Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

State of the Union - Climate change?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jonathandavid View Post
    While it is true that the Older and Younger Dryas are counted as part of the Weichsel, they follow the deglaciation and were not global events; deglaciation has not been a singular warming trend. I don't dispute that the climate is warmer now than during the last glacial maximum, but it is a fact that climate change has not been a warming trend since then, which you actually admit now, too. So we have not been trending warmer since the last ice age, because there have been interruptions of cooling, like the 8.2 event.
    Well I don't know how global these events were or not. But as I was reading I found that there was a time that we were much warmer - no polar ice caps and such. And from what I read Co2 was 400 ppm then. Then we went into a deep cooling - the ice age. Perhaps we are just going back to what was before.


    And I'm not sure that the earth is round. You're using the argument of personal incredulity.
    It is not personal incredulity - do you really believe that we know all the possible variables when it comes to climate?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Well no, if 1.5 deg F change over a century hasn't cause any real harm then why should we expect any real harm going forward.
      So far we have managed to stay ahead of the problems due to our technology but that's not always going to be the case. Today because of changing climate we have severe drought destroying crops in many parts of the world, the largest typhoon ever recorded slamming Guam, low lying island countries like the Maldives losing their land due to sea level rise. But those don't directly impact you so why should you care, right?

      I'm reminded of the guy falling off a 100' cliff. The first 90' caused him no problems so why should he worry?
      Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 01-31-2014, 07:07 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        It is not personal incredulity - do you really believe that we know all the possible variables when it comes to climate?
        It's 100% personal incredulity on your part. We have more than sufficient scientific evidence that greenhouse gases produced by humans in the last 100 years have significantly altered the composition of the atmosphere. We have more than ample scientific evidence that such GHGs have caused and will continue to cause the average global temperature to rise.

        You certainly have the right to deny reality if you so choose. Just don't expect to convince many others through your denials.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          You certainly insinuated it. Sadly it's a common response from AGW deniers as well as evolution deniers when presented with scientific data they don't like - accuse the scientists of fraud through the deliberate cherry picking of results. It's a cowardly and repugnant practice.
          The scientific data provided is not complete without the error bars. That's fact. I can accept simplification for the sake of presentation to those not knowledgeable, but you cannot expect to convince anyone who is without all the relevant data. You've had the opportunity to present it as well to support your argument; instead you choose to attack me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
            So far we have managed to stay ahead of the problems due to our technology but that's not always going to be the case. Today because of changing climate we have severe drought destroying crops in many parts of the world, the largest typhoon ever recorded slamming Guam, low lying island countries like the Maldives losing their land due to sea level rise. But those don't directly impact you so why should you care, right?
            That is just silly.We never had severe droughts? Large typhoons and hurricanes? Was the Great Galveston Hurricane cause by global warming? Was the dust bowl cause by global warming? The great droughts of India and China? How come our hurricane seasons have been relatively mild these last few years? Are storms generally increasing in frequency and power - is there empirical evidence that this is so? The sea level rise may be a problem but it was never a good idea to build to close to the shore anyway.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
              It's 100% personal incredulity on your part. We have more than sufficient scientific evidence that greenhouse gases produced by humans in the last 100 years have significantly altered the composition of the atmosphere. We have more than ample scientific evidence that such GHGs have caused and will continue to cause the average global temperature to rise.

              You certainly have the right to deny reality if you so choose. Just don't expect to convince many others through your denials.
              Well according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT it is a little more complicated than you let on.

              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/1...limate-action/
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                Have you read the paper yet?
                It's behind a paywall. Could you explain the paper as you offered to?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  The scientific data provided is not complete without the error bars. That's fact. I can accept simplification for the sake of presentation to those not knowledgeable, but you cannot expect to convince anyone who is without all the relevant data. You've had the opportunity to present it as well to support your argument; instead you choose to attack me.
                  You insinuated the data was faked through cherry picking. Provide your evidence of deliberate fraud by the researchers or retract.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    It's behind a paywall. Could you explain the paper as you offered to?
                    I offered to explain to those who have read it but didn't understand it.

                    Go to your public library or buy a subscription to Nature instead of demanding to be spoon fed.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Well according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT it is a little more complicated than you let on.

                      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/1...limate-action/
                      Citing Anthony Watts for AGW denial data is like citing Ken Ham for evolutionary theory evidence. Just so you know.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        You insinuated the data was faked through cherry picking. Provide your evidence of deliberate fraud by the researchers or retract.
                        I did not, so no retraction will be made.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          Citing Anthony Watts for AGW denial data is like citing Ken Ham for evolutionary theory evidence. Just so you know.
                          I'm not citing Watts HMS, the article is by Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. It is just re-printed on Watts' site.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            I offered to explain to those who have read it but didn't understand it.

                            Go to your public library or buy a subscription to Nature instead of demanding to be spoon fed.


                            Meanwhile, the data you presented is incomplete. Mind providing error bars?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              All right. My concern is that the blue and other lines drawn on the graph are not the only graphs allowed by the data, because of the error range.
                              Dear Paprika,

                              Saw you were having fun over here from the s/b, and tracked back the continuing discussion about error bars to this post. Every point on every line you see is an average of hundreds of measurements. Points on the Mauna Loa CO2, in yellow, for example, are yearly averages based on daily measurements. The error bars you're looking for belong on those daily measurements, but not on their averages. Averages are not affected by those errors, but rather by systemic issues, which is why your correspondents interpreted your objection as an accusation of fraud.

                              As ever, Jesse

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post

                                Meanwhile, the data you presented is incomplete. Mind providing error bars?
                                The graph I presented is a summary and is quite acceptable in normal scientific practices.

                                I provided you with the source of the graph as well as the source of the original data.

                                I have no need to waste time chasing down your asinine and purposely disruptive demands. If you think there was fraud by the researchers then present your evidence or put a sock in it.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X