An Inconvenient Hypocrite

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 27, 2007.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    How does it compare to similar swatches of time period from previous time points?

    Are such inconsistencies ( I believe that in the period 1970 to 2000, sunspot cycle length only accounts for half the global warming) also seen in previous timepoints?

    PS. Have you read Eats Shoots & Leaves? Your abuse of the apostrophe is criminal.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Why was this thread moved? It's not really about Global Warming, but rather Al Gore's hypocracy?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    Is it? Check your facts.

    Go ahead. I'll wait.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    It mutated into a thread about global warming.

    That Al Gore is an idiot was a pretty short conversation.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,522
    Just to shortcut Mr. G's obfuscation, average global temperatures are affected both by the activity of the sun and by the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere.

    Mr. G's graph is irrelevant, since the variation in solar activity is bound to swamp the carbon dioxide effects over the given time period.

    What happens when you factor out the effects of varying solar activity, Mr. G?
     
  9. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    James R

    You hit the nail on the head, the solar activity overrides carbon effect at any time, to factor out the solar activity is to stack the deck, and that is what is happen with so much of the information being used to try and show that global warming is man made, or man has a effect on it. The sun drives our tides, and deep currents, which affect El Nino, La Niña cycles, which affect the weather cycles in the Americas and probably the rest of the world, and there are current in the rest of the oceans that have the same effect, and that is the problem, any projection made by the Global Warming alarmist has to much information missing to be usable for the type of prediction that are being made, to make them work they have to take information out of the calculations, not put information in, and they don't know all the variables in the process.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    It seemed to be concerned with the facts of global warming, rather than politics.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Gotta protect those Dems.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,522
    Oh yeah. Those climatologist guys would purposely forget to factor in the largest contributor to mean temperatures!

    I believe you.
     
  13. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    The graph is not mine. The graph's author is not my minion.
    Umm, let's see.

    The sun stops radiating variably. *Sun Off* Atmospheric carbon dioxide freezes on the ground.

    Okay. Now, let's measure the human contribution to global warming again.

    Oh, that's right. No solar energy, no global warming and no man-made man-made component of global warming.

    When you factor out solar variability you get a planet of historical uniform temperature. Like that has ever been a reality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2007
  14. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,417
    Oh Jamesy, you came and you gave me a tur-key
    On my vacation away from Danesy

    Oh Jamesy I stop and I think that you're cra-zy
    When you tell me you'll drive my Mrs Daisy

    Through a tunnel with your meced-es
    Okay thats enough.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,522
    I wasn't referring to your graph.

    Not true, since carbon dioxide levels also affect global temperatures.


    You and Mr. G ought to get together. You make a great pair.
     
  16. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    As do water vapor and bovine flatulence -- itself not dissimilar to leftie politicking (a relief for some, an irritant for others).
     
  17. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Perhaps, but how much? This is not known.

    Even if the current CO2 levels were to double, that would only mean an increase from 0.04 to 0.08 percent of the total atmosphere.
     
  18. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    Which is why we're supposed to shut the fuck up -- so that whatever numbers they come up with are arguably unassailable a priori.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,522
    I'm fairly sure it is known.

    Climatologists have studied the correlations between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures over periods of millions of years, using ice cores and other methods.
     
  20. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    How would it be known? There has been no scientific testing of this hypothesis on any significant level. No controlled experimens and no oversight. It was an idea that without any testing became theory and without any testing evolved to truth.


    Well I am a bit skeptical about that as well. Did you know that any air trapped in ice is considered 86 years newer than the ice it is trapped in. This was done becuase measure CO2 from Greenland, Alaska, Antartica and so on did not match up with projections made by climatologists. So they found a projected date that matched their measurements and made a rule that the air in Ice is 86 years younger than the ice. Does anyone else here sense a problem with this thinking?
     
  21. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The reason it is NOT known is because there is no way to test it. The vast complexity of the biosphere cannot be shrunk down to a laboratory sized experiment.

    The ice core correlations between CO2 and temperature have been measured over approx. 800,000 years, not millions.

    If you go back millions of years you discover that we are presently experiencing the lowest CO2 levels in history, relatively speaking.

    If you go back far enough you'll find an atmosphere that was mostly CO2, methane and water vapour. Oxygen only appeared with the dawn of plant life.

    The correlation from the ice core evidence does not
    prove that C02 levels are a 'cause' of higher temperatures, in fact it demonstrates that they may be an effect, because they lag behind increases in temperature by approx. 800 years.
     
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    So now Gore comes to make his big speech and he was asked to sign the following pledge:
    Big surprise, he refused.
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca
     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Small comfort. Most of the animals and plants existing today are adapted to this climate.
     

Share This Page