If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

 420 More: Obvious
•       •       •

4425 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:13 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

david_gaithersburg: Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Climate change scientist billionaires are the 1%.

Cyclometh: NobleHam: GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

You... didn't read any of the actual data, did you? I'm assuming this because of all the assumptions you made which aren't even tangentially connected to the data we're looking at. For one thing, the NOAA document the article references has no references of its own more recent than 2008 and no links to data tables for the numbers its cites.

There are a number of discrepancies that climate change alarmists have yet to explain.

For one, the lagging of ...

Holy farking dogshiat, son... just look at how stupid you are!

And this is coming from a notoriously nice Farker. So, you may want to take note NH.

Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.

NobleHam: log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

Do you honestly think that this claptrap is going to fly? This isn't reddit.

Cyclometh:

Holy farking dogshiat, son... just look at how stupid you are!

Nice. Feel free to get back to me when you have something.

JohnnyC: NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.

Compared to a land surface subject to the same heating, an ocean surface should

A. have a larger seasonal temperature range
B. have a higher summer temperature
C. have a lower winter temperature
D. have a seasonal temperature cycle lagging behind the land's seasonal temperature cycle

You're right. There are just a couple of issues. In a warming global climate the higher summer temperature would outweigh the lower winter temperature. We're not seeing that. We're seeing ocean temperature averages not shifting as much as land temperature averages, and I'm not talking about lagging behind, I'm talking about the yearly and monthly temperatures swinging back to the cooler side of average every so often. We're not looking at a steady but slightly behind warming in oceanic temperatures, we're looking at temperatures which simply contradict the picture presented by land data.

I think a lot of liberals feel obligated to support climate alarmists because it's been presented as the scientific side, but too many take an unscientific approach to the data. Rather than asking questions and pointing out discrepancies they blindly accept data they don't understand and mock people who understand it better than they do simply because "the consensus" tells them they should.

Bontesla: And this is coming from a notoriously nice Farker. So, you may want to take note NH

To be fair, being nice has nothing to do with being right, but I appreciate the copliment.:)

Cyclometh: NobleHam: log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

Do you honestly think that this claptrap is going to fly? This isn't reddit.

Again, do you have a specific problem with what I said or does it just not jibe with your worldview?

GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

Below the average 20th century temp. Or, probably, the 1950s+ average temp (when we had satellites for global averaging) would be my guess. As others have pointed out, it's been significantly warmer and colder in the past.

Not that it's not worth some concern, but the "everybody panic" bit is maybe some oversell there.

NobleHam: Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity.

cool. so where is your data for those areas that show the MWP was in fact global?

NobleHam: The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites.

lie.

NobleHam: And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

no he doesn't. try again.

david_gaithersburg: Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.

Lol calling them facts does not actually convince people (other than you) that you're presenting actual facts.

The Fark community has danced with you many times on this particular subject and you just double down in your scientific skepticism. Why would I want to play that number again? This isn't Casablanca.

Finally, suggesting that you're chicken pecking at a keyboard in your parents' basement isn't name calling. If I were to suggest that you were an idiot then I would be name calling.

Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

True that, it's gonna be a shame when we lose the Greenland ice sheets it's gonna be a real tragedy if we lose the Antarctic ice.

david_gaithersburg: I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.

I've got a fact.

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature. The last below-average month was February 1985. The last October with a below-average temperature was 1976.

the citation is the the article at the top of the page. Prove that fact wrong.

david_gaithersburg: Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.

Your facts and citations are debunked bullshiat. Your chart is from Craig Loehle's preliminary, unrevised or edited, humiliating, peer-failing paper. He subsequently consulted a statistician and his results are now consistent with the accepted theories. Get it?

PEER REVIEWED & ACCEPTED studies

NobleHam: Cyclometh: NobleHam: log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

Do you honestly think that this claptrap is going to fly? This isn't reddit.

Again, do you have a specific problem with what I said or does it just not jibe with your worldview?

Do I look like a teacher, chucklenuts? I'm not here to debate your stupid ass, I am here to mock and deride you for having bad ideas and worse arguments.

log_jammin: NobleHam: Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity.

cool. so where is your data for those areas that show the MWP was in fact global?

NobleHam: The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites.

lie.

NobleHam: And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

no he doesn't. try again.

Well if you're just going to be dishonest I don't know what the point is, but no it isn't a lie, and yeah he does, re-watch your own video if you doubt me, or hell, look at the actual Ljungqvist or Mann papers. I assume it's probably something you saw a few months ago and don't actually remember, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to try it again.

As for the data on the MWP being global, your man reluctantly presents some himself at the end of the video. The more important thing though is that all of the historical data we have, and I mean not just from Europe but from China and India and every other culture with writing, not to mention archaeological evidence of famines in the 14th and 15th centuries, points to it being an unusually warm period. In trying to adjust for this climate alarmists have sought data from other, undocumented areas, but their methodologies have been flawed as I mentioned above.

NobleHam: climate alarmists

"We have data that we believe proves rather conclusively that global temperatures are rising."

"Alarmist! Chicken Little! Liberal plot!"

...

wat

log_jammin: NobleHam: Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity.

cool. so where is your data for those areas that show the MWP was in fact global?

NobleHam: The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites.

lie.

NobleHam: And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

no he doesn't. try again.

You can't reason someone out of a position that they never reasoned themselves into.

That's the problem. It's pretty obvious that NH has researched the subject. But he's researched it to confirm his existing bias and not to discover anything that may disprove his bias.

So, NH creates two standards he'll use to evaluate the evidence. The first standard will be set low and he'll use it to confirm his bias. The second standard will be insulated with a layer of skepticism. Ultimately, there is very little evidence that would ever pass that test.

In all honesty, weather it's man-made or natural (pun intended obviously), will there be a change in how mankind approaches climate change?

No, there will not be. There are things we could do. Reduce emissions, smarter use of resources/farmland, etc. But no significant changes will be made.

There is great talk of the "fiscal cliff" quickly approaching, but zero serious talk about ensuring that mankind can move forward intelligently.

Then again, what may happen in the future? For one, Yellowstone is sure to go within the next 100 or 1000 or 10000 or so years. That ought to decimate a good majority (myself included if I'm still kicking). And if that doesn't happen, something else will. It's our destiny. More than likely as clean water for drinking and irrigation becomes more scarce over time, large wars will break out which will accomplish the same. Quite frankly, I propose we burn off all of our fossil fuels now rather than later, and let the chips fall where they may. I wish I had an idealistic view on the future of mankind, but all we have done is wage war against each other since the dawn of mankind, and that is not about to change. Add to the mix clean water problems, clean air problems, current wars, industrial production, everyone laughing at smart cars (well deserved but still), where are we headed?

Even in this country, the United States of America, nearly half of the populace voted for Romntard, the anti-thesis of the solution. Recycle all you want, turn off your key at the drive-through, vote for peace rather than war, but the march of mankind will see this through to the end, for better or worse.

Our only hope is to learn how to live in space (the far future), yet we cannot even fund NASA to a tenth of the extent required.

Eventually the sun will swallow our lovely blue planet Earth, and all of our remains will be vaporized in the ensuing fireball.

NobleHam: Well if you're just going to be dishonest

Oh brother.

you know what Bontesla? You're 100% right. I need to keep reminding myself to not bother with these people.

NobleHam: look at the actual Ljungqvist or Mann papers

It's been a warmer than average week in Lake Wobegon. Fred Ljungqvist snuck on down to the Sidetrack Tap to sip on a cold one, and contemplate what that might mean.

Bontesla:
That's the problem. It's pretty obvious that NH has researched the subject. But he's researched it to confirm his existing bias and not to discover anything that may disprove his bias.

So, NH creates two standards he'll use to evaluate the evidence. The first standard will be set low and he'll use it to confirm his bias. The second standard will be insulated with a layer of skepticism. Ultimately, there is very little evidence that would ever pass that test.

Sure, I have some bias. So do those on the other side of the issue, particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis. Based on my knowledge of greenhouse gases I find it very hard to believe that the increase we have seen in CO2 levels thus far could possibly be responsible for a greater than 1 degree F rise in temperatures. Even including methane doesn't account for the increases which some studies claim we've seen so far. Those studies are flawed as I have mentioned above. If I'm wrong, and if they're right, I still don't believe CO2 is responsible. I think it's more likely that the heat we have produced on Earth through combustion is a more likely source of global warming than any heat trapped by greenhouse gases, the levels of which are still far too low to produce any significant warming, particularly over such a short period of time.

sendtodave: NobleHam: climate alarmists

"We have data that we believe proves rather conclusively that global temperatures are rising."

"Alarmist! Chicken Little! Liberal plot!"

Call me a denier, call me unscientific, call me an idiot or ignorant, and I'm not supposed to have any name for you? I try to be as respectful as possible, but "believers" just seems too religious a term, and most names I could use for those who believe the so-called consensus would only serve to validate their views. So ignore the names I use, if you will, and pay attention to my points.

How has it been getting warmer for 331 consecutive months, but the warmest October ever was in 2003?

Oh wait, I answered my own question. It's 331 above-average months, not "consecutively warmer" months. Mah bad.

sendtodave: Jesda: Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.

And libertarian-bent conservatives still don't understand how to deal with externalities.

Hint: It rhymes with "beg two Haitians."

The liberal answer to everything is to tax, regulate, control, and drive human subjects into caves.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-w a rming-fact-quiz/

MOHWowbagger: How has it been getting warmer for 331 consecutive months, but the warmest October ever was in 2003?

It didn't say getting warmer, it said that it's been above average for 332 months. If it was cold for 80 years and warm for 20, the last 20 would all be above average even if if year 85 was warmer than year 90.

Enjoy those droughts, floods, and superstorms, skeptics. deniers. anti-science ignoramuses.

Bonanza Jellybean: Enjoy those droughts, floods, and superstorms, skeptics. deniers. anti-science ignoramuses.

Unfortunately, we all get to share in those, one way or the other.

Climatology is a Religion.

NobleHam: particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis.

"I know you may have your heart set on climate sciences, son, but always keep in mind that unless you can prove that global temperatures are rising, your doctorate degree will be pretty much useless. Unless you 'cook the books', so to speak, you'll likely end serving Frappiccinos at Starbucks. Might I suggest you pursue geology, instead?"

NobleHam: So ignore the names I use, if you will, and pay attention to my points.

Oh, I am! They make me chuckle.

Kriggerel: What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Of course, there's some real double-down irony in that, seeing has how vaguely-cloaked anti-semitism has once again become extremely chic in intellectual circles, and holocaust denial is once again rearing its head and sniffing around, especially in the "Israeli Apartheid Week" circles.

What I find so very telling is that the purple teletubby was gay. I specifically refer to the way that nobody besides Big Bird can see Snuffleupagus. I offer as proof the fact that purple crayons are even more delicious than orange crayons.

That makes as much sense as your ridiculous post.

Jesda: sendtodave: Jesda: Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.

And libertarian-bent conservatives still don't understand how to deal with externalities.

Hint: It rhymes with "beg two Haitians."

The liberal answer to everything is to tax, regulate, control, and drive human subjects into caves.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-w a rming-fact-quiz/

u troll me

sendtodave: NobleHam: particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis.

"I know you may have your heart set on climate sciences, son, but always keep in mind that unless you can prove that global temperatures are rising, your doctorate degree will be pretty much useless. Unless you 'cook the books', so to speak, you'll likely end serving Frappiccinos at Starbucks. Might I suggest you pursue geology, instead?"

It's not about use vs. uselessness, it's about relevance vs. irrelevance, and human selfishness and arrogance. Any truly scientific climatologist will admit that they don't have a sufficient sample size to draw conclusions. Of course, I doubt there are any actual climatologists in this thread, just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?

NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

the science bandwagon? wow.

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?

Nope. Personal responsibility is for other people.

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?

For the record, I'm a gay UU liberal. My problem is with the data, not the idea.

It rained yesterday in farking Laramie Wyoming. On November 17th. In Laramie. Wyoming. That shiat's not normal.

log_jammin: NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

the science bandwagon? wow.

"'Science' bandwagon" not "science bandwagon." My point is their conclusion isn't scientific, they just support it to seem like they're on the rational side because they're told that people who actually ARE scientists all agree on it, even when that's not true.

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?

Collective choices?

NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

the science bandwagon? wow.

"'Science' bandwagon" not "science bandwagon." My point is their conclusion isn't scientific, they just support it to seem like they're on the rational side because they're told that people who actually ARE scientists all agree on it, even when that's not true.

viscountalpha: Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

Please explain the global fluctuation of ozone, in reference to large areas of no ozone in the last 50 years, using natural sources only.

NobleHam: Sure, I have some bias. So do those on the other side of the issue, particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis. Based on my knowledge of greenhouse gases I find it very hard to believe that the increase we have seen in CO2 levels thus far could possibly be responsible for a greater than 1 degree F rise in temperatures. Even including methane doesn't account for the increases which some studies claim we've seen so far. Those studies are flawed as I have mentioned above. If I'm wrong, and if they're right, I still don't believe CO2 is responsible. I think it's more likely that the heat we have produced on Earth through combustion is a more likely source of global warming than any heat trapped by greenhouse gases, the levels of which are still far too low to produce any significant warming, particularly over such a short period of time.

It sure is nice to know that you don't think CO2 is responsible. I'm sure you'll provide a detailed explanation of that assertion any minute now.

In the meantime, here is the strength of the forcing from CO2 and other sources:

NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.

zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

the science bandwagon? wow.

"'Science' bandwagon" not "science bandwagon." My point is their conclusion isn't scientific, they just support it to seem like they're on the rational side because they're told that people who actually ARE scientists all agree on it, even when that's not true.

Thanks, I've always thought I had some boyish charm.

But if you're not serious, I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.

This is why I say we should terraform mars.
Because its apparently easier to change a planets climate than anyone believes, and it would give us a backup world for when we inevitably screw the earth over.

/The question isn't whether the weather changes, but what is causing it to change and if there is anything we can do about it.
/Politicians wont give up the research money or get rid of their environmentalist cash cow by taking responsibility for the problem.
/I also doubt that scientists will agree on any course of action even if (especially when) a few billion were made available to choose one.

Dude, why do I need to challenge you? Reality is doing a fine job of it on its own (not to mention loads of others in this thread). I'm just here to poke fun at the morons.

I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.

also not a scientific conclusion.

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?

The issue goes beyond physical science and into economics which is why it's so controversial.

It's about who owns and controls the means of production. The popular liberal approach is to use government to control the entire market. The right wing approach is to ignore the consequences. The libertarian approach is to let the courts deal with liabilities for damages rather than using too-often abusive and wasteful bureaucracies and agencies.

On a slightly unrelated note, "Scientism" has become a religion of its own, though it's certainly more favorable than worshipping Xenu. People who don't understand academia, how data are collected, how research is published, and how research grants are earned are inclined to blindly say "THE SCIENTISTS SAID" without understanding statistics, the theories, or how they were analyzed. That's arguably a product of the grade school textbooks we grew up with which often declared "Scientists say," without going into further detail or exploring controversies or differing opinions and conclusions. Textbooks tend to emphasize information retention over knowledge and analysis. But again, this is blind ideological allegiance to "science" is probably preferable to "Jesus says..."

david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Actually it wasn't scientists, but a republican strategist that coined the more warm and fuzzy term "climate change"

Baryogenesis: NobleHam: Sure, I have some bias. So do those on the other side of the issue, particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis. Based on my knowledge of greenhouse gases I find it very hard to believe that the increase we have seen in CO2 levels thus far could possibly be responsible for a greater than 1 degree F rise in temperatures. Even including methane doesn't account for the increases which some studies claim we've seen so far. Those studies are flawed as I have mentioned above. If I'm wrong, and if they're right, I still don't believe CO2 is responsible. I think it's more likely that the heat we have produced on Earth through combustion is a more likely source of global warming than any heat trapped by greenhouse gases, the levels of which are still far too low to produce any significant warming, particularly over such a short period of time.

It sure is nice to know that you don't think CO2 is responsible. I'm sure you'll provide a detailed explanation of that assertion any minute now.

In the meantime, here is the strength of the forcing from CO2 and other sources:

[www.realclimate.org image 594x459]

That graph is based on a study of warming over the last 30 years which assumed as a given that CO2 was the primary source of warming and looked only at greenhouse gas increases vs. solar activity. I'm not one of those "deniers" who says that solar activity is the source of warming. I do, however, dispute their findings on the rise in temperature over the last 30 years for reasons I have already explained in this thread. If we are assuming a rise of greater than 1 degree F over the last 30 years, and we are focusing solely on greenhouse gases for an explanation, then their conclusions are sound. They are, however, limited to those conditions, and are contradictory to data we have on the effects of atmospheric CO2 on temperatures on other planets and moons related to corresponding levels of solar energy. Simply put, everywhere we look but here, CO2 is not that powerful of a greenhouse gas. So either there's a flaw in our data everywhere else, or there's a different source of warming here that is only related to CO2 levels by correlation.

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.