Oooh, the earth has a "fever"
-
Allen Anderson wrote:
that when you are saying that your methods may have some trouble and your final result is half a degree, then perhaps you are within the margin for error.
but the "half a degree" is simply not the point of the study. the point of the study is to demonstrate the unusual increase in the last 100 years or so. yes, the earth's temperature goes up and down on it's own. but as far as we can tell, the rate of increase in past 100 years is unusual. again... go look at the pretty graph[^]
Allen Anderson wrote:
which has become religion
nonsense
Allen Anderson wrote:
Scientists who don't agree with the global warming position are piloried (sp?) endlessly for not falling into line
can you link to any specific examples of this ? can you show us scientists who did serious work who were shunned for not "falling into line" ? do you have any data at all to back up that statement ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as far as we can tell, the rate of increase in past 100 years is unusual.
It isn't at all. Overwhelming evidence points to drastic temperature changes in earth's history. (In fact, I think the evidence is that the relatively stable climate of the past 200 years is what's unusual.) As I stated earlier, the eruptions of Tambora and Krakatoa in the past 2000 years caused extreme and very rapid changes in temperature. During the Medieval Optimum, temperatures were much higher than today. Going further back, the peat bogs of England and Ireland require higher temperatures than both today and the MCE to form. The following is a good read: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605[^] Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modified at 15:13 Friday 23rd June, 2006
-
If you can show me one example of one species becomming another, we could talk about evolution's place in science. If macro evolution, the evolving of a completely new species is unverifiable, unrepeatable and cannot be scientifically refuted, then why is this a better explaination for man than a creator? If you had never seen a watch before, and you found one on a beach, would it seem logical to postulate that it evolved out of sand, or some other primitive substance? You could postulate evolution of the watch without intelligent intervention, but you would be wrong. No matter how often you said it evolved by selection you would be wrong. No matter how many scientists said that was how it happened, they would be wrong. The idea that science has the final answers at this time is as old as science. If you feel free to discuss ID as if it couldn't happen when all you really know is that it might not have happened then please, allow me the same freedom to discuss evolution, or whatever your favorite theory of the origin of man, with the same freedom.
Steve Holle wrote:
If macro evolution...
nobody said anything about evolution. and since evolution is not the logical opposite of a creator, arguing against evolution is not the same as proving a "creator". if you can prove you creator, go right ahead - but you can't do it by disproving something else.
Steve Holle wrote:
If you had never seen a watch before, and you found one on a beach, would it seem logical to postulate that it evolved out of sand, or some other primitive substance?
no. but that's not the same as arguing against biological evolution, either.
Steve Holle wrote:
If you feel free to discuss ID as if it couldn't happen
i never said it "couldn't happen". i just asked if you could provide any proof. if someone could actually prove a 'creator' did anything, i'd be perfectly happy putting that fact into what i would consider real and honest science.
Steve Holle wrote:
allow me the same freedom to discuss
discuss it all you want. but don't pretend it has anything at all to do with actual science. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
and, as far as we can tell, there's never been an upswing like the one we're currently in the middle of.
That isn't true at all. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence of even larger and more drastic temperature swings in the past. The evidence of glacial activity is indisputable as is evidence of both poles being ice free at certain points in earth's history. In 1815, the volcano Tambora blew up causing 1816 to be known as the year without a summer. There is evidence that the eruption of Krakatoa about 416 CE caused the dark ages in a quite literal sense. In addition the Medieval Climatic Optimum circa 1000 CE was quite real and resulted in higher temperatures than we have today. Evidence for this are foods being grown in areas of the world where they can't be grown today if at all. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
That isn't true at all. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence of even larger and more drastic temperature swings in the past
citation, please - a multi-decade timespan with a large increase in temperature. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as far as we can tell, the rate of increase in past 100 years is unusual.
It isn't at all. Overwhelming evidence points to drastic temperature changes in earth's history. (In fact, I think the evidence is that the relatively stable climate of the past 200 years is what's unusual.) As I stated earlier, the eruptions of Tambora and Krakatoa in the past 2000 years caused extreme and very rapid changes in temperature. During the Medieval Optimum, temperatures were much higher than today. Going further back, the peat bogs of England and Ireland require higher temperatures than both today and the MCE to form. The following is a good read: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605[^] Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modified at 15:13 Friday 23rd June, 2006
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Overwhelming evidence points to drastic temperature changes in earth's history
did you not read what i wrote, either time? "unusual" does not mean "the only time ever", nor does "rate... in past 100 years" mean anything like "average high temperature" or "short-term effects of isolated cataclysmic events" Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Steve Holle wrote:
If macro evolution...
nobody said anything about evolution. and since evolution is not the logical opposite of a creator, arguing against evolution is not the same as proving a "creator". if you can prove you creator, go right ahead - but you can't do it by disproving something else.
Steve Holle wrote:
If you had never seen a watch before, and you found one on a beach, would it seem logical to postulate that it evolved out of sand, or some other primitive substance?
no. but that's not the same as arguing against biological evolution, either.
Steve Holle wrote:
If you feel free to discuss ID as if it couldn't happen
i never said it "couldn't happen". i just asked if you could provide any proof. if someone could actually prove a 'creator' did anything, i'd be perfectly happy putting that fact into what i would consider real and honest science.
Steve Holle wrote:
allow me the same freedom to discuss
discuss it all you want. but don't pretend it has anything at all to do with actual science. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
discuss it all you want. but don't pretend it has anything at all to do with actual science.
Kind of like much of the "science" surrounding both sides of the global warming debate, huh?
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
discuss it all you want. but don't pretend it has anything at all to do with actual science.
Kind of like much of the "science" surrounding both sides of the global warming debate, huh?
feel free to disprove any of the stuff in that study. go right ahead, nobody will stop you. i eagerly await your results! Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Dustin Metzgar wrote:
Umm, so you're saying everyone that believes man hasn't changed the climate also believes that it's because it's impossible for man to change the climate?
The problem is we know that he has changed his environment sometimes on a massive scale, multiple times over! We almost destroyed the giant redwoods (ironically from conservation), almost destroyed all plant/animal life in the grand canyon (from flood control), the ozone hole, many times over man has changed regional and global effects. If you want to call yourself ignorant for ignoring all the things man has done to his own planet, go ahead. I simply said you were ignoring evidence, you put the 'I' word into the conversation. I used the word impossible because it is a common usage. you will hear the catch phrases "all climate affects are solar" which is completely true, and irrelevant to the conversation. Solar drives the energy, the distribution of that energy is atmospheric (fluid dynamics). Claiming that the sun is the only factor in global climate is equivalent to saying all men die therefore there is no such thing as murder because all death is natural. It is irrelevant to the conversation of murder, but completely true, all death is natural but still can be man made. You will also hear "the planet is so large that it is impossible for man to affect it on a global scale". Which ironically, is equivalent to the ID argument that "man is so complex a creator must be involved". The complaint from those holding this hypothesis is that they claim the immediate removal of all evidence and selectively choosing elements that they wish. "it was 2c cooler than last year here at my house, so global averages must be thrown out" is another common argument. Ignoring the thermal dynamic cooling of the atmosphere. If you heat one area, the earth will attempt to cool it creating larger variation from hot to cool, some places will be cooler and others hotter, the average is higher. But by selectively choosing the cooler places ONLY, there are claims to throw out the average. So more ways of averaging temperature are done, and more evidence ignored by those who wish to believe in ignoring evidence of "global average". There is also the argument of "average of 1/2C is not much" which also ignores the fluid dynamic cooling which means areas are getting hotter and cooler, larger extremes, but the combined average is 1/2C higher. Man has to live through the extremes, the natural cooling
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
I simply said you were ignoring evidence, you put the 'I' word into the conversation.
Actually, nowhere did I say what my stance was on the issue. You automatically assumed that I don't believe man has affected climate change. I do believe that. But I don't believe talking down to people who have the opposite view is a good way to promote discourse.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
That isn't true at all. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence of even larger and more drastic temperature swings in the past
citation, please - a multi-decade timespan with a large increase in temperature. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Medieval Climate Optimum. Good overview on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum[^] Holocene climatic optimum. Also on Wikipedia (out of convenience): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum[^] Added: http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(1999)027%3C0199:OICFOP%3E2.3.CO%3B2[^] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69972[^] Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modified at 17:34 Friday 23rd June, 2006
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Overwhelming evidence points to drastic temperature changes in earth's history
did you not read what i wrote, either time? "unusual" does not mean "the only time ever", nor does "rate... in past 100 years" mean anything like "average high temperature" or "short-term effects of isolated cataclysmic events" Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Unusual: not usual or common or ordinary The climate of the past 25 years is usual common and ordinary. (Actually, considering out mild it's been by comparison to historical data, one could argue this isn't true but in the opposite sense that you mean.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Medieval Climate Optimum. Good overview on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum[^] Holocene climatic optimum. Also on Wikipedia (out of convenience): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum[^] Added: http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(1999)027%3C0199:OICFOP%3E2.3.CO%3B2[^] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69972[^] Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modified at 17:34 Friday 23rd June, 2006
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Medieval Climate Optimum
now look at the graph on that page. see what happens at the right side that doesn't happen in the middle (or anywhere else) ?
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Holocene climatic optimum
that's a 12,000 year scale ! we barely have the kind of detailed data we need going back 400 years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Unusual: not usual or common or ordinary The climate of the past 25 years is usual common and ordinary. (Actually, considering out mild it's been by comparison to historical data, one could argue this isn't true but in the opposite sense that you mean.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The climate of the past 25 years is usual common and ordinary
rate of change. rate of change. rate of change. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The onus is on them not me
bullsh!t. you made an assertion about the validity of their data. prove your assertion.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
To actually prove it quid pro quo requires quite a bit.
too bad. prove your assertion. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
No. I gave my opinion. I even clarified that in my response. Find someone else to provoke. And I still call it bull. But again, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Can you prove that it isn't bull? This statement is false.
-
No. I gave my opinion. I even clarified that in my response. Find someone else to provoke. And I still call it bull. But again, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Can you prove that it isn't bull? This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
No. I gave my opinion
didn't sound like it at the time.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Can you prove that it isn't bull?
nope. but i'm not a climatologist so i defer to those who are, as i'd expect a climatologist to defer to me when it comes to C++. so, if another climatologist comes along and says "no, that data is bull because of X,Y,Z, i'll do what i can to see if he's worth listening to. i have no reason to not beleve the people who wrote this study aren't being straight with us. do you ? no, i think we've established that you don't. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Steve Holle wrote:
Is it scientific to ignore the possibility that a creator was involved?
if you can provide some scientific evidence for this "creator", we can talk about his place in science.
Steve Holle wrote:
What if a creator was involved?
excellent question. but until there is some evidence, that's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
To get it out in the open, I'm agnostic, but I have to quote SETI here, absence of proof isn't proof of absence. But you'd have to be nuts to believe that evolution isn't playing a part in this. Regardless of whether there is a creator, in fact, I'd have less respect for a creator that didn't use evolution as a tool else he/she/it would just be a puppet master. And who's to say that this same creator doesn't want us to pay for our mistakes. Its our ball o mud and if we screw it up so be it. Funny thing is I agree with the scientists, I just think its naive to think that just because their methods are improving that they've got it figured out. I hear more and more about how they were wrong about this and that. Brain cells weren't supposed to be able to regenerate, then they changed their mind, because their data changed. Face it, no matter how much we think of ourselves we're still infants trying to figure it out. This statement is false.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
No. I gave my opinion
didn't sound like it at the time.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Can you prove that it isn't bull?
nope. but i'm not a climatologist so i defer to those who are, as i'd expect a climatologist to defer to me when it comes to C++. so, if another climatologist comes along and says "no, that data is bull because of X,Y,Z, i'll do what i can to see if he's worth listening to. i have no reason to not beleve the people who wrote this study aren't being straight with us. do you ? no, i think we've established that you don't. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
didn't sound like it at the time.
You only quoted part of the sentence, here's the whole sentence: The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it.
Chris Losinger wrote:
nope. but i'm not a climatologist so i defer to those who are, as i'd expect a climatologist to defer to me when it comes to C++. so, if another climatologist comes along and says "no, that data is bull because of X,Y,Z, i'll do what i can to see if he's worth listening to. i have no reason to not beleve the people who wrote this study aren't being straight with us. do you ? no, i think we've established that you don't.
Do you think that the climatologists are infallable and that their conclusions which are stated as "confident" are absolute and automatically true? This statement is false.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Medieval Climate Optimum
now look at the graph on that page. see what happens at the right side that doesn't happen in the middle (or anywhere else) ?
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Holocene climatic optimum
that's a 12,000 year scale ! we barely have the kind of detailed data we need going back 400 years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
now look at the graph on that page. see what happens at the right side that doesn't happen in the middle (or anywhere else)
The graph is distorted to support the "hockey stick" theory of temperature. In fact few scientists today--even those that believe in man-made global warming--believe that the current temperatures exceed that of the Medieval Climate Optimum (which is why the are currently saying "past 400 years".) However, my point still stands; to label the current climate as "unusual" is clearly false. Even IF the MCO did not have as drastic upward temperature climb, it demonstrates that rapid change is possible. The "Little Ice Age" also points out that an even more drastic decline happened--if the temperature can go down that quickly, why can't it go up even faster? The conceit of the global warmists is that the earth is static and unchanging and that there is some sort of optimum temperature. ALL the evidence is to the contrary--over its history the temperature of the earth has changed drastically and will continue to change. One problem is statistical and quite annoying; 1977 was a very cool year. This is why 25 years has been chosen as the range of increase, rather than 30 or 20. You pick either of the latter and suddenly the temperature change isn't so drastic after all. This is scientific cherry picking at the worse. By the way, if you examine the Medieval Climate Optimum, you'll find it coincided with a peak in solar intensity. Such a peak is happening right now as well. (Temperatures at the north pole in Mars have also risen, giving more evidence to a strong solar cause of recent global warming.) (http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm[^].)
Chris Losinger wrote:
that's a 12,000 year scale ! we barely have the kind of detailed data we need going back 400 years.
It doesn't matter. The geologic evidence points to higher temperatures than exist today. While the exact temperature cannot be determined, the evidence for drastic temperature changes is undeniable; things such as the formation of peat bogs in Ireland and England support this thesis. We also know that the earth has gone through several ice ages. Saying we don't have "detailed data" doesn'
-
To get it out in the open, I'm agnostic, but I have to quote SETI here, absence of proof isn't proof of absence. But you'd have to be nuts to believe that evolution isn't playing a part in this. Regardless of whether there is a creator, in fact, I'd have less respect for a creator that didn't use evolution as a tool else he/she/it would just be a puppet master. And who's to say that this same creator doesn't want us to pay for our mistakes. Its our ball o mud and if we screw it up so be it. Funny thing is I agree with the scientists, I just think its naive to think that just because their methods are improving that they've got it figured out. I hear more and more about how they were wrong about this and that. Brain cells weren't supposed to be able to regenerate, then they changed their mind, because their data changed. Face it, no matter how much we think of ourselves we're still infants trying to figure it out. This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
absence of proof isn't proof of absence
logically, no. but on the other hand, that's a logical dead end. if you can't prove something exists and you can't prove it doesn't exist, what good is it ? what's the point of something that can't be shown to affect anything else ? it might as well not exist at all.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
then they changed their mind, because their data changed.
well, that's how science works. explanations beat out other explanations over time. i'm perfectly willing to believe someone could explain away what looks like 'global warming' (and i hope someone does!) - i just haven't seen it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The climate of the past 25 years is usual common and ordinary
rate of change. rate of change. rate of change. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
rate of change. rate of change. rate of change.
Uh, no. The data pretty much shows that there have been periods where the rate of change has been more rapid. The descent into the Little Ice Age was, by accounts of contemporaries, quite rapid. The failure of the Viking settlement in Greenland as well as sea reports from the Vikings supports this. The bottom line is rapid change is common and ordinary GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING. Statistically, there is another problem. 1977 was a cold year. Using this as a basis creates the statistical impression that the temperature ON AVERAGE has changed more than it has than if 1955 were used or 1985. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
didn't sound like it at the time.
You only quoted part of the sentence, here's the whole sentence: The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it.
Chris Losinger wrote:
nope. but i'm not a climatologist so i defer to those who are, as i'd expect a climatologist to defer to me when it comes to C++. so, if another climatologist comes along and says "no, that data is bull because of X,Y,Z, i'll do what i can to see if he's worth listening to. i have no reason to not beleve the people who wrote this study aren't being straight with us. do you ? no, i think we've established that you don't.
Do you think that the climatologists are infallable and that their conclusions which are stated as "confident" are absolute and automatically true? This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The onus is on them not me. My comment is my opinion and I only have to type it to prove it.
you didn't say "i think their data is bull" or "IMO, their data is bull". but, if you insist it was just opinion, there's really no point in arguing the point. on the other hand, the people who published that study did back up their data, and we can all go look at it and try to refute it.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Do you think that the climatologists are infallable and that their conclusions which are stated as "confident" are absolute and automatically true?
no, why would i? but i do think people who study something for a living know more about it than people who don't. when your tooth hurts, do you call a barber or a dentist ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
absence of proof isn't proof of absence
logically, no. but on the other hand, that's a logical dead end. if you can't prove something exists and you can't prove it doesn't exist, what good is it ? what's the point of something that can't be shown to affect anything else ? it might as well not exist at all.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
then they changed their mind, because their data changed.
well, that's how science works. explanations beat out other explanations over time. i'm perfectly willing to believe someone could explain away what looks like 'global warming' (and i hope someone does!) - i just haven't seen it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
logically, no. but on the other hand, that's a logical dead end. if you can't prove something exists and you can't prove it doesn't exist, what good is it ? what's the point of something that can't be shown to affect anything else ? it might as well not exist at all.
Ok, so if you can't prove it its meaningless? They can't prove that these methods for guessing what the temperature was 1000 years ago are absolutely 100% correct so its meaningless. You just typed it. They are confident, but that's not proof. And by the way, I think global warming is very real and not desirable, and that is only my opinion because we don't have absolute proof. But the point here is whether their methods are accurate, and we can't know. We're talking about a time where we don't have conclusive data for. We are guessing. But we're confident. Unfortunately confidence cannot be substituted for proof.
Chris Losinger wrote:
well, that's how science works. explanations beat out other explanations over time. i'm perfectly willing to believe someone could explain away what looks like 'global warming' (and i hope someone does!) - i just haven't seen it.
Heh heh... that's what I mean. Its not proven if it turns out false. Its a best guess of the time. This statement is false.