Is news coverage of stories global?
-
William Winner wrote:
You actually have no idea what is involved in an environmental science degree, nor do you have any idea of what my education was like
Ditto. Did your cover black bodies, Planks law and Thermodynamics?
William Winner wrote:
Once again, you have no idea what my courses were like or if they promoted AGW. In fact, none of my courses covered it or claimed an opinion on it that I can remember. That, of course, may be because I graduated before this debate became a huge deal.
Good.
William Winner wrote:
"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm.
I'll provide plenty of suport for my claim. In fact I heard yet again this morning on the news a scientist stating that the poles are early indicators of GW. I already provided proof regading the troposphere from Wiki. I am sure you can realise that when it comes to radiation energy transfer takes place from a hotter body to a cooler one, not the other way round. This is pretty basic stuff.
William Winner wrote:
Hmm...did you catch that..."simultaneously cooling the atmosphere". Of course that's a report to the IPCC, so you'll ignore it from the start regardless of the science behind it.
Oh dont be such a tool. Of course heat is radiated in all directions , and the part of that that goes to space provides a cooling effect.
William Winner wrote:
So, the presence of more people and more industrialization in the northern hemisphere won't play as much of a role on the southern pole as the northern.
Now you are making up pet theories. CO2 is distributed almost evenly in the atmopshere.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Now you are making up pet theories. CO2 is distributed almost evenly in the atmopshere.
NASA disagrees with you. http://geology.com/nasa/carbon-dioxide-map/[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
OK, so I have already provided the Wiki link that states that it is the troposphere that heats first and then heats the surface by radiation. Here is another link: Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures[^] So, as you now see, the troposphere should, according to basic theory, thats GH gas theory, warm faster than the the surface. Now for polar warming being accelerated: The joint effect of the ice-albedo and dynamical greenhouse-plus feedbacks acts to amplify the high latitude surface warming [^] The enhancement (reduction) of local feedbacks in high (low) latitudes in response to the non-local dynamic feedback further strengthens the polar amplification of the surface warming.[^] Polar Amplification[^] (This is the website run by an emplotyee of Hansen of GISS, so its about as from the horses mouth as you can get. Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator.[^] So, slam dunk, two points to me, zero to you, point proved, QED, etc etc etc. Next argument please!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, I did at first disregard solar IR, but then I did some research, and learned that it's relatively minor, compared to the other factors involved.
Minor, but minor is important. Afgter all CO2 is a minor part of the atmosphere and that is aparently a big issue. I'll get back to you with more on solar IR later when I have more time.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
IF the facts support AGW, then AGW is correct. If the facts oppose AGW, then AGW is wrong. Facts are all that matter. You need to learn to separate the people from the science
Thank god you said that. At least you have a scientific understanding. OK, so to the evidence. 1) Post war cooling while CO2 goes up. OK, cold be related to an increase in SO2 post war that got cleaned up in the 70s. But this indicates that CO2 is not as powerfull a driver as SO2. 2) Falt to cooling for tha last decade. The temperatures ought to be rising if CO2 is causing significant warming. 3) A statement by the AGW proponent Phil Fones, who as recent head of CRU was a AGW advocate and heavilly involved in the science now says that the recent warnming is stastically indifferent to the last four warming periods over the last 150 years. In those other three CO2 cant have ben a factor so the cause is vey likely something else. ie it is very UNLIKELEY that man made CO2 has ben responsible for the last of these identical trends. 4) South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player. So, is the theory of AGW proved or not? In my book it is disproved. Do you agree?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
- South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player.
Did you miss the article in Nature that I sent you? The one published after the one you tried to quote saying that there was cooling in Antarctica? Well, here it is again: Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year[^] So you can quit hawking that line.
-
Never said I was an expert, but I can look at observable data and see it doesnt fit the theory. And that, my friend, is basic science.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ok...well, you go ahead and use "basic" scientific principles to an extremely complex and not well understood subject. Since you took an upper-level physics class, I'm sure you are familiar with the Theory of General Relativity...you know the one by Einstein. And I'm sure that you are also aware of the fact that his theory breaks down at the Quantum scale. So, anyone that looks at the observable quantum data would then have to presume that Einstein's theory is incorrect. The problem I have is that you take data and interpret it as if you are an expert on these fields. The rest of us use interpretations put out by highly-qualified "experts" that have studied this intensely. Once again, let's start at the beginning. When I was in college, when we wrote a paper, we had to support our use of any source by proving their credibility on the subject. So, if we used a paper from Science, we had to show why that author was qualified to say what they did. So, once again, what are your qualifications? You say you took a class on Thermodynamics, eh? What other courses in physics have you taken and did you pass them? Did you get all C's? In my Discrete Structures course, there were a lot of people that were getting 20's and 30's on the test, but they can still say that they took it. Of course, there's no way for us to verify anything you say, but that's the way it goes. You're claiming to have looked at data and put it through scientific analysis to come up with your conclusions.
fat_boy wrote:
This is raw unadjusted data. I validated one temperature series, the central England one.
fat_boy wrote:
I found an online Plank law calculator. You can enter the temperature of th eblack body, the wavelength range, and calculate the energy produced. If you do the same you will see what I mean.
fat_boy wrote:
but I can look at observable data and see it doesn't fit the theory.
So, if you want to use your observations, tell us, what are your qualifications?
-
OK, so I have already provided the Wiki link that states that it is the troposphere that heats first and then heats the surface by radiation. Here is another link: Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures[^] So, as you now see, the troposphere should, according to basic theory, thats GH gas theory, warm faster than the the surface. Now for polar warming being accelerated: The joint effect of the ice-albedo and dynamical greenhouse-plus feedbacks acts to amplify the high latitude surface warming [^] The enhancement (reduction) of local feedbacks in high (low) latitudes in response to the non-local dynamic feedback further strengthens the polar amplification of the surface warming.[^] Polar Amplification[^] (This is the website run by an emplotyee of Hansen of GISS, so its about as from the horses mouth as you can get. Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator.[^] So, slam dunk, two points to me, zero to you, point proved, QED, etc etc etc. Next argument please!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Here is another link: Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures[^]
Did you actually read the article? It said that temperature readings have proven little, if any, increase in temperature. Is that where you stopped reading? It then went on to say that the fault was in the temperature equipment, so they instead went with measuring the changing wind patterns and "estimated the atmospheric temperatures near 10 km in the Tropics rose about 0.65 degrees Celsius per decade since 1970—probably the fastest warming rate anywhere in Earth's atmosphere. The temperature increase is in line with predictions of global warming models."
fat_boy wrote:
So, as you now see, the troposphere should, according to basic theory, thats GH gas theory, warm faster than the the surface.
So, thanks, you provided an article that shows that the troposphere is warming and fits global warming models.
fat_boy wrote:
Polar Amplification[^] (This is the website run by an emplotyee of Hansen of GISS, so its about as from the horses mouth as you can get.
I don't understand what you were trying to show with this. The author said "The purpose of this posting is to explain why there is sometimes an absence of evidence for polar amplification." And the other two articles...what are you trying to show with those? That the polar regions are warming because of some other cause? Besides the fact that unless we want to pay for it, we can't actually read the other two articles, just the abstracts.
fat_boy wrote:
Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator.[^]
And again, sorry, what is this one for? Did you see that the author was a professor of Economics? So, his statement that "Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator." could have come from anywhere. He may have gotten it from the Nature article that he provides as "Further Reading", but he doesn't cite it anywhere in the text. Seriously...you're going to get your proof of something dealing with GW from an Economics professor?
-
fat_boy wrote:
- Post war cooling while CO2 goes up. OK, cold be related to an increase in SO2 post war that got cleaned up in the 70s. But this indicates that CO2 is not as powerfull a driver as SO2.
Again, you're looking at the change since an arbitrary date. The economy has gone up since last fall, but it's gone down since three years ago, but it's gone way up since ten years ago... All three statements are true, but which one gives the overall trend?
fat_boy wrote:
- Falt to cooling for tha last decade. The temperatures ought to be rising if CO2 is causing significant warming.
Yet again... Looking at one decade, when this is a LONG term effect. The climate fluctuates in the short term, so any gains or losses could be overshadowed by these cyclical changes. We're not expecting a ten-degree shift, but even a 1 degree change could greatly affect things.
fat_boy wrote:
- A statement by the AGW proponent Phil Fones, who as recent head of CRU was a AGW advocate and heavilly involved in the science now says that the recent warnming is stastically indifferent to the last four warming periods over the last 150 years. In those other three CO2 cant have ben a factor so the cause is vey likely something else. ie it is very UNLIKELEY that man made CO2 has ben responsible for the last of these identical trends.
After agreeing that we're looking at facts instead of opinions, you've gone right back to quoting ONE man, known for being an "advocate." Look at overall scientific consensus, not single people. I could start quoting people to support the AGW theory, but I don't, because it's irrelevant what one person thinks.
fat_boy wrote:
- South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player.
As William said in the other post, the two hemispheres are somewhat divided by the circulation patterns. The currents push CO2 in each hemisphere away from the equator toward the pole. Since there's MUCH more CO2 production in the northern hemisphere (More population, more industry, less oceans to absorb it), the north pole would be affected much more than the south pole. The arctic ic
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, you're looking at the change since an arbitrary date
No I am not because CO2 really kicked off post war, thats when a lot of the rest of the world industrialised. And yet, even with al that CO2, the temperatures fell for 25 years or so.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yet again... Looking at one decade, when this is a LONG term effect.
But the models, based on AGW theory, predicted a continuous rise. Lok at Hansens three scenarios. Even his 'no more CO2', scenario C has been beaten in term of temperature decline/
Ian Shlasko wrote:
After agreeing that we're looking at facts instead of opinions
OK, once again I will direct you again to: 1) The graph I showed you that you how th arctic was warmer in the 30s yjan today. 2) News article about arctic warming in 1922. 3) IS data showing the US was warmer in the 3-'s than today. 4) Greenland oce core data showing the 3-s was warmenr than today. All of this is just the second most recent warming cycle that Phil Jones, a warming advocate, and I hope you know what 'advocate' means.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Since there's MUCH more CO2 production in the northern hemisphere
But YOU recemtly stated the differenc eisnt that great. Why the chanmge of tune now? Is it because you have William to back you up?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The arctic ice is melting enough that there are now shipping routes over the pole.
As there was in the early part of the last century.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Has AGW been proven? No.
Good. This is a start, And if it is not proven by FACTS. Then the theory is unproved. Thuis AGW is NOT happening. OK, it MIGHT happen if we produce a lot more CO2, although given its logarithmic effect this is unlikely, but as of now, there is NO evidence of man made CO2 causing warming. And I hope you looked at Bob Watsons on the video link I sent you stating that the only proof of man made CO2 causing warming is circumstantial.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Now you are making up pet theories. CO2 is distributed almost evenly in the atmopshere.
NASA disagrees with you. http://geology.com/nasa/carbon-dioxide-map/[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ha ha ha ha ha! A 3% variation! And not only that, the SOUTH pole shows a higher concentration of CO2 than the NORTH pole! And not only that, theres as much over the southern oceasn as over the industrialised north! You really shot yourself in the foot with that one! Thanks, I will have to store the link to that graph, its good proof that CO2 is NOT causing warming in antarctica!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, you're looking at the change since an arbitrary date
No I am not because CO2 really kicked off post war, thats when a lot of the rest of the world industrialised. And yet, even with al that CO2, the temperatures fell for 25 years or so.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yet again... Looking at one decade, when this is a LONG term effect.
But the models, based on AGW theory, predicted a continuous rise. Lok at Hansens three scenarios. Even his 'no more CO2', scenario C has been beaten in term of temperature decline/
Ian Shlasko wrote:
After agreeing that we're looking at facts instead of opinions
OK, once again I will direct you again to: 1) The graph I showed you that you how th arctic was warmer in the 30s yjan today. 2) News article about arctic warming in 1922. 3) IS data showing the US was warmer in the 3-'s than today. 4) Greenland oce core data showing the 3-s was warmenr than today. All of this is just the second most recent warming cycle that Phil Jones, a warming advocate, and I hope you know what 'advocate' means.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Since there's MUCH more CO2 production in the northern hemisphere
But YOU recemtly stated the differenc eisnt that great. Why the chanmge of tune now? Is it because you have William to back you up?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The arctic ice is melting enough that there are now shipping routes over the pole.
As there was in the early part of the last century.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Has AGW been proven? No.
Good. This is a start, And if it is not proven by FACTS. Then the theory is unproved. Thuis AGW is NOT happening. OK, it MIGHT happen if we produce a lot more CO2, although given its logarithmic effect this is unlikely, but as of now, there is NO evidence of man made CO2 causing warming. And I hope you looked at Bob Watsons on the video link I sent you stating that the only proof of man made CO2 causing warming is circumstantial.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
But YOU recemtly stated the differenc eisnt that great. Why the chanmge of tune now? Is it because you have William to back you up?
Because CO2 is one of the smaller effects on temperature... Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. A large difference in concentration will still only give a small temperature change. It doesn't need to be a 10-degree difference to signify global warming. Even a 1-degree increase will drastically change climate patterns.
fat_boy wrote:
No I am not because CO2 really kicked off post war, thats when a lot of the rest of the world industrialised. And yet, even with al that CO2, the temperatures fell for 25 years or so.
Again and again, you're picking arbitrary dates. The temperatures have fallen since 30 years ago. They've risen since one year ago. They've fallen since 59.2 years ago. They've risen since the last ice age. The climate changes in cycles, so a mere decrease in temperature, especially in one reason, doesn't mean CO2 is having no effect. IF it is decreasing, then the question is whether it's decreasing more or less than it should be. Again I'll use the economy as an example of cyclical behavior. If we suspect a factor that increases it by 1% per year, and it drops 5% this year, does that mean the factor isn't there, or would it have decreased by 6% otherwise? If it increases by 5%, does that mean it's 4% plus our possible factor, or did it just increase by 5% because the factor wasn't there?
fat_boy wrote:
Good. This is a start, And if it is not proven by FACTS. Then the theory is unproved. Thuis AGW is NOT happening.
Unproven does not mean false. Unproven means unknown. DISPROVEN means false. A lack of conclusive evidence on either side, means that we DO NOT KNOW the answer yet. Also, keep in mind that there are two issues at play here. 1) Is global warming occurring, whether natural or artificial? 2) If so, is industrialization the cause? From what I've seen and heard, I was under the impression that #1 was understood to be probably true, and #2 was the real question.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardia -
fat_boy wrote:
- South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player.
Did you miss the article in Nature that I sent you? The one published after the one you tried to quote saying that there was cooling in Antarctica? Well, here it is again: Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year[^] So you can quit hawking that line.
Let me guess, before I look its thwe study with Mann, he of Hockey stick fame, and a discredited sceintist, where they 'extend' peninsula warming, cause by ocean floor techtonic activity, to thwe entore polar area and magically come up with warming? ... takes a look... yes.. I was right. Yep, seen it, and its a crock of shit. These are the same people who use the same technique to apply a temperature to the middle of the andes based on a sea side resort on the pacific just because its a few hyndred kilometers away./ Its garbage science. If you real think that this isnt then you are an idot and your science degree is worth less than the paper its written on.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ha ha ha ha ha! A 3% variation! And not only that, the SOUTH pole shows a higher concentration of CO2 than the NORTH pole! And not only that, theres as much over the southern oceasn as over the industrialised north! You really shot yourself in the foot with that one! Thanks, I will have to store the link to that graph, its good proof that CO2 is NOT causing warming in antarctica!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Actually the graph only shows the CO2 concentration in one layer, the mid-troposphere, not the concentration at lower or higher altitudes. The point is that it's not evenly distributed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
fat_boy wrote:
Here is another link: Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures[^]
Did you actually read the article? It said that temperature readings have proven little, if any, increase in temperature. Is that where you stopped reading? It then went on to say that the fault was in the temperature equipment, so they instead went with measuring the changing wind patterns and "estimated the atmospheric temperatures near 10 km in the Tropics rose about 0.65 degrees Celsius per decade since 1970—probably the fastest warming rate anywhere in Earth's atmosphere. The temperature increase is in line with predictions of global warming models."
fat_boy wrote:
So, as you now see, the troposphere should, according to basic theory, thats GH gas theory, warm faster than the the surface.
So, thanks, you provided an article that shows that the troposphere is warming and fits global warming models.
fat_boy wrote:
Polar Amplification[^] (This is the website run by an emplotyee of Hansen of GISS, so its about as from the horses mouth as you can get.
I don't understand what you were trying to show with this. The author said "The purpose of this posting is to explain why there is sometimes an absence of evidence for polar amplification." And the other two articles...what are you trying to show with those? That the polar regions are warming because of some other cause? Besides the fact that unless we want to pay for it, we can't actually read the other two articles, just the abstracts.
fat_boy wrote:
Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator.[^]
And again, sorry, what is this one for? Did you see that the author was a professor of Economics? So, his statement that "Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator." could have come from anywhere. He may have gotten it from the Nature article that he provides as "Further Reading", but he doesn't cite it anywhere in the text. Seriously...you're going to get your proof of something dealing with GW from an Economics professor?
William Winner wrote:
Did you actually read the article?
Yeah, it makes me laugh so much I cant resist going back to it again and again.
William Winner wrote:
It then went on to say that the fault was in the temperature equipment
Like the satwellite and weather balloon readings, one of which has been used for oh, probably about 100 years?
William Winner wrote:
so they instead went with measuring the changing wind patterns
So, Global Windy is the new Global Warming? Tell me your science degree measn something, please!
William Winner wrote:
So, thanks, you provided an article that shows that the troposphere is warming and fits global warming models
Er, no, it shows, aparently, that its windier. Now, as far as I know, when CO2 absorbs IR it get shot, not windy. If you have any proof that this isnt the case please share this with us. And for the rest you cant provide an argument and so obfusticate with guff. OK, bye. I amo not going to waste any more of my time debating this seriously with you. I might take the piss out of you in the future, but I wont waste intelligent debate on someone not capable of handling it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Actually the graph only shows the CO2 concentration in one layer, the mid-troposphere, not the concentration at lower or higher altitudes. The point is that it's not evenly distributed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
fat_boy wrote:
But YOU recemtly stated the differenc eisnt that great. Why the chanmge of tune now? Is it because you have William to back you up?
Because CO2 is one of the smaller effects on temperature... Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. A large difference in concentration will still only give a small temperature change. It doesn't need to be a 10-degree difference to signify global warming. Even a 1-degree increase will drastically change climate patterns.
fat_boy wrote:
No I am not because CO2 really kicked off post war, thats when a lot of the rest of the world industrialised. And yet, even with al that CO2, the temperatures fell for 25 years or so.
Again and again, you're picking arbitrary dates. The temperatures have fallen since 30 years ago. They've risen since one year ago. They've fallen since 59.2 years ago. They've risen since the last ice age. The climate changes in cycles, so a mere decrease in temperature, especially in one reason, doesn't mean CO2 is having no effect. IF it is decreasing, then the question is whether it's decreasing more or less than it should be. Again I'll use the economy as an example of cyclical behavior. If we suspect a factor that increases it by 1% per year, and it drops 5% this year, does that mean the factor isn't there, or would it have decreased by 6% otherwise? If it increases by 5%, does that mean it's 4% plus our possible factor, or did it just increase by 5% because the factor wasn't there?
fat_boy wrote:
Good. This is a start, And if it is not proven by FACTS. Then the theory is unproved. Thuis AGW is NOT happening.
Unproven does not mean false. Unproven means unknown. DISPROVEN means false. A lack of conclusive evidence on either side, means that we DO NOT KNOW the answer yet. Also, keep in mind that there are two issues at play here. 1) Is global warming occurring, whether natural or artificial? 2) If so, is industrialization the cause? From what I've seen and heard, I was under the impression that #1 was understood to be probably true, and #2 was the real question.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of GuardiaIan Shlasko wrote:
Even a 1-degree increase will drastically change climate patterns.
So says fear theory. Actually, and the IPCC knows this, there is no evidence that wamring cause a 'drastic shift in weather paterns' Tell me, where did you pick this phrase up from, the TV?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The climate changes in cycles, so a mere decrease in temperature, especially in one reason, doesn't mean CO2 is having no effect. IF it is decreasing, then the question is whether it's decreasing more or less than it should be.
But it DOES mean that CO2 is a minor player whose effect is dwarfed by other factors. So WHAT is the point limiting it?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again I'll use the economy as an example of cyclical behavior
No please dont.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Unproven does not mean false. Unproven means unknown. DISPROVEN means false. A lack of conclusive evidence on either side, means that we DO NOT KNOW the answer yet.
Ah, Zen and the art of triplistic logic. Makes great philosophy, but not such good science. Fact is, if it isnt prooved, its disproved. thats fualistic logic.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Is global warming occurring, whether natural or artificial?
Well, like I said, its not globally warming, just part of the globe warming. As for whether its man made, if ots warmed to the same degree at the same rate before when CO2 wasnt being produced by man then it is vey likely its the same cyclic process at play.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
Don't bother. A more self assured pompous ignoramus is hard to find. I advise you to not spend any time arguing with him, as it'll only drain your energy for no good. He's like a hard core religious guy - no matter what you say, he'll always find some obscure scripture passage that "proves" his case. If you ask him the whole picture, you won't get any response other than "GW is a hoax, because I don't even want to begin to take any responsibility for anything".
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
OK, go find some graph of high and low layers if you like. I am all ears.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ask me in a couple years when the latest study finishes... Supposedly they have a bunch of satellites up there mapping it out now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Even a 1-degree increase will drastically change climate patterns.
So says fear theory. Actually, and the IPCC knows this, there is no evidence that wamring cause a 'drastic shift in weather paterns' Tell me, where did you pick this phrase up from, the TV?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The climate changes in cycles, so a mere decrease in temperature, especially in one reason, doesn't mean CO2 is having no effect. IF it is decreasing, then the question is whether it's decreasing more or less than it should be.
But it DOES mean that CO2 is a minor player whose effect is dwarfed by other factors. So WHAT is the point limiting it?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again I'll use the economy as an example of cyclical behavior
No please dont.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Unproven does not mean false. Unproven means unknown. DISPROVEN means false. A lack of conclusive evidence on either side, means that we DO NOT KNOW the answer yet.
Ah, Zen and the art of triplistic logic. Makes great philosophy, but not such good science. Fact is, if it isnt prooved, its disproved. thats fualistic logic.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Is global warming occurring, whether natural or artificial?
Well, like I said, its not globally warming, just part of the globe warming. As for whether its man made, if ots warmed to the same degree at the same rate before when CO2 wasnt being produced by man then it is vey likely its the same cyclic process at play.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
But it DOES mean that CO2 is a minor player whose effect is dwarfed by other factors. So WHAT is the point limiting it?
As you've been told many times, it doesn't take much to tip the balance.
fat_boy wrote:
Ah, Zen and the art of triplistic logic. Makes great philosophy, but not such good science. Fact is, if it isnt prooved, its disproved. thats fualistic logic.
Tell that to all of the agnostics out there. There is such a thing as "Unknown."
fat_boy wrote:
As for whether its man made, if ots warmed to the same degree at the same rate before when CO2 wasnt being produced by man then it is vey likely its the same cyclic process at play.
You're absolutely correct. When we have a conclusive study to determine this, we'll know the answer.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
I think you need to find a new field of study before you get tarred and feathered.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Don't bother. A more self assured pompous ignoramus is hard to find. I advise you to not spend any time arguing with him, as it'll only drain your energy for no good. He's like a hard core religious guy - no matter what you say, he'll always find some obscure scripture passage that "proves" his case. If you ask him the whole picture, you won't get any response other than "GW is a hoax, because I don't even want to begin to take any responsibility for anything".
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Kind of like Climate Cultists. I would just like to stomp and grind them with my boot as a clench my teeth.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
William Winner wrote:
You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and
You feel that only because he supports your futile cause. You filthy Climate Cultists are FINISHED!@:mad:
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ah such well-founded debate. Thank you for that...gave me a little chuckle this morning! Did I say anything about how you make your money? Umm...no...I was talking about educational background. As in, what is your formal training in? And you're question about how much "meteorology" have I studied shows just how little you understand what "environmental science" is or this debate. Meteorology is the study of weather. From Wikipedia: "Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology)." Note the "in contrast with climatology". We're talking climate not weather. And, you can bet that anyone with an environmental anything degree has had the basics of the greenhouse effect and the effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]." EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale. And, yeah, I'm "trained" to "test" theories using scientific techniques. But to begin to "test" a theory, you first have to understand it, which you clearly do not. And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:39 PM
You piece of shit Climate Cultists need to be stripped of your humanity and repeatedly whipped with an electric jellyfish whip by s snarling crowd.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]