HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Craig234
ProfJohn is a victim of 'liberal derangement syndrome'. If a liberal says it, he's against it, almost certainly.

So he has no rational analysis to offer on the climate change issue - he just looks for tiny faults he can post about the liberal position, and a lack of concern about the actual issue, until the day he can post one of his admissions he was wrong, as many right-wingers are being forced to do lately.

It's called "Partisan Auto-Pilot".

He'll ride it until it augers into the ground, then blame gravity on the "democrat" party.

Did you even read the OP? It was a joke. He made a joke. How hard is that for you diehard libs to understand. Lighten up man.

A. I'm not a "diehard" lib, but nice attempt at insulting me. Is that all you can do?
B. We weren't referring to his lame attempt at humor, don't act so ignorant.

A. I didn't realize that being a diehard liberal was an insult. 😕
B. Seeing as he is not the one that made this thread political, I'm not sure how it can be taken any other way then you guys not having a sense of humor.
C. If you think PJ is on "Partisan Auto-Pilot" and Craig is not, then you are very confused. Really, look at everyone just automatically jumping all over PJ in this thread when he did not even bring politics into it. I would see all of them at the ones on "Partisan Auto-Pilot"

That's your problem...you don't see a lot of things, but you sure don't let that get in the way, do you?

All you do here is attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view by tossing tired, clunky mis-directed insults.

When called on it, you deny ("I didn't know that was an insult") Flip-flop, or redirect ("well Craig is just the same").

I am not belittling anyone that disagrees with my point of view, if you want to see that, look at your post, craigs post, Czars post, and IMCs post, belittling ProfJohn on his views on global warming, even though the whole damn thread is just a joke.

Profjohn makes a joke thread about global warming, not even bringing politics into it. Craig and his buddies jump all over Profjohn without even reading the OP or just ignoring the fact that he was joking, yet somehow ProfJohn is the one on "Partisan Auto-Pilot".

If you consider being a diehard liberal then thats your problem. Why is it that its the liberals that want to consider themselves the middle of the road, while conservatives have no problem saying that they are conservative? I am a diehard conservative, call me it all you'd like, I'll agree. When you guys are called out on your diehard liberal views its all of the sudden an insult.

Like I said, lighten up, the OP was a joke. There are a dozen global warming threads here, if you want to go bash all of the people that disagree with your views on global warming go do it in one of those threads.

Like the poor marksman you are, you completely missed the point and went blathering left and right, postulating your position (do I care?), slathering assumptions about my political position and generally making ignorant comments about others on this forum.

Well done.

But he was right...ironic huh.....

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Craig234
ProfJohn is a victim of 'liberal derangement syndrome'. If a liberal says it, he's against it, almost certainly.

So he has no rational analysis to offer on the climate change issue - he just looks for tiny faults he can post about the liberal position, and a lack of concern about the actual issue, until the day he can post one of his admissions he was wrong, as many right-wingers are being forced to do lately.

It's called "Partisan Auto-Pilot".

He'll ride it until it augers into the ground, then blame gravity on the "democrat" party.

Did you even read the OP? It was a joke. He made a joke. How hard is that for you diehard libs to understand. Lighten up man.

A. I'm not a "diehard" lib, but nice attempt at insulting me. Is that all you can do?
B. We weren't referring to his lame attempt at humor, don't act so ignorant.

A. I didn't realize that being a diehard liberal was an insult. 😕
B. Seeing as he is not the one that made this thread political, I'm not sure how it can be taken any other way then you guys not having a sense of humor.
C. If you think PJ is on "Partisan Auto-Pilot" and Craig is not, then you are very confused. Really, look at everyone just automatically jumping all over PJ in this thread when he did not even bring politics into it. I would see all of them at the ones on "Partisan Auto-Pilot"

That's your problem...you don't see a lot of things, but you sure don't let that get in the way, do you?

All you do here is attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view by tossing tired, clunky mis-directed insults.

When called on it, you deny ("I didn't know that was an insult") Flip-flop, or redirect ("well Craig is just the same").

I am not belittling anyone that disagrees with my point of view, if you want to see that, look at your post, craigs post, Czars post, and IMCs post, belittling ProfJohn on his views on global warming, even though the whole damn thread is just a joke.

Profjohn makes a joke thread about global warming, not even bringing politics into it. Craig and his buddies jump all over Profjohn without even reading the OP or just ignoring the fact that he was joking, yet somehow ProfJohn is the one on "Partisan Auto-Pilot".

If you consider being a diehard liberal then thats your problem. Why is it that its the liberals that want to consider themselves the middle of the road, while conservatives have no problem saying that they are conservative? I am a diehard conservative, call me it all you'd like, I'll agree. When you guys are called out on your diehard liberal views its all of the sudden an insult.

Like I said, lighten up, the OP was a joke. There are a dozen global warming threads here, if you want to go bash all of the people that disagree with your views on global warming go do it in one of those threads.

Like the poor marksman you are, you completely missed the point and went blathering left and right, postulating your position (do I care?), slathering assumptions about my political position and generally making ignorant comments about others on this forum.

Well done.

You didn't even address any of my points yet I am the "poor marksman"?

Well done.

Why would anyone want to address your off topic ramblings?

I made my point 2 posts ago.

Your intellectual masturbation is not something I'm interested in responding to.

Get a pet.

The off topic ramblings began when you and your buddies jumped on PJ for a damn joke. Stop trying to act so damn high and mighty. You accuse me of doing things, I respond and then you say that its "off topic ramblings". You and your buddies turned a light hearted joke into a partisan thread, then accuse others of being partisan. Grow up.

BTW, I have a pet, 2 children, and a wife.

Get a life.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Spoken like somebody with no clue...
The vast majority?? Link please.......
We both know truthfully its break even...
I suppose the cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age?? hmmmm

Well actually I'm a geology major. But hey, whatever.

As for consensus...

Journal of Science good enough for you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

Summarizes the following article which requires a subscription to view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s...DEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Spoken like somebody with no clue...
The vast majority?? Link please.......
We both know truthfully its break even...
I suppose the cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age?? hmmmm

Well actually I'm a geology major. But hey, whatever.

As for consensus...

Journal of Science good enough for you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

Summarizes the following article which requires a subscription to view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s...DEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

There are plenty of scientists and climatologists out there who are starting to see the man-made global warming movement for what it is. They were sold on a story and when they digged deeper they realized most of it is conjecture and biased opinion.

That is the beauty of it all. The ruse can only be pushed for so long before somebody questions the situation.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: Genx87


At one point scientists also believed the universe circled around the earth and the earth was flat.

Scientists can let their ego get the better of them. Considering they have yet to explain why we have had periods of warmer climates than now without the fossil fuel burning, I'll take a lot of their predictions with a large grain of salt and chalk a lot of it upto fear mongering.

Thats ridiculous, your talking about scientists in the medieval period, i very much doubt they had access to super computers, its not even a comparable argument. As for the periods of waring and cooling, they are perfectly explainable:

Actually my point is quite valid. The human ego is a big thing that needs to be massaged.

MINI ICE AGE:
During the period 1645?1715, right in the middle of the Little Ice Age, solar activity as seen in sunspots was extremely low, with some years having no sunspots at all. This period of low sunspot activity is known as the Maunder Minimum.

Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulphur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulphuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching the earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without A Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe.


MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD:
during the Medieval Warm Period the temperatures were likely similar to the first part of the 20th century, and again is generally attributed to a culmination of similar factors that caused the mini ice age, This time with it being increased solar activity.


Present Day:
The warming periods previous and the mini ice age are not comparable to what we are seeing today, these past events developed slowly and disappeared slowly. what we are seeing now is a rapid and sustained increase in planatery global temperature as seen HEREhere


and no correlating solar or volcanic activity to explain it.

And you trying to disprove man made global warming here?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Spoken like somebody with no clue...
The vast majority?? Link please.......
We both know truthfully its break even...
I suppose the cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age?? hmmmm

Well actually I'm a geology major. But hey, whatever.

As for consensus...

Journal of Science good enough for you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

Summarizes the following article which requires a subscription to view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s...DEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

There are plenty of scientists and climatologists out there who are starting to see the man-made global warming movement for what it is. They were sold on a story and when they digged deeper they realized most of it is conjecture and biased opinion.

That is the beauty of it all. The ruse can only be pushed for so long before somebody questions the situation.

I provided a peer reviewed journal as a source for my statement. Where's your link?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Spoken like somebody with no clue...
The vast majority?? Link please.......
We both know truthfully its break even...
I suppose the cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age?? hmmmm

Well actually I'm a geology major. But hey, whatever.

As for consensus...

Journal of Science good enough for you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

Summarizes the following article which requires a subscription to view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s...DEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

There are plenty of scientists and climatologists out there who are starting to see the man-made global warming movement for what it is. They were sold on a story and when they digged deeper they realized most of it is conjecture and biased opinion.

That is the beauty of it all. The ruse can only be pushed for so long before somebody questions the situation.

I provided a peer reviewed journal as a source for my statement. Where's your link?

Here is a fine fellow who doesnt take the party line in lockstep.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=2004398&enterthread=y

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is a fine fellow who doesnt take the party line in lockstep.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=2004398&enterthread=y

Wow. One scientist. Great job.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is a fine fellow who doesnt take the party line in lockstep.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=2004398&enterthread=y

Wow. One scientist. Great job.

Tip of the iceberg(pun intended)

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is a fine fellow who doesnt take the party line in lockstep.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=2004398&enterthread=y

Wow. One scientist. Great job.

Tip of the iceberg(pun intended)

Then please point out the rest of the iceberg. It so happens that there are a few biologists out there that support intelligent design...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Spoken like somebody with no clue...
The vast majority?? Link please.......
We both know truthfully its break even...
I suppose the cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age?? hmmmm

Well actually I'm a geology major. But hey, whatever.

As for consensus...

Journal of Science good enough for you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

Summarizes the following article which requires a subscription to view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s...DEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

Thats whats wrong with this whole thing...you provide a link I provide a link we are at a stalemate....
Geology major as 1 person I am suppose to take your word that you 100% without a doubt that global warming is caused by humans.....

Say we have these same issues in say 100yrs then maybe you could be correct......


But with that said as humans who live on this earth we all should be doing our very best to take care of the earth regardless of global warming.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is a fine fellow who doesnt take the party line in lockstep.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=2004398&enterthread=y

Wow. One scientist. Great job.

Tip of the iceberg(pun intended)

Then please point out the rest of the iceberg. It so happens that there are a few biologists out there that support intelligent design...

Yes there is. I wont name everybody who doesnt believe in man made global warming. You have to be naive as hell to think there is a 100% consensus this warming period of the hundreds if not thousands through earths history is magically because of human activity. Look at earths history and then ask yourself how did we have glaciers 1-2 miles thick in minnesota as recent as 25,000 years ago? What caused them to melt before the inudstrial age? You are asking for a leap of faith. I have no doubt there is global warming going on. But I dont believe man is the sole reason for it. Increased solar activity imo is more a cause and I dont think we should shat ourselves over it either. Humans have prospered when the earth warmed. When it grew cold they had hardships.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Thats whats wrong with this whole thing...you provide a link I provide a link we are at a stalemate....
Geology major as 1 person I am suppose to take your word that you 100% without a doubt that global warming is caused by humans.....

Say we have these same issues in say 100yrs then maybe you could be correct......

But with that said as humans who live on this earth we all should be doing our very best to take care of the earth regardless of global warming.

Which link did you provide? The thread's getting lengthy with people quoting so much so I might have missed it.

And no, you shouldn't take my word for fact because I'm a geology major. But, I've actually taken classes on the subject of climate change from some of the top scientists in the field. I'm happy to explain the concepts to you and provide sources for my statements.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: sao123
im far more concerned about the invisible asteroid about to hit earth at some unknown random time in the near future, rather than the regular periodic cyclical global climate change.

We aren't in a periodic climate cycle

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: JD50


Oh, you mean kind of like a government official firing a scientist that doesn't parrot his views on global warming?

im not sure if your being sarcastic or agreeing with me, but read the article, its from an extremely reputable source and hopefully youl learn something new.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


You might say we cooked the books when it comes to global warming. So much time, money and effort is spent on trying to prove man is the cause that anyone who tried to oppose that idea is branded a heretic. Hence the ?global warming deniers are similar to holocaust deniers? statement we saw recently. This has stifled open and honest debate on the topic, as seen in this thread.

for the love of GOD ALMIGHTY! you people infuriate me, you just refuse to listen to any and all reason! who do you believe is stifling debate and what is there to gain by saying we need to be cleaner, more efficient with our resource usage, less commercial. THINK!

the independent panel on climate change (IPCC) states categorically that this debate is over, there is no debate. WE AS HUMANS are causing most of the warming and pushing temperature increases far beyond norms and far faster than ever before. IPCC = 907 scientists from over 100 country's headed by an independent rotating panel of scientists. hardly "cooking the books" to achieve a desired outcome.

The IPCC is a great example of what is wrong with debate about climate change.

They haven't released a report yet, they only released a summary that was writen by small number of people. They are waiting another three months before release the actual report. And according to there website - reviewers have been give instructions to make sure the report lines up the summary.

little backwards, eh?


Here is a link: here!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Spoken like somebody with no clue...
The vast majority?? Link please.......
We both know truthfully its break even...
I suppose the cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age?? hmmmm

Well actually I'm a geology major. But hey, whatever.

As for consensus...

Journal of Science good enough for you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

Summarizes the following article which requires a subscription to view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s...DEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

Your consensus is made through banishing science that challenges your political view. Maybe more people will read what I posted if it?s in this smaller thread, it covers your ?consensus? nicely.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/02/12/20070212_161315_flash.htm

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm

"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."

Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.

"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes there is. I wont name everybody who doesnt believe in man made global warming. You have to be naive as hell to think there is a 100% consensus this warming period of the hundreds if not thousands through earths history is magically because of human activity. Look at earths history and then ask yourself how did we have glaciers 1-2 miles thick in minnesota as recent as 25,000 years ago? What caused them to melt before the inudstrial age? You are asking for a leap of faith. I have no doubt there is global warming going on. But I dont believe man is the sole reason for it. Increased solar activity imo is more a cause and I dont think we should shat ourselves over it either. Humans have prospered when the earth warmed. When it grew cold they had hardships.

For the past two million years or so the earth has been going through glacial and interglacial stages that are linked to changes in solar insolation due to Milankovitch cycles, which are changes in earth's tilt and orbit of the sun. These changes in solar insolation may not be the strongest forcing which involved in producing glacial/interglacial periods, but it appears that they are key in starting the change, after which feedback factors like the ice-albedo effect (more ice -> more light reflected -> cooler temps -> more ice again [and vice versa]) take control. The current warming is much more rapid than the previous warming periods over the past 650 thousand years for which we have ice core data and does not appear to match up with the typical warming cycle.

Here's a brief overview that I posted in another thread that should help catch you up on climate change.

"CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other factors remaining the same, more CO2 in the troposphere will always result in higher temperatures. Of course, all other factors don't remain the same. The earth is a complex system. But, based on the ice core data (which you seem to disregard based on the fact that it is so far reaching instead of on any actual problems with the data) CO2 is the main atmospheric greenhouse gas that is coupled extremely closely with temperature over the past 600 thousand years. High CO2 throughout this record correlates with high temperatures and vice-versa. So, it appears as though what is true for a simple system (more CO2= higher temps) is true for the earth.

The next step was is to test this idea with climate models.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Here's a peer reviewed study from the journal science. It shows what the temperature over the past 150 years would be expected to be based on anthropogenic forcings (greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions) and natural forcings (volcanoes, el nino). Neither one alone does a good job of matching up to the actual temperature record of the past 150 years. But, together they do closely approximate the actual temperature record.

Of course natural climate change is going on. It always has been. But anthropogenic climate change is a major factor in the rapid rise of temperatures that we are seeing."

 

[sao123]

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Even UK scientists do not believe Global Warming theory is necessarily correct.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: sao123
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Even UK scientists do not believe Global Warming theory is necessarily correct.

And the response to that study....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar...2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

"Finally, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades - which is tricky, because there hasn't been"

 

[LegendKiller]

Global Warming due primarily man's influence is a farce. The whole CO2 level measurements that have been tagged on to ice cores by measuring air is a joke. You can't show low levels from one population and then tag on another population just to fit your hypothesis. Either your original sample population supports your hypothesis, or it doesn't.

This type of bad science and worse statistics is supported by ignorant people and also not so ignorant people to push financial success.

There are dozens of other independant variables in this universe that affect this planet, to say just one is *the* independant variable and completely ignore all others is a horrible way to do scientific analysis. The mere fact that contrarian scientists are not even allowed to voice their opinions without being labled as shills or worse, is only proof that the scientific process, the process of replicable results, tests, and proof, has broken down.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The whole CO2 level measurements that have been tagged on to ice cores by measuring air is a joke. You can't show low levels from one population and then tag on another population just to fit your hypothesis. Either your original sample population supports your hypothesis, or it doesn't.

Could you explain this a bit more clearly?

As snow falls and is compacted into ice, air is trapped in the ice. The CO2 content in the trapped air is measured. How is it a joke?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Spoken like somebody with no clue...
The vast majority?? Link please.......
We both know truthfully its break even...
I suppose the cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age?? hmmmm

Well actually I'm a geology major. But hey, whatever.

As for consensus...

Journal of Science good enough for you?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

Summarizes the following article which requires a subscription to view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s...DEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

Your consensus is made through banishing science that challenges your political view. Maybe more people will read what I posted if it?s in this smaller thread, it covers your ?consensus? nicely.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/02/12/20070212_161315_flash.htm

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm

"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."

Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.

"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

Hmmmm. One the one hand we have a respected, peer reviewed science journal. On the other we have three tabloids. Wonder who we should believe? :roll:

 

[BrownTown]

I thinks its funny, this year we've had as many freezing days as I can remeber at any point in my life. Obviously everyone knows that the temperature at any given point at time doesn't in anyway support or contradict global warming, but it is funny hearing people talking about global warming at the same time that it has snowed TWICE in the same year. I know you northerns might not consider that much, but usually it snows once every other year, so snowing twice in the same year, and being freezing for most of hte last 3 weeks is just absurd for where
I live. OF course before all that it was much warmer than average.

Even global warming supporters should see the irony in those news stories. Kinda reminds me this summer working for the electric company and we had 2 days at the office without electricity! Also very ironic 😛.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The whole CO2 level measurements that have been tagged on to ice cores by measuring air is a joke. You can't show low levels from one population and then tag on another population just to fit your hypothesis. Either your original sample population supports your hypothesis, or it doesn't.

Could you explain this a bit more clearly?

As snow falls and is compacted into ice, air is trapped in the ice. The CO2 content in the trapped air is measured. How is it a joke?

Because most Co2 graphs I have seen, not all but most, show something like the Vostok core, then another one, then finally air measurements. They use this as an example of how high CO2 levels are.

However, using a composite graph is crap. Why? Because nobody knows what the base level of the other graphs are throughout time.

For example, if the Vostok core showed a range of 1-100 with an average of 50, another core my have a range of 50-150 with an average of 100, and an air measurement may have 100-200 with an average of 150. You can't just slap them together consecutively, because they have different ranges, different compositions, and are taken in different places.

For example, one of the graphs posted frequently shows Vostok, another dome (forgot which) and Mauna Loa air samples. How can these be tied together completely? Air measurements in one area can't be totally compared to another. Consider the different environments. The Vostok cores are far away from vegitation or volcanos, whereas Mauna Loa is near vegitation and also volcanos. Furthermore, one is a direct air sample while the other isn't.

You can keep going, showing how the total sample utilized and the conclusions made from the consecutive time-slicing/splicing/combining of these samples can lead to a corrupt conclusion.

I am saying that there are dozens of ways that many of these studies have been corrupted. Furthermore, hypothesis to the contrary have been dismissed out of hand or outright hammered. The scientific process is being ignored because the fervor created about this situation is massive.

Personally, it's a bit disconcerting that scientists are acting more like dark-ages theologians and churches in the suppression of alternative ideas.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The whole CO2 level measurements that have been tagged on to ice cores by measuring air is a joke. You can't show low levels from one population and then tag on another population just to fit your hypothesis. Either your original sample population supports your hypothesis, or it doesn't.

Could you explain this a bit more clearly?

As snow falls and is compacted into ice, air is trapped in the ice. The CO2 content in the trapped air is measured. How is it a joke?

Because most Co2 graphs I have seen, not all but most, show something like the Vostok core, then another one, then finally air measurements. They use this as an example of how high CO2 levels are.

However, using a composite graph is crap. Why? Because nobody knows what the base level of the other graphs are throughout time.

For example, if the Vostok core showed a range of 1-100 with an average of 50, another core my have a range of 50-150 with an average of 100, and an air measurement may have 100-200 with an average of 150. You can't just slap them together consecutively, because they have different ranges, different compositions, and are taken in different places.

For example, one of the graphs posted frequently shows Vostok, another dome (forgot which) and Mauna Loa air samples. How can these be tied together completely? Air measurements in one area can't be totally compared to another. Consider the different environments. The Vostok cores are far away from vegitation or volcanos, whereas Mauna Loa is near vegitation and also volcanos. Furthermore, one is a direct air sample while the other isn't.

You can keep going, showing how the total sample utilized and the conclusions made from the consecutive time-slicing/splicing/combining of these samples can lead to a corrupt conclusion.

I am saying that there are dozens of ways that many of these studies have been corrupted. Furthermore, hypothesis to the contrary have been dismissed out of hand or outright hammered. The scientific process is being ignored because the fervor created about this situation is massive.

Personally, it's a bit disconcerting that scientists are acting more like dark-ages theologians and churches in the suppression of alternative ideas.

Could you dumb it down a bit. I hate it when things are way over my head. 😉