i agree that the researchers who deal with this stuff every day are a lot more in touch with the data than you or I are, but I also think you still fail to realize how skepticism is a vital part of science...and there are plenty of things to be skeptical about...all you have to have is common sense to be skeptical of people saying they understand exactly how a 4 billion year old planet works based on a tiny fraction of data

7/30/2007 6:20:01 PM

To Boone-tard:

Quote :

"know your role"

LOL! Hilarious!

Yeah, no legitimate scientist has ever questioned the alarmism surrounding "global warming"--even though I have provided numerous names and positions of those very scientists in this thread.

7/30/2007 8:38:32 PM

hooksaw, way to be a bitch. Formulate your own lame insults, plz.

And how many times do we have to say that that stupid bibliography of yours only demonstrates that researchers disagree on details regarding climate change, and not climate change as a whole? Is that something you're just not able to wrap your brain around?

7/30/2007 8:43:59 PM

^ Fuck you.

Quote :

"know your role"

7/30/2007 8:52:14 PM

You're a 40 year-old liberal arts major whose primary hobby is yelling at people on the internet.

What role is that, exactly?

7/30/2007 8:55:15 PM

^ I find it laughable that you ask me to "formulate" something--when, clearly, you have unquestioningly accepted the so-called consensus, which is just another word for groupthink, hook, line, and sinker. If the theories that you so desperately cling to concerning "global warming" are so sound, then why do you and others of your ilk get so bent the fuck out of shape when someone dares to question the "science" of those theories? And positing some relevant questions about the issue is all that I am doing.

Concerning your "bibliography" comment, unless you have some type of brain damage, you should remember that I have posted numerous examples of highly qualified scientists and professionals other than those listed on the bibliography that mostly question the alarmism by many in the "global warming" debate--and the debate is growing. My main concern is more unnecessary and useless laws that will result in a power grab by a group I am not interested in giving any more power to.

One more thing: I'm not going to get into my major--I chose it for the freedom to build my own curriculum. If you don't understand that or don't like it, I don't care--piss off. I can tell you this: I am a part of educating undergrads in the science, technology, and society field every day, and I guarantee that I am more qualified to speak about issues in this field than you are.

7/30/2007 9:37:46 PM

Quote :

"know your role" ?? You're a 40 year-old liberal arts major whose primary hobby is yelling at people on the internet. what role is that?"

oh gawd, i laughed out loud and woke my wife up







[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 12:22 AM. Reason : ]

7/31/2007 12:21:25 AM

you make me wet, joe

Oh, and Twista, I think it's worth mentioning that in this last round of bullshit, YOU are the one who brought up Boonetard's career, so I don't think you really have a leg on which to stand to bitch about him insulting your career...

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 1:06 AM. Reason : ]

7/31/2007 1:05:34 AM

my only issue is that he has no idea what my career actually is

also he brought it up first

7/31/2007 1:12:42 AM

^^ So explain how science is a religion again aaronburro?

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 1:16 AM. Reason : opps wrong thread. the OTHER thread aaronburro is in. ]

7/31/2007 1:16:10 AM

feel free to keep on trolling, neo...

7/31/2007 1:22:47 AM

^dude i would contribute to this thread, but you keep arguing with me trying to convince me that science is a religion like christianity. I don't want it to come to the same conclusion here.

7/31/2007 1:24:56 AM

this thread should have been locked several times already

7/31/2007 6:55:21 AM

...in Al Gore's lockbox, which he also invented

7/31/2007 9:25:16 AM

^^ Yeah, because the "global warming" loons don't like questions, am I right?

7/31/2007 3:44:24 PM

"global warming" is a government conspiracy

7/31/2007 4:50:57 PM

^^ pretty much, yeah. God help us if they actually had to provide scientific evidence for their claims and their claims actually had to stand up to GENUINE scientific scrutiny, not the "scrutiny" of GW circle-jerks and political gerry-mandering

7/31/2007 10:32:51 PM

Let's get back to the issue at hand...

Currently most of th global warming debate is centered around the "Hockey Stick Graph."



The controversy is described in painstaking detail on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

So, does this graph covering the past 1000 years of temperature data prove global warming is a man-made phenomena? From the article it appears the answer is still largely unknown.

Discuss.

7/31/2007 10:55:51 PM

Quote :

"Discuss."

after 29 pages of constant bullshit, you go and say that?

LOL.

have you been paying attention to this thread, even a little bit?

7/31/2007 11:20:16 PM

yes. clearly looking at only data from the past 1000 years and in one hemisphere is really the best way to determine current global climate trends (both hemispheres) with respect to the entire history of the earth.

7/31/2007 11:35:45 PM

^or better yet looking at the ~2 degree average temperature rise over the last 100 years...thats sure to give you a foolproof reading about a 4,000,000,000 year old planet

8/1/2007 1:06:20 AM

Run for your life. . .it's. . .it's. . .GLOBAL WARMING!!! Wait. . .that won't work.

8/1/2007 1:28:58 AM

Quote :

"after 29 pages of constant bullshit, you go and say that? LOL. have you been paying attention to this thread, even a little bit?"

Yeah, and yet no one has truly addressed this issue, which is currently the focal point of the GW debate. How fucking sad...

8/1/2007 6:10:39 AM

So yeah, I didn't feel motivated enough to find this graph last night, so I settled for trying to get the discussion back on track. Sue me.

This is what I'm concerned about:




I believe that the two primary natural causes for temperature fluctuations are (1) solar variations (orbit distance and sunspots), and (2) volcanic eruptions. These two factors historically have been relatively accurate in predicting the mean temperature of the planet. In the past +100 years however the mean temperature has risen, while "natural factors" would suggest that the temperature should have actually fallen slightly.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 7:17 AM. Reason : ef]

8/1/2007 7:16:15 AM

That's similar to one of the graphs in the article (that no one's going to read, apparently).

I don't know what else you could ask for in a computer model, really.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 8:01 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 8:01:33 AM

I don't understand this desire to know every climate detail for up to 4 billion years. We are not trying to predict anything for such a timescale. If anything using data before about 100,000 years is detrimental for predicting what will occur for the upcoming 100 years.

8/1/2007 11:02:53 AM

^^^ I have posted numerous links in this thread about the possible effects of the sun and volcanoes, among others, on "global warming." But the left-wing nutballs don't want to hear it--get used to it.

If the moonbats had their way, this thread would be locked. And they would also silence any dissent from their alarmist template in the larger "global warming" discussion--so much for tolerance.

8/1/2007 11:21:24 AM

Quote :

"I don't understand this desire to know every climate detail for up to 4 billion years"

why wouldnt you want the most information possible? its better than basing everything we do on a tiny sample like the last 100 years...i mean if i looked at a temperature graph, second by second, from 1:00pm today to 2:00pm today I'd probably conclude that the Earth was getting hotter...why would I want a full 24 hours of data

Quote :

"using data before about 100,000 years is detrimental for predicting what will occur for the upcoming 100 years"

having more longer scale data is detrimental for predicting upcoming climate? why in the world would that be? it almost seems like you're saying that less data is better which makes absolutely no sense at all

8/1/2007 11:25:43 AM

Because that far back the Earth was a different place geologically speaking.

So it'd be pointless.

8/1/2007 11:27:54 AM

again you prove your lack of understanding about science in general...i mean you guys are basically saying that in order to understand how something works, less data is better and its "pointless" to try and acquire or analyze older data for the same system...get a clue

8/1/2007 11:29:24 AM

Quote :

"why wouldnt you want the most information possible? its better than basing everything we do on a tiny sample like the last 100 years...i mean if i looked at a temperature graph, second by second, from 1:00pm today to 2:00pm today I'd probably conclude that the Earth was getting hotter...why would I want a full 24 hours of data"

but what we are predicting is on the scale of a fraction of a millisecond, which would not be highly influenced by diurnal variation

Quote :

"If the moonbats had their way, this thread would be locked. And they would also silence any dissent from their alarmist template in the larger "global warming" discussion--so much for tolerance."

I only wanted this thread to be locked because the past page was about dick measuring rather than the actual topic at hand

8/1/2007 11:33:58 AM

^^ Less data, no debate--yep, that's what they want.

^ Yeah, right.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 11:35:16 AM

Quote :

"but what we are predicting is on the scale of a fraction of a millisecond, which would not be highly influenced by diurnal variation"

ok my example about 1pm-2pm wasnt a great one...but in any situation...when you're trying to understand how a system works (in this case the Earth is the system)...why would you ever want to just dismiss data and imply that even having that additional data could have a negative effect on our understanding of the system? you WOULDNT ever want to do that is the answer

^apparently

8/1/2007 11:36:23 AM

Quote :

"why would you ever want to just dismiss data and imply it could have a negative effect? you WOULDNT ever want to do that is the answer"

Maybe I misspoke, dismissing is probably not the best way to describe it, more like placing a greater value on it than it needs to have. For some data it is better to leave it out than to put any weight into it because it is so insignificant. This is why many skeptics of Global Warming claim that there is no effect when adding co2 into the atmosphere, when they know there is one, but they think it is too insignificant to even bother with.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:42 AM. Reason : ]

8/1/2007 11:41:14 AM

Last I read ice cores go back 250,000 years.

Why is it relevant, though?

I'm not exactly sure what understanding of climate change we'd gain from knowing this.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 11:42:43 AM

to put it simply, more data = better understanding of how something works

how can you claim certain data is irrelevant when that data is necessary to show longer term trends? how can you even notice and predict long term trends if you don't have good long term data? how can you assume that whatever short term changes you see arent part of a long term trend if you claim the long term data is irrelevant???

8/1/2007 11:48:30 AM

But to what end? Was it some mysterious undiscovered force that heated the earth millions of years ago?

"Natural cycles" and "long-term trends" aren't forces.

We have a very good understanding of what's heat the earth today. Greenhouse gases might have heated the earth millions of years ago, they might not have. Does it affect anything?

(and don't we already know this, anyway?)



[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 12:16:01 PM

Quote :

""Natural cycles" and "long-term trends" aren't forces"

and?

Quote :

"Greenhouse gases might have heated the earth millions of years ago, they might not have. Does it affect anything?"

of course it does

8/1/2007 12:19:14 PM

It matters in so far as we need to know whether or not greenhouse gases can cause climate change. Our current data's shown that.

Is it really necessary to know about the effects of greenhouse gases while the earth was forming?

8/1/2007 12:29:26 PM

why do you seem to dismiss long term data on the earth as not being important? there are cycles on earth that last waaaaaay longer than 100 years...how are you just going to say they're not really relevant and old data isnt relevant because we think we understand whats happening right now? seems like with a system as complex as the earth you'd want as much information as possible when attempting to understand certain aspects of how the earth functions

overall it seems like you're arguing that less data will give better answers, which is just completely absurd

i mean shit you teach history...its obvious you understand the importance of history and the "...doomed to repeat the same mistakes" philosophy...so why basically say the history of the earth is irrelevant?

8/1/2007 12:35:39 PM

^^ Um. . .The Geological Society of America, among others, thinks long-term data are important. They seem to think that the North Atlantic Oscillation has had a great deal to do with storms in the Atlantic, which may help to put the effect of greenhouse gasses in perspective--I guess you didn't get the bulletin.

Records of prehistoric hurricanes on the South Carolina coast based on micropaleontological and sedimentological evidence, with comparison to other Atlantic Coast records

Quote :

"Results here combined with results of other workers on the Gulf Coast suggest a more southern position for the Bermuda High, causing more storms on the Gulf Coast in the interval of 1000–3400 yr B.P. Conversely, a more northern position during the past 1000 yr is suggested to have contributed to higher frequencies of storms on the Atlantic Coast in that period. To test this hypothesis, modern records of the movement of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO, which controls the position of the Bermuda High) have been compared with historical records of hurricane tracks over the twentieth century. There does appear to be a strong correlation between the position of the NAO and the track the storms have pursued in modern times."

http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/9/1027

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 12:39:48 PM

I'm not arguing that less data = better results.

I'm saying that long term (as in millions of years) isn't really that relevant.

Why is it relevant?




HAY GUYZ

WATS GOIN ON HERE??

BETTER SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING 2 BILLION YEARS AGO

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 12:57:53 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that long term (as in millions of years) isn't really that relevant."

i thought you trusted the scientists? they know that long term data is relevant...dont they know more about this issue than you and I?

HAY GUYZ I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TODAY FROM 12:00PM TO 12:01PM...THEREFORE I KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WILL HAPPEN TODAY...ALSO I WATCHED ONE PLAY IN A FOOTBALL GAME...I CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT ENTIRE GAME

(if you want to resort to immature shit we can all play those games too)



why do we need to go back any farther than march 2007

8/1/2007 12:59:48 PM

So just to get a timeline down, how many years before present are we talking about.

I know of ice cores, which can go back this far:



Are you saying it's relevant to go back even further? Why?

^ And you've already admitted that that's a retarded analogy.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:02:35 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying it's relevant to go back even further? Why?"

do you know what cycles were happening on earth 3 billion years ago? of course not and neither do i...so do we just assume "OH GUYS THIS IS IRRELEVANT ITS TOO OLD WE ONLY NEED LAST 100 YEARS WE KNOW EVERYTHING"

Quote :

"And you've already admitted that that's a retarded analogy"

doubtful...please refresh my memory since i cant recall if i did admit it, or you simply said i admitted it

8/1/2007 1:04:52 PM

HAY, GUYZ, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME, SO YOU MUST BE RETARDS!

8/1/2007 1:07:34 PM

More data is always better. At best, it increases the statistical probability that observed trends and correlations are in fact accurate. Period.

Back to the debate:

Quote :

"^^^ I have posted numerous links in this thread about the possible effects of the sun and volcanoes, among others, on "global warming." But the left-wing nutballs don't want to hear it--get used to it."

Left-wing extremists ignore the fact that volcanoes and solar variations play a significant role in global temperature. Right-wing extremists ignore the fact that volcanoes and solar variations do not explain the current warming trend.

So, factor in the increased concentrations of GH gases are considered along with volcano and solar based variations. Do that, and surprisingly enough, the expected global mean temperatures correlate very strongly with actual temperature records.

That's the problem.

Quote :

"If the moonbats extremists had their way, this thread would be locked. And they would also silence any dissent from their alarmist template in the larger "global warming" discussion--so much for tolerance. "

Fixed it for you. The moonbats are coming from both sides of the aisle.

8/1/2007 1:09:20 PM

Quote :

"do you know what cycles were happening on earth 3 billion years ago? of course not and neither do i...so do we just assume "OH GUYS THIS IS IRRELEVANT ITS TOO OLD WE ONLY NEED LAST 100 YEARS WE KNOW EVERYTHING""

If the causes of climate change were natural, then billion-year natural cycles would be very relevant. As you can see in the graph above, it's clear that the causes aren't natural.

And regardless, we do have an idea of what the climate was millions of years ago, and it coincides with our data on fluctuations of all the factors we're measuring today.

Quote :

"doubtful...please refresh my memory since i cant recall if i did admit it, or you simply said i admitted it"

Quote :

"ok my example about 1pm-2pm wasnt a great one..."

^ You read wrong if you think anyone's said that solar activity and volcanoes don't affect climate.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:12:22 PM

^^ 'Cause you're above it all, right? Don't lump me in with the right-wing kooks--I'm an independent. And from my experience, it's overwhelmingly left-wing nutballs that are trying to silence people--about "global warming" and many other issues.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:16:42 PM

Like jew lies.

And furthermore, Tree. What's the point of this argument.

More data = good

But are you somehow implying that our understanding of climate change is currently too limited to act on?

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:19:22 PM