Global warming, smobal warming!

[BlazerWookee]

It doesn't matter whether or not the planet is warming. Al Gore accomplished what he set out to do, and that was to become a billionaire by doing with Climate Change what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Calypso Louie did with racial tension: Demonize, extort, profit, repeat.

 

[julius]

It doesn't matter whether or not the planet is warming. Al Gore accomplished what he set out to do, and that was to become a billionaire by doing with Climate Change what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Calypso Louie did with racial tension: Demonize, extort, profit, repeat.

well, for starters, he's not a billionaire, but secondly, I think better examples of using those tactics (demonize, extort, profit, repeat) would be Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Bill Maher.

About a 3rd of his net worth (he's worth about 300 million) came from the sell of Current TV.

So..yeah. there's that.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The only way causation can be right is if you ignore that actual data.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...e-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/

It's too funny that you again cite the same writer who so clearly slaughtered the last article you posted that you tried to disassociate yourself with that article by inferring that you posted it as a joke. And then you post another one of his articles?

But let's not attack the writer as you mentioned before, let's attack the article. You say The only way causation can be right is if you ignore that actual data. funny because this writer makes conclusions while ignoring the actual data:

Your contention is an error. NCDC, NASA, and CRU all show a statistically significant warming trend, despite both a solar minima and increased volcanic activity. What’s more, paleoclimate indicators also indicate a consistent temperature rise. I’m not sure where your claim that there’s been no warming since 1995 is coming from, since all of the data indicates the contrary.

The fact that carbon dioxide traps heat in gaseous mixtures, and traps more heat as its concentration in such a mixture increases has been consistently experimentally demonstrated since the mid-19th century. What’s more, as F. Parrenin et al, demonstrated in their paper in Science earlier this month, the last major glacial melt was ALSO preceded by a significant rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

I suggest you consult your sources, as they appear to be leading you astray on two simple, experimentally demonstrated facts: 1) carbon dioxide traps heat and 2) there has been a statistically significant warming trend for the past several decades.

So go ahead and defend the article for awhile until you realize the writer is writing junk and then get out saying you were only kidding.

Edit: and I know I have been all over you these days papag and telling myself to stop . . . but what the hell is up with some of these posts

 

[BlazerWookee]

well, for starters, he's not a billionaire, but secondly, I think better examples of using those tactics (demonize, extort, profit, repeat) would be Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Bill Maher.

About a 3rd of his net worth (he's worth about 300 million) came from the sell of Current TV.

So..yeah. there's that.

LOL! Who did any of those people extort money from?

 

[PapaG]

well, for starters, he's not a billionaire, but secondly, I think better examples of using those tactics (demonize, extort, profit, repeat) would be Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Bill Maher.

About a 3rd of his net worth (he's worth about 300 million) came from the sell of Current TV.

So..yeah. there's that.

The sale of Current TV to oil-producing countries, and money gained via oil? Some might consider that blood money, considering how anti-fossil fuel Gore perports to be.

Al Gore is a charlatan and a con man. The guy talks non-stop about oceans rising, yet he builds a 10,000 sq. ft. estate on the beach in 2010.

 

[PapaG]

It's too funny that you again cite the same writer who so clearly slaughtered the last article you posted that you tried to disassociate yourself with that article by inferring that you posted it as a joke. And then you post another one of his articles?

But let's not attack the writer as you mentioned before, let's attack the article. You say The only way causation can be right is if you ignore that actual data. funny because this writer makes conclusions while ignoring the actual data:

Your contention is an error. NCDC, NASA, and CRU all show a statistically significant warming trend, despite both a solar minima and increased volcanic activity. What’s more, paleoclimate indicators also indicate a consistent temperature rise. I’m not sure where your claim that there’s been no warming since 1995 is coming from, since all of the data indicates the contrary.

The fact that carbon dioxide traps heat in gaseous mixtures, and traps more heat as its concentration in such a mixture increases has been consistently experimentally demonstrated since the mid-19th century. What’s more, as F. Parrenin et al, demonstrated in their paper in Science earlier this month, the last major glacial melt was ALSO preceded by a significant rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

I suggest you consult your sources, as they appear to be leading you astray on two simple, experimentally demonstrated facts: 1) carbon dioxide traps heat and 2) there has been a statistically significant warming trend for the past several decades.

So go ahead and defend the article for awhile until you realize the writer is writing junk and then get out saying you were only kidding.

Edit: and I know I have been all over you these days papag and telling myself to stop . . . but what the hell is up with some of these posts

Temperatures are stagnant. CO2 emissions are rising. Hence, there is no causation. A post on a message board, without any links, is just more propaganda. Temperatures have not been steadily climbing in proportion with CO2 emissions over the last 15 years. This is a fact.

 

[PapaG]

n a February 2010 interview with the BBC, Phil Jones was asked:

BBC: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

Bummer, man. The Global Warming fraud is religion to some of you.

 

[PapaG]

ToB, it would be nice if you would link the annual climb in temperature since 1998, and how it looks next to the rise in CO2.

Hint - it's not a causal relationship.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Temperatures are stagnant. CO2 emissions are rising. Hence, there is no causation. A post on a message board, without any links, is just more propaganda. Temperatures have not been steadily climbing in proportion with CO2 emissions over the last 15 years. This is a fact.

Propaganda . . . you mean like the opinion article you linked that is wrong on so many levels. You know like when you posted that about the "scientific study" he wrote about that ended up not being a scientific study but a study of engineers in the oil industry justifying their jobs. I'm surprised you read anything this writer writes after he pulled a fast one on you and had you starting a thread with his article title only to find out his title was completely misleading and wrong.

 

[julius]

ToB, it would be nice if you would link the annual climb in temperature since 1998, and how it looks next to the rise in CO2.

Hint - it's not a causal relationship.

I love how you chose 1998.

how convenient.

btw, think LONG term, not short term. I realize that if you look long term you see that isolating short periods that would benefit your viewpoint while masking the bigger picture.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

ToB, it would be nice if you would link the annual climb in temperature since 1998, and how it looks next to the rise in CO2.

Hint - it's not a causal relationship.

I would like to believe what you say, but you back up your argument by linking this person's article. I don't know what is right or wrong on global warming, but I do know that guy has a serious agenda and completely misreads data to help support his position. But part of his job as an opinion writer is to stir shit up, so who is to blame him. I'm surprised you keep use him as you source to prove your points.

But if a link is what you want, here is a little light reading for you:

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Parrenin_Science_2013.pdf

 

[PapaG]

Propaganda . . . you mean like the opinion article you linked that is wrong on so many levels. You know like when you posted that about the "scientific study" he wrote about that ended up not being a scientific study but a study of engineers in the oil industry justifying their jobs. I'm surprised you read anything this writer writes after he pulled a fast one on you and had you starting a thread with his article title only to find out his title was completely misleading and wrong.

The opinion article had links to actual data. That you didn't read it is not my problem. Find me the data that shows CO2 increases are a primary cause of temperatures rising over the last 15 years. If it's so simple, why won't you post the data?

 

[PapaG]

 

[PapaG]

I love how you chose 1998.

how convenient.

btw, think LONG term, not short term. I realize that if you look long term you see that isolating short periods that would benefit your viewpoint while masking the bigger picture.

What is the baseline in that graph? It doesn't show temperature. I love that it starts in 1975. Why not chart 1930-1945? Oh wait, I know why...

"Think long-term". OK, if the present doesn't show a causal relationship between CO2 and rising temperature, then why have any certitude in a long-term causal relationship?

1930-34 had much less in terms of CO2 emissions, yet temps were similar to today's. Why? Answer me that, please.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The opinion article had links to actual data. That you didn't read it is not my problem. Find me the data that shows CO2 increases are a primary cause of temperatures rising over the last 15 years. If it's so simple, why won't you post the data?

It's not simple, my point is when you rely on that idiot to prove a point, that isn't credible stuff.

Forgive me if I don't feel like going through that writer's data. Last time we found out the writer completely mislead with both the title and his conclusions from the data he supplied. Don't feel like plowing through his data to figure out he again is misleading his readers.

Last time you were the expert on reading charts and said it's OK if I'm not good at it you just happen to have experience reading charts from your time in the medical field. And yet you didn't even catch that his study was based on responses only from people in the oil industry. Through that experience I'm skeptical on both how this writer and how you read data.


But I did supply a link above that looks just a tad more credible than Mr. Taylor's analysis:


Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear
knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly
resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years.
Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and
Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores.
We infer the phasing between CO2
concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times
when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating
that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of
atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

Analyses of polar ice cores have shown
that the concentration of atmospheric
CO2 (aCO2) and surface air temperature
are closely related and that they have risen and
fallen in tandem over most of the past 800,000
years. However . . .

This topic is anything but simple for us non scientist. You're not going to pretend you completely understand all this, are you? I know you have training reading charts and all but . .

 

[julius]

What is the baseline in that graph? It doesn't show temperature. I love that it starts in 1975. Why not chart 1930-1945? Oh wait, I know why...

"Think long-term". OK, if the present doesn't show a causal relationship between CO2 and rising temperature, then why have any certitude in a long-term causal relationship?

1930-34 had much less in terms of CO2 emissions, yet temps were similar to today's. Why? Answer me that, please.

Google 1998 and global temperature and you'll see why you chose 1998.

I'm willing to bet if you had a chart that showed from 1900-present day it would continue the chart that I posted.

 

[PapaG]

It's not simple, my point is when you rely on that idiot to prove a point, that isn't credible stuff.

Forgive me if I don't feel like going through that writer's data. Last time we found out the writer completely mislead with both the title and his conclusions from the data he supplied. Don't feel like plowing through his data to figure out he again is misleading his readers.

Last time you were the expert on reading charts and said it's OK if I'm not good at it you just happen to have experience reading charts from your time in the medical field. And yet you didn't even catch that his study was based on responses only from people in the oil industry. Through that experience I'm skeptical on both how this writer and how you read data.

The old 'if you can't refute the message, destroy the messenger'. We'll just have to disagree. I'm confident in my readings of the data. If you believe that CO2 has a causal effect on temperatures rising, that's based on faith at this point, because the data simply is not there.

 

[PapaG]

Google 1998 and global temperature and you'll see why you chose 1998.

I'm willing to bet if you had a chart that showed from 1900-present day it would continue the chart that I posted.

The point is that CO2 emissions continue to grow, while temps have stagnated. That's not a causal relationship, no matter how hard you want to think it is. If more CO2 emitted means higher temperatures, at some point the data needs to support the claim. It simply doesn't, so now we are just supposed to act anyhow, just in case.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The old 'if you can't refute the message, destroy the messenger'. We'll just have to disagree. I'm confident in my readings of the data. If you believe that CO2 has a causal effect on temperatures rising, that's based on faith at this point, because the data simply is not there.

You and Mr. Taylor have this all figured out . . . just like in that last article you posted by him (or are you sticking with you were joking about posting that article . . . kind of have to because you didn't read that data correctly)

 

[julius]

Huh, strange...ever since early 1900's, temps have been going up.

How queer.

(ignore the crack about leprechauns).

 

[julius]

So...you were saying...

 

[Denny Crane]

So...you were saying...

Where did the glaciers go that carved out the Great Lakes?

 

[julius]

Where did the glaciers go that carved out the Great Lakes?

you're asking where the glaciers that carved out the GL's went? You mean like 10K + years ago (or whatever it was)? They eventually went into the ocean. Whats your point?

 

[BlazerWookee]

Google 1998 and global temperature and you'll see why you chose 1998.

I'm willing to bet if you had a chart that showed from 1900-present day it would continue the chart that I posted.

How many thermometers were around in 1900? How accurate were they?

 

[Denny Crane]

you're asking where the glaciers that carved out the GL's went? You mean like 10K + years ago (or whatever it was)? They eventually went into the ocean. Whats your point?

It wasn't 10K+ years ago.

There must have been warming back then, right? I mean it was cold enough for there to be glaciers, and then it was warm enough to melt them, right?

So.... how many motor cars burning fossil fuel were there back then?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It wasn't 10K+ years ago.

There must have been warming back then, right? I mean it was cold enough for there to be glaciers, and then it was warm enough to melt them, right?

So.... how many motor cars burning fossil fuel were there back then?

Is your contention that global warming as it naturally occurs comes in short, 100-year spikes like we're observing now?

 

[Denny Crane]

Is your contention that global warming as it naturally occurs comes in short, 100-year spikes like we're observing now?

From the glaciers we know already melted long before man was industrialized, it's plainly clear that there has been global warming going on for thousands of years. We know there was an ice age and that it basically ended 10,000 years ago.

I don't see any reason to expect the warming to be linear.

I think your 100-year spikes thing is a mathematical trick. Depends on how you scale the x and y axis.

 

[PapaG]

Huh, strange...ever since early 1900's, temps have been going up.

How queer.

(ignore the crack about leprechauns).

Again, that is DELTA temp.

 

[Denny Crane]

Richard A. Muller is not a global warming skeptic. The video is about 5 minutes. It's not going to be a waste of time to watch it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller

[video=youtube;8BQpciw8suk]

 

[jlprk]

Here you go, doubters!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/