likely just plain doesn't exist at all. Want to argue for solar power? Argue it on the real environmental benefits. Want to argue for wind power? Same deal. Electric cars? Absolutely. Let's compare these things. Let's look at the true environmental effects of the choices in front of us. That's a good way to do things.

But with the global warming panic, we're not doing that. We're pushing for changes in the name of protecting the environment, which don't really have anything to do with environmentalism at all. We're pursuing the goal of reducing carbon emissions. It's absolutely bizarre to me that whenever people talk about environmental issue, they're talking about carbon footprint. It's not about pollutants that directly poison us. Nope. It's all about reducing the release of what is probably the least harmful industrial by product.



It's insane IMO...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#209 Dec 03 2009 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's insane IMO...
I'm sure the world does seem insane when you know nothing about how it works.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#210 Dec 03 2009 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
a fear of something which is at the very least being grossly exaggerated and likely just plain doesn't exist at all.

You've failed to make that case. In fact, you haven't even really tried to make that case rather than just insisting that no one has proven it to your satisfaction so it must not exist. Not exactly compelling.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#211 Dec 03 2009 at 9:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
When gbaji says: "The CO2 levels aren't the problem. It's the temperature. It's not enough to just show that CO2 levels have increased. " he is in effect saying carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. This is simply wrong.


Um... The Greenhouse Gas effect is about the increase of temperature caused by high concentrations of greenhouse gases. It has nothing to do with whether the gases themselves will poison us, clog our arteries, make us fat, drive us crazy, blind us, or what have you.

It's about the temperature. The entire reason to reduce CO2 levels is to theoretically prevent future temperature increase. What did you think is was about?

Quote:
What gbaji could say is that the amounts of carbon dioxide humans have put don't have the power to change the global temperature much. He almost says this when he says: "The argument is not about CO2 levels themselves. They aren't harmful (unless they're a whole hell of a lot higher)."


Actually, what I was hinting at there is that really high concentrations of CO2 will cause asphyxia in humans. Not because the gas is poisonous, but because we can't actually breathe it. Too much CO2 means there's too little O2 and Nitrogen, which is what we need. CO2 is bad for us in more or less the same way that water is. We can't breathe it. That's really it.

Oh. But plants do breathe CO2 and produce Oxygen (which we need). So CO2 is important to have in the air...

Quote:
But in saying so, he indicates that current human emitted levels of CO2 have not increased global temperature at all (or a negligible amount). This is very, very unlikely to turn out to be true. There is simply no way to account for current global temperatures without human activities.


Really? No way at all? How about you look at Ash's temperature graph. See how the end point of the temperature graph is *not* significantly higher than other similar points in the past? See how it's not even higher than it was just a few thousand years ago? Notice that the temperature trend has been downward for the last 8 thousand years or so?

Clearly, temperatures have been higher than they are now in the past. So I'm not sure how you justify your statement. Why do you assume that something which has happened at regular intervals for as long as we can record temperatures is somehow unexplainable?


Quote:
All climate skeptics need to do is find one credible model which actually accounts for temperatures without recourse to human activities. As we have discussed extensively in this forum in the past, many of these have occurred: such as solar activity. They don't work. Many others have tried.


What accounted for the temperature peaks in the graph before?

Don't you think the burden of proof ought to be on the guys insisting that we spend ridiculous sums of money dealing with a problem which may not be a problem at all? I don't have to explain why temperatures go up and down over time. I need only show that they have done so since long before the industrial revolution. Thus, it's silly to argue that the temperature changes going on right now *must* be because of modern man's activities.

You're predicating your argument on assumptions that are just plain false. Not only have temperatures been this high before, they have been higher. The reality is that we're seeing incredibly minor and normal temperature variation within a larger pattern which is also holding as "normal".

Quote:
Next, what gbaji is (poorly) trying to point out is that there is not an immediate 1-1 correlation between increasing CO2 and temperature. Thus the recent spike in CO2 did not create a relatively equal size spike in temperature. Thus we should conclude either (A) there are other factors and/or (B) the effects of CO2 are delayed in temperature and/or (C) the correlation is not 1-1, or perhaps varies at high levels of CO2. In fact, all 3 are well known. The models handle them well and in various models, they all come out about the same. The time scale for the delay is about 50 years.


The models do not handle them well. They predict things which have not happened and show now sign of happening. The models have been twisted and bent over backwards to fit historical data while allowing for the assumed future effect of increased CO2 levels on temperature. And every year that goes by, as the actual temperatures don't match the models, it becomes increasingly obvious to everyone that the models are at least partially, if not wholly wrong.

Also. It's not just about correlation. You have to consider causation. It is abundantly obvious that temperature causes changes in CO2 levels, not the other way around. I could explain this at length, but there are a thousand sites out there that can quickly and easily fill you in. And it's funny that most global warming supporters just plain ignore this fact. Strange, given that it's the core of the whole thing. If the historical correlation is to be assumed to be relevant, then it has to show temperature following CO2. Your own statement above assumes this. You claim that it just hasn't been enough time, and the increased CO2 levels *will* cause higher temperatures to match in the near future.

But there's no reason to expect this. There are numerous other gases which follow the same correlation to temperature as CO2. If it were just two things correlating, the causation could be argued to go either way. But when you have three or more things, and one is temperature and the others are gas concentration, it has to be the temperature which causes the changes in gas concentration. All the complex computer models in the world shouldn't counter what any halfway competent chemist can tell you about the certain cause here.


Quote:
Instead gbaji says that there is NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE.


You're still assuming that current temperatures are unusual in the long term. You're going backwards. Starting with that assumption and then grasping for a conveniently placed explanation. The assumption is wrong. The explanation is therefore unnecessary.


Quote:
The game gbaji is playing is that he doesn't know anything. If you give him that graph, alone, as your data, he can say it doesn't prove it. He hasn't heard of the greenhouse effect or what greenhouse gases are.


I'm quite positive I have known about greenhouse gas theory long before you'd ever heard of it. It's something which has been discussed in science fiction circles since I was a kid. Please don't project your assumptions on me.

Greenhouse gas effects don't just magically occur or not occur. They are present all the time. By some estimates, the Earth is currently about 20 degrees F hotter than it would be if greenhouse gases were not in effect. Good thing, huh?

However, the impact of any single change of quantity of a greenhouse gas on temperatures is very minimal. Doubly so when we're looking at a gas like CO2, which is one of the least significant greenhouse gases. Methane is much more relevant to greenhouse gas effect. But then, methane hasn't increased at the same high rate that CO2 has, so it's harder to convince people of a crises...


Of course, neither have temperatures, but that's just kinda being ignored.


Personal attacks are pretty pointless IMO. If you can express why we should all adopt the global warming assumption, then do so. If you can't, then maybe it's not me who doesn't understand the issue?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#212 Dec 03 2009 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
a fear of something which is at the very least being grossly exaggerated and likely just plain doesn't exist at all.

You've failed to make that case. In fact, you haven't even really tried to make that case rather than just insisting that no one has proven it to your satisfaction so it must not exist.


I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood you. Doesn't saying that no one has proven something to my satisfaction kinda go hand in hand with a case for the thing in question being exaggerated and likely not existing at all? You are attempting to convince me and the rest of the population that the danger from global warming is so great, so massive, so horrific, that we have no choice but to allow our government to impose draconian restrictions on industry, resulting in massive increases to our cost of living.


Excuse me if I require a bit more proof. You know. Like maybe showing that the temperatures today are actually outside the normal range of historical temperatures. That would be a nice start...


Quote:
Not exactly compelling.


Except I'm not trying to compel you to do anything, am I? You're trying to compel me, and the evidence you've got? Well... It's not exactly compelling...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#213 Dec 03 2009 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
The way I understand it, no one has ever said that the temperature of the world would never increase if we humans weren't mucking things up. Pretty much everyone knows that the planet has gone through highs and lows and will continue to do so. What most people are saying is that humans are hurrying a natural concept along a lot faster than it would normally occur.
#214 Dec 03 2009 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:
Excuse me if I require a bit more proof. You know. Like maybe showing that the temperatures today are actually outside the normal range of historical temperatures. That would be a nice start...
It's not today's temperatures the scientists are looking at with alarm.
#215 Dec 03 2009 at 9:41 PM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
gbaji wrote:
Doesn't saying that no one has proven something to my satisfaction kinda go hand in hand with a case for the thing in question being exaggerated and likely not existing at all?


Were we dealing with any sort of rational person, sure. But instead we're dealing with YOU. Therefore, we can more accurately say that it goes more to make a case for the notion that your criteria for "proof" are unreasonably slanted toward things which confirm your pre-existing beliefs and are subject to change at any given moment, depending on how desperate you are to appear "right."

Because of this, there is no reasonable expectation of your ever conceding that anything has been "proven" to your satisfaction, but the fact that you fail to do so is in no way dependent on whether or not the evidence is valid.



Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 11:04pm by Ambrya
#216 Dec 03 2009 at 10:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Iron Chef AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Excuse me if I require a bit more proof. You know. Like maybe showing that the temperatures today are actually outside the normal range of historical temperatures. That would be a nice start...
It's not today's temperatures the scientists are looking at with alarm.


Yes. They're looking at projected future temperatures. But their reasoning is flawed. There's just no other way to say it.

Historical temperature to CO2 correlation shows about an 800 year gap between when temperatures change and CO2 levels change. The temperature always changes first. This can support one of two explanations:

1. Temperature causes CO2 (and other gases) to change their concentration in the air.

2. Some other factor causes both temperature and CO2 to change, but affects temperature first.

That's it. It is impossible for effect to precede cause. CO2 levels cannot be said to cause temperature change. Not in the context of the long term graphs, which are what is used to argue a "correlation". They are correlated, but not in a way which allows for CO2 to cause major temperature changes.


This does not rule out more minor temperature changes occurring, quite possibly as a result of a greenhouse gas effect. But those effects are presumably so minor that they get lost in the "static" of the data. The point being that while we can certainly say that increasing the levels of CO2 may cause a temperature change, that change will be very very minor. Some other factors affecting temperature must massively outweigh this effect, or we could not see the ups and downs we've seen historically.


The effects of temperature on gas levels is well modeled, and it's a much better model than the other way around. As liquids cool, they tend to absorb gases. As they heat up, they tend to release them. Anyone who's opened a bottle of soda on a hot day has seen this in action. Temperature changes cause the oceans to cool or warm, resulting in changes in the air concentration of CO2 (and other gases). That's the correlation we see in the long term graphs. It explains nicely why there's that 800 year gap between temperature changes and CO2 level changes. It takes awhile to warm or cool the vast volumes of water on the planet.


The global warming supporters are mixing and matching a whole bunch of disparate data points to try to sell a theory which just doesn't hold water. It's far more likely that recent short term temperature changes are caused by other near term factors. That's the "static" which we can't really see in the long term temperature record. CO2 levels certainly may be affected by human activity, but there's no real evidence to support the suggestion that the overall effect on global temperatures as a result is significant next to other short term factors, and certainly they're unlikely to have any long term impact on overall temperature. It's like a bug crawling on your car. It'll affect the aerodynamics of the car, but not as much as other things.


Without a whole lot more evidence, it's ridiculous to follow the kinds of suggestions the global warming advocates want. The cost just plain isn't justified by the evidence.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Dec 03 2009 at 10:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Yeah, why be responsible and think about ways of reducing our impact when multinational corporations need more money? It's a mean liberal conspiracy against those sweet, altruistic corporations. Environmentalists have so much more power.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#218 Dec 04 2009 at 12:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood you. Doesn't saying that no one has proven something to my satisfaction kinda go hand in hand with a case for the thing in question being exaggerated and likely not existing at all?

No, not at all. Your personal judgement on the validty of the science is completely irrelevant. Certainly, ACC doesn't exist or not exist at your word.

Quote:
You are attempting to convince me and the rest of the population...

Nothing. I'm not really trying to convince you of anything. The only people who really matter here are the scientists and the policy makers who can actually do stuff. I mean, I'll talk about it and even debate it or try to clear up misconceptions but I've really very little interest in trying to convince you of the science. Maybe if I thought you weren't going to knee-jerk deny anyway, it might be worth a shot. Or maybe if you were in a position to do anything about it. But given that you're going to entrench yourself in the GOP denial trenches and you're worthless in the debate anyway, I can't imagine any possible benefit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#219 Dec 04 2009 at 1:06 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
It boggles my mind that someone with zero expertise in the field can so adamantly deny the validity of the research done on climate change.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#220 Dec 04 2009 at 2:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Varrus wrote:
Greenhouse gases also existed in greater amounts before humans started driving cars. Not to mention there is no whole in the ozone, which was another lie sold by the global warming **** goons.



NASA disagrees with you.
And that's from 2008, so it's W's NASA. So it's like FOX news is telling you you're wrong as opposed to CNN.

Here's another interesting link to models on "What if?" we didn't ban CFC's in 1987. Also done by NASA & it also exists whether you want to believe in it or not. Essentially, had we not banned CFCs, by 2060 there'd be no ozone anywhere as opposed to just the seasonal ozone depletion the Antarctic currently enjoys.

I'm convinced you were one of the big hair guys in the 80s & you're still resentful that Reagen took away your CFCs & you're really not as stupid as to not believe in the hole. Reagen believed in it & since he's your God not doing so yourself is blasphemous, isn't it?

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#221 Dec 04 2009 at 6:30 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
NASA is a liberal conspiracy. The Earth is the center of the Universe, the sun rotates around it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#222 Dec 04 2009 at 10:02 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I'm going to forego reading these posts and just point out that the blowup of Ash's graph indicates that at the very end (current time period) the temperature is indeed going back down according to prior trends, even as it shows CO2 increasing.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#223 Dec 04 2009 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Debalic wrote:
I'm going to forego reading these posts and just point out that the blowup of Ash's graph indicates that at the very end (current time period) the temperature is indeed going back down according to prior trends, even as it shows CO2 increasing.
Well assuming that temperature is a fairly complex system, we should be in a cooling period, and so if CO2 does increase temperature, then we should probably see a slower rate of decrease then normal, or a leveling off rather then a discreet warming. That's still relative warming though. It's completely irrelevant, that graph really doesn't let us say anything about the last 50 years, I don't know why you'd try to read that into it. The graphs he linked only show a broad relationship over many many years. Which was all anyone aside from maybe Gbaji was saying.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#224REDACTED, Posted: Dec 04 2009 at 11:03 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Omega,
#225 Dec 04 2009 at 11:09 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
It's completely irrelevant, that graph really doesn't let us say anything about the last 50 years, I don't know why you'd try to read that into it. The graphs he linked only show a broad relationship over many many years. Which was all anyone aside from maybe Gbaji was saying.


Certainly, and due to the nature and complexity of the idea, no graph would adequately show us something with the last mere fifty years (or it would be really, really hard let's say,) because of the ludicrously large time-frame in which it is set. To ignore that quite obvious complexity with the excuse of skepticism is understandably shortsighted but still quite shortsighted indeed.

It's reasonable to assume, if we have also already assumed that the correlation is true, and we have also exhausted alternate means to explain a correlation due to some mutual causal factor, that, over similarly ludicrously large periods of time, human increases in Co2 will produce an effect in temperature. It would not be reasonable to expect that the trend would respond quickly.

This reminds me of what my father used to tell me about flossing. It's really difficult to tell people to floss every day when they will only reap the benefits 50 years from now.

Ignoring a potential problem like that, though, produces potentially bad effects in a long run so long that most people simply won't care about it, because no matter how much people like to think of the childrens, we often don't give a sh*t. Skepticism about whether or not such an effect will really occur is just obfuscating the more insidious total lack of care about human progress; that skepticism it allows one to simultaneously divorce one's self from the possibility that humans will actually still be living 500 years from now, and allow one's self to sleep at night, willfully ignorant of one's own lack of humanity.

Well, that should be polemical enough for the day.

Edited, Dec 4th 2009 12:13pm by Pensive
#226 Dec 04 2009 at 11:14 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Omega,

Does Nasa disagree with me?
Yes. You said there is no hole in the ozone. NASA has data measuring the hole in the ozone represented in the link posted. Therefore, NASA disagrees with you.

(Although you said whole instead of hole. Freudian slip? lol)
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 325 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (325)