CBS News Confirms... Global Warming is MAN MADE!

[Acanthus]

Following one variable is what i have the problem with.

CO2 content in Mars atmosphere : 95%

Average Temperature of Mars on the Equator : -50f

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

1. There is no such thing as "no lag" in the real world - every single system has a lag between input/output, action/reaction ect and generally speaking, the larger the system the greater is reaction time. That is a low resolution image - each pixel represents about 500 years.

2. The previous spike of CO2 took about 10000 years, while the current one took about 200. The reason why you haven't seen this dramatic increase is because of the lag time.

Bad science gets filtered out and discarded by the scientific process itself. There is no vast global socialist-scientists-out-to-get-America conspiracy, its just the way things are.

1. So then why has it leveled off despite it still going up? There has been no CO2 leveling off, just a dramatic spike.

2. If each pixel represented 500 years, then that spike has been going on for a lot longer. There have been fast spikes before

Bad science doesn't get filtered out. If you look at that graph and can tell me that it is perfectly logical to use Vostok, Siple, and Mauna Loa air samples over 100 years, despite having Vostok for almost all 100 years, then I can tell you that bad science is propegated by people like you who swallow it like candy. You want so bad to be proven right that you will take any evidence.

It makes NO sense to slap-dash frankenstein findings, unless somebody can prove that Vostok was unreliable. Tell me why nothing other than another Vostok core taken in the past year was used? Why just slap another graph onto that one and replace decades of Vostok?

Perhaps because Vostok doesn't show what they want. Perhaps it completely debunks or doesn't support what they want YOU to swallow. Perhaps some moron pissed on the last 50 years of Vostok core and skewed the whole results.

Explain to me why. Otherwise YOU are bad science.

1. What part of 'lag' don't you understand? When you press the accelerator on you car, you don't get speed immediately. Here we're not talking about seconds for a car engine, or nanoseconds for a transistor. In geological terms, "quick" means 10000 years.

2. Oh FFS! First you people complain that the graph doesn't dramatize the difference, then you bitch about it exagerrating the difference. Lets go over this again: the latest spike started in the early 1800s, natural spikes took thousands of years, which is quick by geological standards. It really doesn't matter how horrible you are at looking and interpreting data, it doesn't change the facts.

Again, I don't propagate science - I don't publish papers or conduct studies. All I've done is point out what the overwhelming consensus is, and all you've done is dismiss it all as a massive global conspiracy. Well, bravo!

 

[Acanthus]

Theres an MIT professor on larry king right now talking about global warming.

He says groups are using an alarmist stance based on junk science to get the message on "global warming" out.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Text

Thank-you for posting that.

Look at how many people ignored it so they could indulge their emotions! :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Czar
This is our modern day "the world is round" debate. Alot of science against predetermant fools.

Yep... and in the meantime, Westinghouse Electric, the world's largest maker of nuclear power... oops, excuse me, CBS/Viacom makes sure we all get the right side of the story

Gee, it sure would be nice if the issue was as cut and dried simple as you're trying to present it, now wouldn't it? But then that wouldn't exactly be scientific, would it?

You're right, nuclear is probably the first good option we have.

But CBS didn't invent global warming.

When did I say that they did? They're doing a good job selling it though, as the controversy is obviously selling a lot of copy, and at the same time the nuclear power industry is expected to start booming. A lot of meteorologists, climatologists, and other related-field scientists are starting to complain. In fact, a group of meteorologists wrote a somewhat scathing letter against the media-induced global warming alarmism in the Op-Ed of the Oregonian newspaper just yesterday. I'll try to dig it up.

edit: couldn't find that particular letter on their website, but I did find this.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/sto...?/base/news/117022656254420.xml&coll=7

Climate theories collide at OMSI
Global warming - Experts debate what's driving the change: nature or humans
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
MICHAEL MILSTEIN

There's little doubt the globe is warming, two climate authorities from Oregon and Washington agreed Tuesday night. What they disagreed most on is the cause.

Philip Mote, Washington's state climatologist and a climate researcher at the University of Washington, said the cause is unquestionably human: greenhouse gases from rapid burning of fossil fuels. He said models of Earth's climate cannot explain the rising temperatures of recent decades any other way.

George Taylor, Oregon's state climatologist and head of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University, said that although human activities do influence climate, natural ups and downs drive it more forcefully than people do. He cited research on shifts in the sun's intensity that could throw the globe into a minor ice age and variations in cosmic rays that influence the formation of clouds.

"What I'm doing is posing questions," said Taylor, who has drawn attention for his contrarian view that greenhouse gases have not come to dominate climate trends. "There's a lot that we don't understand."

The face-off drew a standing-room-only crowd of about 400 to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. It came as global warming has taken on new prominence and urgency.

Last week, President Bush called for steps to address global warming in his State of the Union speech. Also last week, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski pressed for regional caps on greenhouse gas emissions. And at the end of this week, an international panel of scientists is to release a new assessment of global warming's effects.

Mote is a lead author of that report and part of a UW research group that concludes the human influence on climate is clear in the Northwest's rising temperatures and earlier-melting mountain snows.

Taylor said the glaciers of Glacier National Park were shrinking before any human effect appeared. However, Mote cited research by Portland State University that has found rapid and continuing declines in glaciers across the American West.

Taylor said the climate is not as sensitive as some global warming scenarios suggest.

"The emergency of this issue is less significant than the emergency that Phil attaches to it," he said. He added that policymakers face difficult choices in allocating the limited amount of money for environmental problems.

Wow... look! A state climatologist who believes the earth is flat!! :Q


e-scientists... :roll:

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Perhaps because Vostok doesn't show what they want. Perhaps it completely debunks or doesn't support what they want YOU to swallow. Perhaps some moron pissed on the last 50 years of Vostok core and skewed the whole results.

Explain to me why. Otherwise YOU are bad science.

Get off the damn high horse like you actually know about Petit et al, and read the fricken paper. Obviously you haven't, when you continue to question the very thing they answer.

"The mean resolution of the CO2 (CH4) profile is about 1,500 (950) years. It goes up to about 6,000 years for CO2 in the fractured zones and in the bottom part of the record, whereas the CH4 time resolution ranges between a few tens of years to 4,500 years. The overall accuracy forCH4 and CO2 measurements are620 p.p.b.v. and 2?3 p.p.m.v., respectively."

The nature of their research doesn't allow them the statistical confidence in obtaining data for a specific timespan, ie the past 200 years. Now that's good science, and that is why the increase is not seen on your wikipedia graph. There is no resolution in the data for the past 200 years, hence the reason why they do not show a data point for time zero.

However, other studies can find the current CO2 and temp levels... guess what Petit et al write on such a subject?

"The extension of the greenhouse-gas record shows that present-day levels of CO2 and CH4 (360 p.p.m.v. and 1,700 p.p.b.v., respectively) are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (280 p.p.m.v. and 650 p.p.b.v., respectively) are found during all interglacials, while values higher than these are found in stages 5.5, 9.3 and 11.3 (this last stage is probably incomplete), with the highest values during stage 9.3 (300 p.p.m.v. and 780 p.p.b.v., respectively)."

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

1. There is no such thing as "no lag" in the real world - every single system has a lag between input/output, action/reaction ect and generally speaking, the larger the system the greater is reaction time. That is a low resolution image - each pixel represents about 500 years.

2. The previous spike of CO2 took about 10000 years, while the current one took about 200. The reason why you haven't seen this dramatic increase is because of the lag time.

Bad science gets filtered out and discarded by the scientific process itself. There is no vast global socialist-scientists-out-to-get-America conspiracy, its just the way things are.

1. So then why has it leveled off despite it still going up? There has been no CO2 leveling off, just a dramatic spike.

2. If each pixel represented 500 years, then that spike has been going on for a lot longer. There have been fast spikes before

Bad science doesn't get filtered out. If you look at that graph and can tell me that it is perfectly logical to use Vostok, Siple, and Mauna Loa air samples over 100 years, despite having Vostok for almost all 100 years, then I can tell you that bad science is propegated by people like you who swallow it like candy. You want so bad to be proven right that you will take any evidence.

It makes NO sense to slap-dash frankenstein findings, unless somebody can prove that Vostok was unreliable. Tell me why nothing other than another Vostok core taken in the past year was used? Why just slap another graph onto that one and replace decades of Vostok?

Perhaps because Vostok doesn't show what they want. Perhaps it completely debunks or doesn't support what they want YOU to swallow. Perhaps some moron pissed on the last 50 years of Vostok core and skewed the whole results.

Explain to me why. Otherwise YOU are bad science.

1. What part of 'lag' don't you understand? When you press the accelerator on you car, you don't get speed immediately. Here we're not talking about seconds for a car engine, or nanoseconds for a transistor. In geological terms, "quick" means 10000 years.

2. Oh FFS! First you people complain that the graph doesn't dramatize the difference, then you bitch about it exagerrating the difference. Lets go over this again: the latest spike started in the early 1800s, natural spikes took thousands of years, which is quick by geological standards. It really doesn't matter how horrible you are at looking and interpreting data, it doesn't change the facts.

Again, I don't propagate science - I don't publish papers or conduct studies. All I've done is point out what the overwhelming consensus is, and all you've done is dismiss it all as a massive global conspiracy. Well, bravo!

I understand lag quite well. However, considering it wasn't evidenced anywhere else and there were many pixels of level temps despite more pixels of rapid increases. Furthermore, all of the other lag times were much shorter and you didn't have a plateau like you do now with increasing CO2. What part of a graph can't you read? Or actually, I should ask, what part of a graph do you want to conveniently ignore? At no other point in that graph's history has there been a complete plateau of temp and a complete spike in CO2.

2. The latest spike looks like nothing more than the continuation of a cycle. Once you slap in a spurrious addition, at best, you get a dramatic spike.

As I asked before, provide evidence based upon the Vostok core that consistantly proves the time that was provided by the other core and air sample. The basic fact is that you can't.

What I have been waiting to introduce was also the fact that Mauna Loa was on top of one of the most active geological areas on the planet. Only a fekking moron would think that this is representative of the whole planet, as those geological active areas release massive amounts of Co2. Why don't you just take air samples from the caldera of a fricking active lava spewing volcano and extrapolate your conclusions from that? Of course, your extremist brain cannot fathom the idea that a sample provided to you is anything but fact. You don't create science, you don't even study science. You just accept what your masters give you lock stock and two smoking barrels right up where the sun don't shine.

It's sad that all you can do is carp somebody else's work without giving your own brain an opportunity to function and think critically. You've got nothing.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Perhaps because Vostok doesn't show what they want. Perhaps it completely debunks or doesn't support what they want YOU to swallow. Perhaps some moron pissed on the last 50 years of Vostok core and skewed the whole results.

Explain to me why. Otherwise YOU are bad science.

Get off the damn high horse like you actually know about Petit et al, and read the fricken paper. Obviously you haven't, when you continue to question the very thing they answer.

"The mean resolution of the CO2 (CH4) profile is about 1,500 (950) years. It goes up to about 6,000 years for CO2 in the fractured zones and in the bottom part of the record, whereas the CH4 time resolution ranges between a few tens of years to 4,500 years. The overall accuracy forCH4 and CO2 measurements are620 p.p.b.v. and 2?3 p.p.m.v., respectively."

The nature of their research doesn't allow them the statistical confidence in obtaining data for a specific timespan, ie the past 200 years. Now that's good science, and that is why the increase is not seen on your wikipedia graph. There is no resolution in the data for the past 200 years, hence the reason why they do not show a data point for time zero.

However, other studies can find the current CO2 and temp levels... guess what Petit et al write on such a subject?

"The extension of the greenhouse-gas record shows that present-day levels of CO2 and CH4 (360 p.p.m.v. and 1,700 p.p.b.v., respectively) are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (280 p.p.m.v. and 650 p.p.b.v., respectively) are found during all interglacials, while values higher than these are found in stages 5.5, 9.3 and 11.3 (this last stage is probably incomplete), with the highest values during stage 9.3 (300 p.p.m.v. and 780 p.p.b.v., respectively)."

What's amusing is that I *DO* know that. However, my point was the fact that taking three disparate pieces of data, slapping them together, and utilizing them as "fact" is nothing but bogus "science".

Here's a better idea. Perform an experiment with 100 subjects. Track them through 10 years and then, when you can't specifically measure the behavior you are looking for, switch to a second group of 100 subjects. Then, when you can't specifically measure the same group again, take another 100 subjects. Finally, draw your conclusion of the dependant variable by measuring each static pool of subjects and the independant variables they represent.

Do you think a scientist following proper statistical methodology will say that proper controls were in place that didn't allow tainted statistical sampling? Do you think that extraneous variables from three different sampling groups of disparate populations could skew the results?

Of course not! All extraneous variables were held constant, considering we know that the 2nd and 3rd populations were *EXACTLY* the same derivatives of the original population, correct?


Listen, I don't argue man is having an effect on the environment. I argue the extremity of the affect and the methods used to try to support that caused and effect relationship. I question scientific, statistical, and logical abilities of anybody who doesn't look at all of this "evidence" with skepticism. Only those blissfully ignorant of proper statistical methodologies would accept this as proper evidence of a causation.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

1. There is no such thing as "no lag" in the real world - every single system has a lag between input/output, action/reaction ect and generally speaking, the larger the system the greater is reaction time. That is a low resolution image - each pixel represents about 500 years.

2. The previous spike of CO2 took about 10000 years, while the current one took about 200. The reason why you haven't seen this dramatic increase is because of the lag time.

Bad science gets filtered out and discarded by the scientific process itself. There is no vast global socialist-scientists-out-to-get-America conspiracy, its just the way things are.

1. So then why has it leveled off despite it still going up? There has been no CO2 leveling off, just a dramatic spike.

2. If each pixel represented 500 years, then that spike has been going on for a lot longer. There have been fast spikes before

Bad science doesn't get filtered out. If you look at that graph and can tell me that it is perfectly logical to use Vostok, Siple, and Mauna Loa air samples over 100 years, despite having Vostok for almost all 100 years, then I can tell you that bad science is propegated by people like you who swallow it like candy. You want so bad to be proven right that you will take any evidence.

It makes NO sense to slap-dash frankenstein findings, unless somebody can prove that Vostok was unreliable. Tell me why nothing other than another Vostok core taken in the past year was used? Why just slap another graph onto that one and replace decades of Vostok?

Perhaps because Vostok doesn't show what they want. Perhaps it completely debunks or doesn't support what they want YOU to swallow. Perhaps some moron pissed on the last 50 years of Vostok core and skewed the whole results.

Explain to me why. Otherwise YOU are bad science.

1. What part of 'lag' don't you understand? When you press the accelerator on you car, you don't get speed immediately. Here we're not talking about seconds for a car engine, or nanoseconds for a transistor. In geological terms, "quick" means 10000 years.

2. Oh FFS! First you people complain that the graph doesn't dramatize the difference, then you bitch about it exagerrating the difference. Lets go over this again: the latest spike started in the early 1800s, natural spikes took thousands of years, which is quick by geological standards. It really doesn't matter how horrible you are at looking and interpreting data, it doesn't change the facts.

Again, I don't propagate science - I don't publish papers or conduct studies. All I've done is point out what the overwhelming consensus is, and all you've done is dismiss it all as a massive global conspiracy. Well, bravo!

I understand lag quite well. However, considering it wasn't evidenced anywhere else and there were many pixels of level temps despite more pixels of rapid increases. Furthermore, all of the other lag times were much shorter and you didn't have a plateau like you do now with increasing CO2. What part of a graph can't you read? Or actually, I should ask, what part of a graph do you want to conveniently ignore? At no other point in that graph's history has there been a complete plateau of temp and a complete spike in CO2.

2. The latest spike looks like nothing more than the continuation of a cycle. Once you slap in a spurrious addition, at best, you get a dramatic spike.

As I asked before, provide evidence based upon the Vostok core that consistantly proves the time that was provided by the other core and air sample. The basic fact is that you can't.

What I have been waiting to introduce was also the fact that Mauna Loa was on top of one of the most active geological areas on the planet. Only a fekking moron would think that this is representative of the whole planet, as those geological active areas release massive amounts of Co2. Why don't you just take air samples from the caldera of a fricking active lava spewing volcano and extrapolate your conclusions from that? Of course, your extremist brain cannot fathom the idea that a sample provided to you is anything but fact. You don't create science, you don't even study science. You just accept what your masters give you lock stock and two smoking barrels right up where the sun don't shine.

It's sad that all you can do is carp somebody else's work without giving your own brain an opportunity to function and think critically. You've got nothing.

If by "giving your own brain an opportunity to function and think critically" you mean "coming up with the wildest conspiracies and coincidences imaginable", then no, I don't do that. Fact remains that you cannot explain anything without resorting to conspiracies and coincidences.

Honestly, what kind of mind does it take to look at something like this and declare its a "continuation of a cycle"? I don't know, all I can say is I'm not surprised it hails from this country...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
2. The latest spike looks like nothing more than the continuation of a cycle.

o rly?

EDIT: Another

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

What's amusing is that I *DO* know that. However, my point was the fact that taking three disparate pieces of data, slapping them together, and utilizing them as "fact" is nothing but bogus "science".

Here's a better idea. Perform an experiment with 100 subjects. Track them through 10 years and then, when you can't specifically measure the behavior you are looking for, switch to a second group of 100 subjects. Then, when you can't specifically measure the same group again, take another 100 subjects. Finally, draw your conclusion of the dependant variable by measuring each static pool of subjects and the independant variables they represent.

Do you think a scientist following proper statistical methodology will say that proper controls were in place that didn't allow tainted statistical sampling? Do you think that extraneous variables from three different sampling groups of disparate populations could skew the results?

Of course not! All extraneous variables were held constant, considering we know that the 2nd and 3rd populations were *EXACTLY* the same derivatives of the original population, correct?

I suggest you start reading then. First it was mischaracterizing the Petit article, now its making bland assertions about the research on global warming. It goes far beyond just "three disparate pieces of data." Here's where to start for a short introduction:

Jones, P.D., and Mann, M.E. 2004. Climate over Past Millenia. Reviews of Geophysics 42.
Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. 1999. Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
Huang, S., H.N. Pollack, and P.-Y. Shen. 2000. Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403: 756-758.
Moberg, A.D.M., Sonechkin, K., Holmgren, N.M., Datsenko, W. K. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed from Low- and High-Resolution Proxy Data. Nature 433: 613 - 617.
Esper, J., Cook, E.R., and Schweingruber, F.H. 2002. Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability. Science 295: 5563.
Osborn, T.J. and Briffa, K.R. 2006. The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years. Science 311: 841-844.

And you can add to it the Mauna Loa and any other primary piece of research you want to evaluate/dig up from wikipedia. Tell me how their results differ, despite their vastly different methodological approaches.

This isn't a matter of cobbling together a couple of studies together, end by end, to get the entire picture. When multiple studies evaluate the data and obtain eeriely similar results in overlapping time frames... that is significant. If one can approach the same hypothesis from a multitude of approaches and obtain vastly similar results, what better way to support a hypothesis.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

1. There is no such thing as "no lag" in the real world - every single system has a lag between input/output, action/reaction ect and generally speaking, the larger the system the greater is reaction time. That is a low resolution image - each pixel represents about 500 years.

2. The previous spike of CO2 took about 10000 years, while the current one took about 200. The reason why you haven't seen this dramatic increase is because of the lag time.

Bad science gets filtered out and discarded by the scientific process itself. There is no vast global socialist-scientists-out-to-get-America conspiracy, its just the way things are.

1. So then why has it leveled off despite it still going up? There has been no CO2 leveling off, just a dramatic spike.

2. If each pixel represented 500 years, then that spike has been going on for a lot longer. There have been fast spikes before

Bad science doesn't get filtered out. If you look at that graph and can tell me that it is perfectly logical to use Vostok, Siple, and Mauna Loa air samples over 100 years, despite having Vostok for almost all 100 years, then I can tell you that bad science is propegated by people like you who swallow it like candy. You want so bad to be proven right that you will take any evidence.

It makes NO sense to slap-dash frankenstein findings, unless somebody can prove that Vostok was unreliable. Tell me why nothing other than another Vostok core taken in the past year was used? Why just slap another graph onto that one and replace decades of Vostok?

Perhaps because Vostok doesn't show what they want. Perhaps it completely debunks or doesn't support what they want YOU to swallow. Perhaps some moron pissed on the last 50 years of Vostok core and skewed the whole results.

Explain to me why. Otherwise YOU are bad science.

1. What part of 'lag' don't you understand? When you press the accelerator on you car, you don't get speed immediately. Here we're not talking about seconds for a car engine, or nanoseconds for a transistor. In geological terms, "quick" means 10000 years.

2. Oh FFS! First you people complain that the graph doesn't dramatize the difference, then you bitch about it exagerrating the difference. Lets go over this again: the latest spike started in the early 1800s, natural spikes took thousands of years, which is quick by geological standards. It really doesn't matter how horrible you are at looking and interpreting data, it doesn't change the facts.

Again, I don't propagate science - I don't publish papers or conduct studies. All I've done is point out what the overwhelming consensus is, and all you've done is dismiss it all as a massive global conspiracy. Well, bravo!

I understand lag quite well. However, considering it wasn't evidenced anywhere else and there were many pixels of level temps despite more pixels of rapid increases. Furthermore, all of the other lag times were much shorter and you didn't have a plateau like you do now with increasing CO2. What part of a graph can't you read? Or actually, I should ask, what part of a graph do you want to conveniently ignore? At no other point in that graph's history has there been a complete plateau of temp and a complete spike in CO2.

2. The latest spike looks like nothing more than the continuation of a cycle. Once you slap in a spurrious addition, at best, you get a dramatic spike.

As I asked before, provide evidence based upon the Vostok core that consistantly proves the time that was provided by the other core and air sample. The basic fact is that you can't.

What I have been waiting to introduce was also the fact that Mauna Loa was on top of one of the most active geological areas on the planet. Only a fekking moron would think that this is representative of the whole planet, as those geological active areas release massive amounts of Co2. Why don't you just take air samples from the caldera of a fricking active lava spewing volcano and extrapolate your conclusions from that? Of course, your extremist brain cannot fathom the idea that a sample provided to you is anything but fact. You don't create science, you don't even study science. You just accept what your masters give you lock stock and two smoking barrels right up where the sun don't shine.

It's sad that all you can do is carp somebody else's work without giving your own brain an opportunity to function and think critically. You've got nothing.

If by "giving your own brain an opportunity to function and think critically" you mean "coming up with the wildest conspiracies and coincidences imaginable", then no, I don't do that. Fact remains that you cannot explain anything without resorting to conspiracies and coincidences.

Honestly, what kind of mind does it take to look at something like this and declare its a "continuation of a cycle"? I don't know, all I can say is I'm not surprised it hails from this country...

I guess reading comprehension requires much less skill than posting the same stupid graphs based off of the same stupid "science" which ignores statistical validation.

Ignoring stupidity in statistical methodologies by using multiple independant variable samples, show me a previous time in those graphs where you had a 30%+ spike in CO2 and a 0% spike in temp.

You can't, because it doesn't exist, because the spikes in CO2 are from difference sources. One of which sits on top of an area which produces plethoric amounts of CO2, not because of man, but because of geology. COnsidering Mauna Loa is in the Ring of Fire, it isn't surprising it produces tons of CO2.

All you two do is keep posting the same stupid data.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You can't, because it doesn't exist, because the spikes in CO2 are from difference sources. One of which sits on top of an area which produces plethoric amounts of CO2, not because of man, but because of geology. COnsidering Mauna Loa is in the Ring of Fire, it isn't surprising it produces tons of CO2.

All you two do is keep posting the same stupid data.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac_majorghg.html#fig1

There you go broken down by years, with overlapping data sets.

The CO2 spike is also seen in Alaska, American Samoa, Antarctica, Italy, Scotland, and Australia. Clearly you aren't familiar with the data, why would one continue to argue about the CO2 coming from volcanoes, when other data sets find almost the same results? And if you think there isn't a temperature spike, simply because of a low resolution graph of temperature... your answer lies in many of the links and references above.

 

[wazzledoozle]

BBC documentary on global dimming-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1027879546389218797&q=global+dimming

It is the reason temperatures arent moving up as fast as CO2 data may suggest it should. People focus on the aspect that the gases have on our atmosphere, and not the other byproducts of fossil fuel burning; sun-blocking debris in the atmosphere. Therefore, the warming of the atmosphere is neutralized by the decreasing amounts of solar energy to reach the surface.

 

[programmer]

Regardless whether global warming is due to the effect of man's activites, or a natural trend, or a mix is largely irrelevant. I'd like to ask what's wrong with trying to protect our environment to the best of our ability to have clean air, clean water, and clean soil?

Its sickening to me to go fishing just about anywhere is the mid-atlantic area knowing I can't eat my catch because it is likely contaminated with PCBs, Keytones, Mercury, etc. And its obvious on a hot, stagnant day just how bad air quality can get (mostly from vehicle pollution).

I know, I'm a bleeding-heart liberal conservative...

 

[ShotgunSteven]

So are we to blame for the global warming taking place on Mars? What about the other planets NASA says are heating up?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
So are we to blame for the global warming taking place on Mars? What about the other planets NASA says are heating up?

Sunspot activity
More sunspots means more solar activity. The dramatic increase in solar activity since ~1950, called the Modern Maximum, is believed to be a leading contributing cause of global warming.
While there is evidence and many strong and valid arguments that humans have contributed (perhaps even somewhat significantly) to global warming, there is NO credible science that indicates that global warming is solely the result of human actions.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Sunspot activity
More sunspots means more solar activity. The dramatic increase in solar activity since ~1950, called the Modern Maximum, is believed to be a leading contributing cause of global warming.
While there is evidence and many strong and valid arguments that humans have contributed (perhaps even somewhat significantly) to global warming, there is NO credible science that indicates that global warming is solely the result of human actions.

No one said we were "solely" the contributing cause but we certainly aren't helping any.

Especially the pro-business, pollute at will for the profits group Republicans are so aligned with.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Sunspot activity
More sunspots means more solar activity. The dramatic increase in solar activity since ~1950, called the Modern Maximum, is believed to be a leading contributing cause of global warming.
While there is evidence and many strong and valid arguments that humans have contributed (perhaps even somewhat significantly) to global warming, there is NO credible science that indicates that global warming is solely the result of human actions.

No one said we were "solely" the contributing cause but we certainly aren't helping any.

Especially the pro-business, pollute at will for the profits group Republicans are so aligned with.

Yes, people here have said that. It's the topic title FFS.

Don't you drive a car, Dave? Own a boat? And a for-profit business? Your partisan hackery is more a part of the problem than anything else, Dave. Do you blame Bush and the Republicans for your bald spot?

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Listen, I don't argue man is having an effect on the environment. I argue the extremity of the affect and the methods used to try to support that caused and effect relationship. I question scientific, statistical, and logical abilities of anybody who doesn't look at all of this "evidence" with skepticism. Only those blissfully ignorant of proper statistical methodologies would accept this as proper evidence of a causation.

You don't quite understand the peer review thing do you? Or the way science/research builds on existing data, and if that data/analysis is flawed it becomes evident pretty quick?

Armchair scientists questioning the veracity of the research of real scientists is amusing, carry on.

/real scientist

 

[piasabird]

Even if you can measure or see evidence of a warming trend in the climate, the overall effect of following the Kyoto agreement will be nothing. It will not help one way or another and there is no imperical evidence one way or another. It is more likely that the Sun is just hotter or the volcanic activity of the earth is just heating up the earth, and there is nothing we can do about either of those two factors.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Listen, I don't argue man is having an effect on the environment. I argue the extremity of the affect and the methods used to try to support that caused and effect relationship. I question scientific, statistical, and logical abilities of anybody who doesn't look at all of this "evidence" with skepticism. Only those blissfully ignorant of proper statistical methodologies would accept this as proper evidence of a causation.

You don't quite understand the peer review thing do you? Or the way science/research builds on existing data, and if that data/analysis is flawed it becomes evident pretty quick?

Armchair scientists questioning the veracity of the research of real scientists is amusing, carry on.

/real scientist

Peer review depends on people actually wanting to shoot down conclusions they agree with, which may or may not happen. It also depends on those disagreements getting to the public after refutation of a study, something which doesn't happen often and if it does it's often lambasted by GW advocates.

Ahh, so anybody with their own opinion is worth nothing?

That's funny. If that is the case, don't ever comment on the economy for finance, since your opinion is worthless anyway compared to mine.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Even if you can measure or see evidence of a warming trend in the climate, the overall effect of following the Kyoto agreement will be nothing. It will not help one way or another and there is no imperical evidence one way or another. It is more likely that the Sun is just hotter or the volcanic activity of the earth is just heating up the earth, and there is nothing we can do about either of those two factors.

I'd have to agree with you, there is zero "imperical" evidence.


Almost all of the evidence is empirical.

:laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Listen, I don't argue man is having an effect on the environment. I argue the extremity of the affect and the methods used to try to support that caused and effect relationship. I question scientific, statistical, and logical abilities of anybody who doesn't look at all of this "evidence" with skepticism. Only those blissfully ignorant of proper statistical methodologies would accept this as proper evidence of a causation.

You don't quite understand the peer review thing do you? Or the way science/research builds on existing data, and if that data/analysis is flawed it becomes evident pretty quick?

Armchair scientists questioning the veracity of the research of real scientists is amusing, carry on.

/real scientist

Um... real scientists always question the research of other real scientists. IME, it's only the "armchair" e-scientists who put science up on some almighty pedestal of unquestionability.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Peer review depends on people actually wanting to shoot down conclusions they agree with, which may or may not happen. It also depends on those disagreements getting to the public after refutation of a study, something which doesn't happen often and if it does it's often lambasted by GW advocates.

Let me guess, you also believe in pink elephants because the anti-pink elephant lobby keeps it out of the published primary research? What about flying unicorns? The anti-flying unicorn lobby keeps that out of the news too? This tin-foil, conspiracy theory logic is weak and unpersuasive. If true contradictory evidence against global warming existed... I'd bet there would be plenty of funding to go around, either from the current administration, non-profit groups, or heck, conservative think-tanks. But then the question is, where is that research?