Quote :

"As you can see in the graph above, it's clear that the causes aren't natural."

Could you answer me these 2 questions please?

1) How come the temperature seemed to rise half a degree from ~1910 to ~1940 when greenhouse gas concentrations didnt significantly increase?

2) From ~1950 to ~1980 when greenhouse gas emissions were at a much higher rate than from ~1910 to ~1940, how come the temperature only fluctuated about 0.1 degrees?


I look forward to you answering those 2 questions since you seem to be clearly convinced that the graph above clearly shows that the increase in temperature "clear(ly)" isnt natural

8/1/2007 1:19:43 PM

The forcing directly translates to how many degrees each factor is affecting climate. Ozone being at 0.1 means it's likely increasing the temperature by 0.1 degrees. Ideally you could sum all the factors together to get net climate change. The Scientific American article actually has a forcing graph with more detail.

So I mean a lay person could easily answer your questions-- it looks like solar activity and greenhouse gases for your first question, and increased sulfate emissions and decreased volcanic activity for your second question.

Here's a third question: using this forcing graph, why has temperature gone up so significantly in the past couple decades? You may work out your solution on a separate piece of paper.



[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:28:10 PM

Quote :

"it looks like solar activity and greenhouse gases for your first question, and increased sulfate emissions and decreased volcanic activity for your second question."

you didnt answer my questions

8/1/2007 1:29:35 PM

Quote :

"So I mean a lay person could easily answer your questions-- it looks like solar activity and greenhouse gases for your first question, and increased sulfate emissions and decreased volcanic activity for your second question."

I mean there's no interpretation to it, dude. Just sum up all the numbers if you want to get super picky.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:31 PM. Reason : /]

8/1/2007 1:30:47 PM

what do you mean it looks like solar activity and greenhouse gases for my first question? they're both relatively constant from 1910 to 1940 but the temperature increases...you did answer that question like a layperson though...who didnt know what the fuck he was talking about

and what do you mean increased sulfate emissions and decreased volcanic activity for my second question?

for one thing sulfate clearly decreases over the graph...and also you're saying its volcanic activity that caused that temperature increase? i thought you were just saying its clearly not natural?

Quote :

"Ozone being at 0.1 means it's likely increasing the temperature by 0.1 degrees. Ideally you could sum all the factors together to get net climate change"

i really hope you dont believe that

8/1/2007 1:31:59 PM

Quote :

"why has temperature gone up so significantly in the past couple decades"

Maybe b/c all the data sources aren't uniform, not to mention hadn't been there in the past. Obvious flaw right there.

8/1/2007 1:35:07 PM

^^ I think you don't understanding what "Forcing" is, Professor Science.

^ How on earth does historical data affect the above chart?


[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:36:53 PM

what do you mean it looks like solar activity and greenhouse gases for my first question? they're both relatively constant from 1910 to 1940 but the temperature increases...you did answer that question like a layperson though...who didnt know what the fuck he was talking about

and what do you mean increased sulfate emissions and decreased volcanic activity for my second question?

for one thing sulfate clearly decreases over the graph...and also you're saying its volcanic activity that caused that temperature increase? i thought you were just saying its clearly not natural?

Quote :

"How on earth does historical data affect the above chart?"

if you looked at any data before the last 100 years you'd see that the global average temperature has shifted 10, 15, 20 degrees at times...but you want to claim that the 1 degree shift is significant...how can you know if its significant or not without looking at past temperatures!!!!!

8/1/2007 1:38:06 PM

Quote :

"and what do you mean increased sulfate emissions and decreased volcanic activity for my second question? for one thing sulfate clearly decreases over the graph...are you literally pulling posts from out of your ass?"

Jesus you're a Climate scientist and are just too modest to admit it, aren't you?

Sulfate has a cooling effect on climate. Therefore if it has a negative forcing effect on the climate, it clearly increased in concentration.


Are you starting to realize what forcing is, yet?

Quote :

"if you looked at any data before the last 100 years you'd see that the global average temperature has shifted 10, 15, 20 degrees at times...but you want to claim that the 1 degree shift is significant...how can you know if its significant or not without looking at past temperatures!!!!!"

A one degree shift that we're causing.

But you're right, all we need is some perspective on the issue. Things could be so much worse! We could be experiencing a climatic shift that would destroy all humanity. Instead we're just causing a slight change that will cost us lives and money-- who cares?!

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

8/1/2007 1:39:10 PM

if sulfate backscatter does cool the climate (which is debatable) then how come the temps rised from 1910 to 1940 while all other factors were relatively consistent? you're the one claiming this graph clearly shows that the temperature changes on the graph arent natural...its up to you to defend your claim even though you clearly cant...maybe if we looked at an even SMALLER sample set of data that would give us more accurate results since the 1910-1940 data is probably too old to be relevant

Quote :

"A one degree shift that we're causing."

its fun stating your opinion as fact

8/1/2007 1:42:20 PM

It doesn't stay level, actually, right about 1920 all the factors took an upswing.

So are you aware of what forcing is, yet?

You know, that most basic element of climate terminology, Professor Science?

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:44:03 PM

Quote :

"right about 1920 all the factors took an upswing."

thats obviously false as anyone can see...sulfate decreases over the entire graph, ozone doesnt really increase until the 70s

you seem to have found a new buzz word...if you think "forcing" is so important how come you're not interested in the forces that have shaped the climate over the years? how come "forcing" isnt important until a certain year that you choose?

8/1/2007 1:47:51 PM

No, you can clearly see an upswing just before 1930. Not a huge one, but it explains your answer. And actually, everything but ozone jumps a little right after 1940.

And I'm only interested in forcing because it exposed your lack of supposed scientific know-how.


(btw, I still think my java's running. Could you help me?)

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:52:12 PM

I'm still laughing at all the people that are pompous enough to think we can greatly affect the climate, and that these cutback preventative measures will do anything noticeable, b/c they won't

8/1/2007 1:52:34 PM

I like to laugh at people who do this:

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

8/1/2007 1:54:40 PM

are you looking to escape with some moral victory about the term "forcing"? you claim i dont know what it is? me, who for years in TSB has been arguing that CO2 is not the only factor in climate and that the FORCES of solar radiation and volcanism, among others, also effect the climate...now you're trying to say that I don't know what forcing is?

When one of your students asks you why something you're teaching is relevant and why they need to know what do you say to them? You know, when they say something is too old to be relevant like you were saying about climate data?

i just like how when you get stumped you say "well i just trust the scientits cause they know more than we do" but then you think old data is irrelevant

8/1/2007 2:08:45 PM

There's no way we can speculate what caused WWII unless when know exactly when the first humans migrated to North America.


Also, I think your java's running

you'd better go catch it!


But seriously. You've been implying that natural causes such as solar activity and volcanoes might be responsible for our current rise in temperatures. You were clearly wrong; in fact, one of your favorite factors is actually cooling the climate, atm.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 2:11:22 PM

dbl post

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:13 PM. Reason : nm]

8/1/2007 2:11:57 PM

Quote :

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

I figured maybe since Erios said it and not me you might actually believe it but apparently you're still an idiot

Quote :

"You've been implying that natural causes such as solar activity and volcanoes might be responsible for our current rise in temperatures. You were clearly wrong"

not only was i clearly not wrong or not right because the answer isnt clear, but you're now admitting i've known what forcing is all along

btw what do you tell your students who ask why they have to learn old irrelevant stuff that you teach them/]

8/1/2007 2:12:52 PM

This is a retarded debate.

Yes. More data = good.

How is this at all relevant to this debate?

Quote :

"but you're now admitting i've known what forcing is all along"

Haha, definitely not. You were so wrong it's hilarious. I'm like this close to slicing all those quotes together to give people the cliff notes on how wrong you were.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 2:16:17 PM

btw i wouldnt be so quick to repeatedly make fun of my for referring to disabling scripting of java applets as "turning off java" when you are this much of a genius \message_topic.aspx?topic=472784 DUR HOW DO I RIGHT CLICK DURRR

Quote :

"Yes. More data = good."

thanks for finally admitting what only an idiot would ever deny, even though you denied it the last page or two...maybe you should get a summer job...i think your 3 month vacation is causing your brain to go dull

Quote :

"Haha, definitely not. You were so wrong it's hilarious"

do you want me to tell you what "FORCING" is (in regards to climate)? its simply saying MULTIPLE THINGS AFFECT THE CLIMATE...THESE FACTORS CAN FORCE THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE

like i said you're trying to salvage some moral victory based on a meaningless term

8/1/2007 2:18:20 PM

Quote :

"How is this at all relevant to this debate?"

And the sulfur thing, too.

You had to google like "sulfur climate change" or something, didn't you?


^No, it's a technical victory. You weren't able to read that graph.

That graph that made perfect sense to a history major.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 2:20:19 PM

what do you tell your students when they ask you why they have to learn about something that happened 1000 years ago?

you know i'd be more likely to continue pwning you if you addressed more than 10% of my questions...take a stab at answering the 90% that you dont have a clue about...come on, you dont have shit else to do...summer vacation!

8/1/2007 2:21:24 PM

What's your obsession, here? Trying to salvage what's left of your reputation?

(as if anyone reads anything sandwiched between treetard posts)


The more data the better, dude, but it gets less and less relevant the further your reach (as with history)


^ And you're not even going to bait me into a "my job's better than yours" shlong joust. Let's talking about Sulfur's effect on the climate some more.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 2:24:09 PM

Quote :

"And you're not even going to bait me into a "my job's better than yours" shlong joust"

im not trying to...i just figured you'd answer a question when i ask you 5 fucking times...especially when YOU ARE A HISTORY TEACHER AND YOU ARE CLAIMING EARTH HISTORICAL DATA IS IRRELEVANT...DO...YOU...NOT...SEE...THE...HYPOCRISY....IN...THAT

WHAT DO YOU TELL YOUR STUDENTS WHEN THEY ASK WHY THEY HAVE TO LEARN SOMETHING OLD THAT THEY PERSONALLY FEEL IS IRRELEVANT?

btw your excuse of "why is that relevant" every single time you are posed a question you cant answer is really really old and pathetic

8/1/2007 2:24:59 PM

Wow, are you an english professor, too?

"Why is that relevant" was referring to the 2 billion year-old climate data, not your question.


And many aspects of history aren't especially relevant within certain contexts. What relevance does North Atlantic migration have on WWII?

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 2:26:32 PM

why dont you answer my question? surely some student has questioned why they needed to learn SOMETHING? do you just come with the "because its part of the curriculum and you need to know to pass the test" answer or do you have something else?

and wtf am i an english professor? what is that even in regards to?

Quote :

""Why is that relevant" was referring to the 2 billion year-old climate data"

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

8/1/2007 2:27:21 PM

Hell yeah.

If I'm talking about WWII

And some little treetard asked me about continental migration

I'd tell him to ask me after class.


^ Because the context of my answer completely flew over your head. Calling you an english professor was ironic. Get it?

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 2:29:40 PM

maybe erios can explain it to you...if i told you the sky was blue you'd find some way to convince yourself it wasnt simply because you dont like me...oh well, im wasting my time, maybe somebody else can convince you of the most basic things

i have learned something from you...that i'll enroll my kids in private school,/]

8/1/2007 2:31:12 PM

Quote :

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

Well clearly we need to see 2 billion year old data on the effects of human emissions. Durrrr

8/1/2007 2:31:44 PM

Quote :

"it increases the statistical probability that observed trends and correlations are in fact accurate"

ITS AMAZING HOW LITTLE SCIENCE YOU KNOW

8/1/2007 2:32:16 PM

So 2 billion-year old trends, occurring on an earth that barely resembles ours today,

will increase our probably of accurately measuring the effects of human emissions.


I'm seriously interested in this one. Do tell.

While you're at it, tell me more about sulfur emissions.

8/1/2007 2:35:14 PM

WE DONT NEED THAT MUCH DATA TO SELL CARBON CREDITS

THIS GRAPH OF THE LAST 100 YEARS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT

ITS POINTLESS TO LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST 500 YEARS AGO WHEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THEY'RE FIGHTING TODAY

WHY WOULD WE NEED TO LOOK AT LAST WEEK IF WE'RE PREDICTING THE WEATHER FOR NEXT WEEK

ITS POINTLESS TO LOOK AT WORLD WAR I IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WW2

8/1/2007 2:36:35 PM

OMG STRAWMAN!


Seriously, you're fully aware that ^ that isn't my argument.

If you can't explain to me how climate data on when the earth was still developing a hospitable atmosphere is highly relevant to anthropogenic climate change, then you're just full of crap.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 2:41:11 PM

its been explained ad nauseum...you're just too stubborn to get it...no worries though as soon as you read a scientist say its important you'll realize its important

i didnt say this (so maybe you'll believe it) but its what i'm getting at and what scientists know

Quote :

"We've been accurately recording weather information for a very short time period. Thus we can't really see weather trends over large time periods. This could be a relatively normal cycle on earth. "

and if you dont think thats a legitimate reason to be skeptical, well then keep drinking that kool-aid

8/1/2007 2:44:45 PM

We have very accurate climate records going back 500,000 years.

These records are extremely relevant. Why do you insist on the 2 billion year records.


And I don't think you get what I'm saying. Data on natural trends is not extremely relevant when you're measuring an unnatural phenomenon.

We can pretty much rule out "natural trends" because nothing is moving much as far as natural forcing goes.

Meanwhile, anthropogenic positive forcing is skyrocketing.


HMMMM, LET'S STUDY THE FORMATION OF OUR ATMOSPHERE SOME MORE

8/1/2007 2:57:11 PM

Dude, if you really understood this graph, the only route you could take would be to question their data, which would be a pretty lame cop-out (then again, isn't that what you've been doing all this time?)



The y-axis on the right isn't their percentage change in quantity or frequency; it's measuring their direct effect on each cubic foot of our atmosphere. How much each factor "forces" the climate's temperature up or down. They're directly comparable. Hence, solar energy is warming the planet twice as much as low level ozone. Sulfate emissions cool the earth roughly twice as much as volcanic activity. etc...

Now look at greenhouse gases.


How will 2 billion year-old records change this data?

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 3:08:16 PM

Quote :

"We have very accurate climate records going back 500,000 years."

very accurate my ass

Quote :

"Data on natural trends is not extremely relevant when you're measuring an unnatural phenomenon. "

but how can you tell whats the result of a natural trend and whats the result of an unnatural phenomenon without having a solid grasp of natural trends over the earth's history?

8/1/2007 3:13:59 PM

Quote :

"very accurate my ass"

Glacial core samples are very accurate. I attended a lecture by one of the guys from Ohio State leading a couple of the expeditions to the northern ice caps. I guess you could say that I totally talk to a professor about it this one time. Apparently that's canon now.

Quote :

"but how can you tell whats the result of a natural trend and whats the result of an unnatural phenomenon without having a solid grasp of natural trends over the earth's history?"

We have a solid grasp of what natural forces are doing now. They're not doing much of anything. Yet temperature is changing. Hmmmm. If only there was some other factor.....

8/1/2007 3:21:55 PM

im curious as to where the "totally talked to this professor one time" thing came from...somehow I tell you that I got a degree in NRC-Coastal which includes taking classes with PhDs and somehow that gets warped into "once i talked to this guy"

man i wish i was in the middle of a 3 month vacation right now

8/1/2007 3:25:11 PM

You're at the beginning of what is apparently a 30-year vacation.

8/1/2007 3:26:37 PM

that would be nice (whatever the fuck that means)...i'd even settle for having the whole summer off though

8/1/2007 3:27:19 PM

Quote :

"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."

Therein lies your problem. Your first clause in the sentence implies that we KNOW that the causes of climate change aren't natural. You've already made up your mind. So, then you can say that earlier data is irrelevant. An ACTUAL scientist shouldn't take that mindset. He should be of the mindset that "hey, I've got more data... let's test my theories with them..."

granted, you aren't a scientist, but I think many of the people in the GW debate are thinking just like you... "Climate change isn't natural, so there's no need to look at stuff that could show if it were natural..."

8/1/2007 11:46:47 PM

But then again, all science is a religion, right?

8/1/2007 11:50:49 PM

technically yes, but I don't see what bearing that has on this discussion, unless you just want to be an asshole and ignore a perfectly valid point. You know, cause it's easier to be a troll than to actually come up with a response to a legitimate point...

8/2/2007 12:03:49 AM

^^not to try and have an argument since i think you and I have done that enough for the day, but what does that have to do with the point aaronburro was reiterating that I was trying to make earlier today?

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 12:05 AM. Reason : ^^]

8/2/2007 12:05:23 AM

i'm sure i've said this before

but we're totally fucked

unless we can figure out how to get this co2 out of the atmosphere

...

we're fucked

8/2/2007 12:06:38 AM

assuming that CO2 is actually a problem, sure...

8/2/2007 12:09:30 AM

oh, large scale terraforming... or... terradestroying i guess, is a problem

we're poking the climate with a stick

it's going to bite us in the ass

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2007 12:10:54 AM

"Hey, look, it's 'Global Warming'! We're fucked!"

8/2/2007 12:50:43 AM