This was an eye opener - cont.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Scooter, if you look at the CO2/Temp graph, your evidence is right there for the lag from temps going up and then CO2 going up. Look closely, that graph covers 450,000 years in a few inches so the two lines could be touching each other and that still could be a 100 year lag between the two, even if it were a 50 year lag that's enough to question the contribution that CO2 has on warming/cooling. But there are several obvious areas were the CO2 is rising while Temp is falling and vis versa. Those lag times are hundreds of years, but I'd have to break out a ruler and a calculator to be exact.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15419635#post15419635 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
The computer model issue has been dealt with here pretty well IMO by Scooter, so just read this thread and the one that was locked and you'll see why I don't trust them.
I love how you can throw out models because there are uncertainties. I could maybe understand if half of the models projected an increase in temp, and the other half projected down, but they almost unfailingly project up. Such denial.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15419635#post15419635 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Scientists who predict erradications of entire forests and tree species due to GW are irresponsible.
Plants grow in very specific climates, if the climate shifts, the plant's range shifts. It's very predictable, and is actually secondary evidence supporting warming (along with animal ranges).

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15419635#post15419635 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
The big ice sheets people keep talking about, Greenland, Antartica, the Himalayans, and the North Sea, are not shrinking. Greenland is melting along the edges, but increasing ice thickness in the middle, resulting in a net gain. The Ross ice shelf is losing mass, fairly quickly too. But the rest of the continent is gaining mass at an astonishing rate.
Warm water produces more snow, thereby thickening the ice.

I seriously can't believe that some people still debate whether there is warming. Boggles my mind.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15420554#post15420554 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
You mean red as in those soviet communists? Mikhail Gorbachev founded Green cross international and is a member of the Club of Rome, and Club of Madrid, all while living in San Francisco. There just might be something to that, maybe Hippie smell can chime in with his conspirator mind of his!:)
Hehe, maybe I will....

I better not. Well, there are conspiracies for just about everything, and the green movement has been viewed with suspicion by some people as a global land grab by the gov't. All in moderation I say.
 
holy hell this is getting annoying..fine i will spend all night scouring for the tidbits of reports, that if you had done any real research, should have already scene..

from NAS- "œIdentify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

"œrecognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost."

these are statements made at the g8 summat-

Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing

Launch an international study to explore scientifically-informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.

Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.

Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.

Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.

Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions

more from nas- "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
and -"It is important to recognize that while future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen almost twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly."

i am still looking for the other statemenst i wanted but.....

their you are....and please, let me give you an example of what i did.

if you said, i can't find the statistic, i heard about it on rush limbah, and then i found it on the nas website,which is not working well atm, but i can't find it now, would i debunk this statement because you orriginaly heard it from rush limbah??? no! because the source is the na flipping s! lol

where does it matter where i first heard of it? i am not preaching his teachings, i aknowledge that many of his arguments are fanatic, but he does the two best arguments a GW asserter can use well..

#1 the top scientist believe, and y wouldn't you believe scientist on a scientific issue?

and 2# it will be good for the economy to begin fighting global warming, jobs out of thin air.

he covers the first one well...and he realy makes an easy thing to dump the climate change is a hoax believers at school on, so i don't have to deal with them! XD
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15413974#post15413974 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44


Something else that depresses me is that Ctenophor is an example of probably millions more young Americans who are misguided.

lol misguided says the person who doesn't believe the majority of scientist on a scientific issue
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15418293#post15418293 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
What I wanted from Ctenophors was a little effort on his part. You can't have a debate with a person that doesn't want to inform themselves.

Scott

a little effort? you can't read the minds of scientist but you seem to be able to read my azy, naive, and ignorant teen age mind just fine...but maybe thats just because i am young and haen't developed the jedi mind defending trick the older scientist have.

(a ridiculous staement for another...lets call it an even trade?)
 
i realy wish that peoplewould stop grouping all kids into this stereotypical naive, big mouhted , repeat what their parents say brats. i mean, i will deign that the majority of kids my age are, but does that mean we should all be treated as such? i gave genuine, and good arguments, and as soon as you saw that i happened to see a source, a good source, from a guy who wears funny hats (who oh by the way was used, and first foundwhen a debater brought it in to in debate practice, as we were trying to dispute him and religious fanatic arguments) it became tosh! didn't matter if i researched that nas statement after...because it had orriginaly came from him???

is it just me..or is their a serious flaw in logic here?

it might just be me...it is 4:16 and i am very tired...
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15421063#post15421063 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Actually, I think there is about a 600 year difference between the CO2 and the temp trends. I don't remember now where I found that tidbit, but I'll try to dig it up. At this point, take that with a grain of salt until I can find it.

Scott

i have heard 50 year, i rwad this in my oceanography text book, it is the newest edition...

you see the ocean is comprised primarily of water...

and water has a much higher hold of temp that air, i believe it is 200X but that number might be the amount faster that sound travels in water as well...i am confused....

sice it takes so long for water to heat and cool, and their isn't a huge air to surface surface area relative to the whole ocean, the temp changes slowly, and the air temp is absorbed in the process...slowing donw the heating...amke sense?

if not i may try again in the morning...*yawns*
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15422608#post15422608 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I love how you can throw out models because there are uncertainties. I could maybe understand if half of the models projected an increase in temp, and the other half projected down, but they almost unfailingly project up. Such denial.

When did I say to throw them out? Does anybody listen anymore? I am getting really tired or re-typing the same thing over and over and over....

I have repeatedly said that the models can be considered, but with an understanding of the huge uncertainties involved.

Let me explain something about modeling in general. When a modeler develops a model, he/she tests it (tries to validate it). This is done by applying the model to historical data. If the model "fits" all of the existing data, and the extrapolations of the model "make sense" to the modeler, then the model might get to see the light of day. Now, given the uncertainties in much of the historaical data, you can play pretty loose with what "fits" the historical data. So what really determines which models actually reach the public forum is the subjective decision of the modeler as to what extrapolations "make sense".

If the model's predictions about the future don't "make sense" to the modeler, then you will probably never hear about them. The model gets revised, the assumtions are tweaked, parameter bounds are changed, etc. until the modeler arrives at something that gives the results that "make sense" to that particular modeler. This is why modeling is an art and not a science.

It seems to me that the general public thinks that it is getting the results of ever single model simulation, but they aren't. I'm not suggesting that the modelers are intentionally biasing the results. They are trying to be faithful to the things that they believe to be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15422723#post15422723 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i realy wish that peoplewould stop grouping all kids into this stereotypical naive, big mouhted , repeat what their parents say brats. i mean, i will deign that the majority of kids my age are, but does that mean we should all be treated as such? i gave genuine, and good arguments, and as soon as you saw that i happened to see a source, a good source, from a guy who wears funny hats (who oh by the way was used, and first foundwhen a debater brought it in to in debate practice, as we were trying to dispute him and religious fanatic arguments) it became tosh! didn't matter if i researched that nas statement after...because it had orriginaly came from him???

is it just me..or is their a serious flaw in logic here?

it might just be me...it is 4:16 and i am very tired...

Listen Ctenophors, I am very happy that you actually began researching the topic and cited something that wasn't on youtube. You are putting forth effort now. Keep it up and maybe we can still have a reasonable conversation.

You can't be mad at us for "stereotyping" you after you did everything to fill the stereotype. I am absolutely sure that if I had linked a youtube video of some fanatical, conservative, anti-GW guy who wore Groucho Marx glasses as my source of info, you would have been poking fun at me just the same as I did at you. So get over it...

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15422704#post15422704 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule

"œIdentify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

"œrecognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost."

"Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing "

"Launch an international study to explore scientifically-informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable."

"Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost."

"Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights. "

"Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations."

"Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions"

"There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate. "

"It is important to recognize that while future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen almost twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly."

I don't think that I totally disagree with most of these comments. The term "cost-effective" is very important in their statements on resolving global warming

Also, I think you need to pay more attention to where they are using the terms "likely" and "could" as these indicate uncertainty qualitatively. This is where misinterpretation tends to occur.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15422730#post15422730 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i have heard 50 year, i rwad this in my oceanography text book, it is the newest edition...

you see the ocean is comprised primarily of water...

and water has a much higher hold of temp that air, i believe it is 200X but that number might be the amount faster that sound travels in water as well...i am confused....

sice it takes so long for water to heat and cool, and their isn't a huge air to surface surface area relative to the whole ocean, the temp changes slowly, and the air temp is absorbed in the process...slowing donw the heating...amke sense?

if not i may try again in the morning...*yawns*

I found an interesting article that shows that historical CO2 and CH4 increases actually LAG temperature increases by several hundred years.

Hansen et al. "Greenhouse Gas Growth Rates" PNAS, 101(46), 2004.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15422715#post15422715 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
a little effort? you can't read the minds of scientist but you seem to be able to read my azy, naive, and ignorant teen age mind just fine...but maybe thats just because i am young and haen't developed the jedi mind defending trick the older scientist have.

(a ridiculous staement for another...lets call it an even trade?)

He doesn't need to read your mind, all anyone has to do to see what you'll say next is watch the videos you linked. Everything you have been typing comes straight from those videos. I watched a couple all the way through, then re-read this thread, and the amount of work you copied, word for word, is astonishing. That's plagiarism, and although it doesn't matter when you do it on an internet thread, but do that crap in school and see how long you last. At least cite the guy if you're going to use his material, it's like we're arguing with Greg Craven's son, posing as his dad. Greg would not be happy. Jedis don't plagiarise.

I do have to applaud you though on your latest effort, that's what I wanted to see you do. Go out and dig up the articles and reports and see for yourself. Good job ctenophor.
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15422608#post15422608 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I love how you can throw out models because there are uncertainties. I could maybe understand if half of the models projected an increase in temp, and the other half projected down, but they almost unfailingly project up. Such denial.


Plants grow in very specific climates, if the climate shifts, the plant's range shifts. It's very predictable, and is actually secondary evidence supporting warming (along with animal ranges).


Warm water produces more snow, thereby thickening the ice.

I seriously can't believe that some people still debate whether there is warming. Boggles my mind.

No no no Mr. Smell, I m not disputing the fact the the earth is warming, I'm disputing the concept that if we don't take drastic measures now, than the world will end in 50 years.

I agree with your second statement, I have a problem when people blame things like that soley on GW, that's all. I know warm water has that effect, I was refuting what Nihoa said about all the glaciers in the world melting.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15422626#post15422626 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Hehe, maybe I will....

I better not. Well, there are conspiracies for just about everything, and the green movement has been viewed with suspicion by some people as a global land grab by the gov't. All in moderation I say.

It would be fun to go off in that direction, but talk about getting sidetracked! You seem like the type of guy who would like listening to Coast to Coast AM with George Norry. I love that show and if you haven't checked it out already, I think you'll really enjoy it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15423608#post15423608 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44


I do have to applaud you though on your latest effort, that's what I wanted to see you do. Go out and dig up the articles and reports and see for yourself. Good job ctenophor.

lasetst efforts.....wow.....you guys must be blind! or completely ignoring what has been typed because you are so hell bent on this, stereotype.....

if i may sound like i am using his arguements word for word.....well....thats probably because they are good arguements....no one ever has a thought all their own...so if you believe i should be siting, then so shpould you and everyone else according to MLA standards....

i can assure you that before this topic, it had been many weeks since i had heard these videos....i just remembered that the quote i couldn.t, and still can't find was in it......

can we please drop the internet guy thing, because you guys realy seem to just be on a vendeta, i explained that we HAD to watchi it in debate class to dispute strong religious arguments without the noirmal biases by changing the subject to something people no very little about.....i explained that i am utilizing a source, with in the vid's, that was first introduced to me by way of his vid's about the nas's statements....

i have been using the nas and aaas arguements for quite a while, but i just finaly unlocked how useful it can be while finishing a convo with my step dad(the only person i could ever believe to be unfallable, and above critique) but he told me it....not the internet guy...

now back to the discussion..please!
 
I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily. A few post ago you wrote this:

"from a guy who wears funny hats (who oh by the way was used, and first foundwhen a debater brought it in to in debate practice, as we were trying to dispute him and religious fanatic arguments) it became tosh!"

Then you wrote this:

"if i may sound like i am using his arguements word for word.....well....thats probably because they are good arguements"

Hmmmm.....

"no one ever has a thought all their own...so if you believe i should be siting, then so shpould you and everyone else according to MLA standards...."

The words everyone else and I have been typing are our own words, not copied DIRECTLY from someone else and passed off as our own thoughts. When we did use someone else's words, we cited. You can't bring in MLA because you have violated every rule they have on plagiarism, go read the handbook.

Another thing, everyone makes typos, but I'd like to ask you to please use your spell check a little because it's hard to figure out what you're trying to say when half the words have typos in them.

Just admit you copied, a lot, and I'll drop it. If you continue down this path, I will take the time and repost everything you copied along with the link to the videos and the times in those videos where you copied, word for word, what Mr. Craven said.

I'll leave you with another discrepancy from you:

"i explained that we HAD to watchi it in debate class "

"i just found the article by way of his vids, which my homes made me watch"

"i am not going to watch all 6 hours again"

Did you mean homies? Unless it's the same homies that watched it with you in debate class, you contridicted yourself, again. Someone MADE you watch 6 hours of those videos? There's something fishy here....
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15424011#post15424011 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule

if i may sound like i am using his arguements word for word.....well....thats probably because they are good arguements....no one ever has a thought all their own...so if you believe i should be siting, then so shpould you and everyone else according to MLA standards....

I don't want to nitpick, but it would be helpful in the future if you gave a proper citation, or just linked the document you are refering to. Simply saying "from NAS" doesn't allow me to find and read the document you are referring to. With out being able to find and read the document you are talking about, it is more difficult to debate the content you posted because the context of the quotations isn't there. FWIW, I've tried to do this whenever I use outside info.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15424143#post15424143 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44

Another thing, everyone makes typos, but I'd like to ask you to please use your smell check a little because it's hard to figure out what you're trying to say when half the words have typos in them.

Haha, I hate to bust your chops, but perhaps you meant spell check?

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top