Do as we say not as...

Stick a cork in Al Gore's face and the problem is solved

maybe they can ask the heads of the big three how they get around this???

and the real question is how much will it be costing EACH ONE OF US when they come up with something and the democrat running congress require us to adopt and adept

Again, if Global Warming is a problem then how come they can justify adding significantly to the problem to talk about how to fix it? There is definitely a certain hypocrisy about this. Al Gore will continue flying on his private jet while he tells everyone else they need to stop flying or at least take commercial flights. If Al Gore had his way, we'd all be living like Bushmen in Australia while he continues his lifestyle uninterrupted and not being scrutinized.

I'm sure there are better ways to hold the conference, maybe via the internet. That would save us from the 9 tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere...If there was a legitimate global warming problem. See that's exactly why people don't take him seriously, he's talking the talk but refuses to walk the walk because he feels he's entitled to do that destruction to the planet.

Lonnie

Oops 13 Tonnes of CO2. I made a mistake and typed 9.

Lonnie

No news here. Please move to the thread about Lance Armstrong. Bicycles don't pollute you know!

Bicycles don't pollute you know!
Whoops, I guess his CO2 output while exercising is a significant source of greenhouse gasses. Wow - how about all the other bike rides during the year - not just the tour. What about all exercising which increases our normal CO2 output? I wonder if ZAT uses Chlorine in his pool?

The silence from the global warming alarmists is deafning!

"The silence from the global warming alarmists is deafning!"

no need to respond to drivel!

The silence from the global warming alarmists is deafning!

#8 ~member2586

Ya want a comment?

Here's one.

"Damned if ya do and damned if you don't"

How's that?

Here's another one.

Did you get this offa Drudge or sommat?

That self-loathing closet case is kinda infamous fer promoting bullshiat stories like this.

Be Well.

13,000 tonnes of CO2.

References

[Battle] M. Battle, M. Bender, T. Sowers, P.P. Tans, 7 more authors,
Atmospheric gas concentrations over the past century measured in air
from firn at the South Pole. Nature 383 (1996), 231-235
[Bender] Michael Bender, A quickening on the uptake ?
Nature 381 (1996), 195-196
[Butcher] Samuel S. Butcher, Robert J. Charlson et al. (eds),
Global Biogeochemical Cycles. San Diego, CA, Academic Press 1992
[Denman] K. Denman, E. Hofmann, H. Marchant, Marine biotic
responses to environmental change and feedbacks to climate.
Pages 483-516 in [IPCC 95]
[Figge] Regina A. Figge and James W.C. White,
High-resolution Holocene and late glacial atmospheric CO2 record:
variability tied to changes in thermohaline circulation.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9 (1995), 391-403
[Goulden] Michael L. Goulden, J.William Munger, Song-Miao Fan,
Bruce C. Daube, Steven C. Wofsy, Exchange of carbon dioxide
by a deciduous forest: Response to interannual climate variability.
Science 271 (1996), 1576-1578
[Heimann] Martin Heimann, Dynamics of the carbon cycle.
Nature 375 (1995), 629-630
[IPCC 94] Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios.
J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, J. Bruce, Hoesung Lee,
B.A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris and K. Maskell (eds),
Cambridge University Press 1995
[IPCC 95] Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change.
J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris,
A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (eds), Cambridge University Press 1996
[IPCC 95/II] Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and
Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses.
Robert T. Watson et al. (eds), Cambridge University Press 1996
[C.Keeling] C.D. Keeling, T.P. Whorf, M. Wahlen & J. van der Plicht,
Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon
dioxide since 1980. Nature 375 (1995), 666-670
[R.Keeling] Ralph F. Keeling, Stephen C. Piper & Martin Heimann,
Global and hemispheric CO2 sinks deduced from changes in atmospheric
O2 concentration. Nature 381 (1996), 218-221
[Melillo] J.M. Melillo, I.C. Prentice, G.D. Farquhar, E.-D. Schulze,

O.E. Sala, Terrestrial biotic responses to environmental change
and feedbacks to climate. Pages 445-481 in [IPCC 95]
[Novelli] Paul C. Novelli, Ken A. Masarie, Pieter P. Tans,
Patricia M. Lang, Recent changes in atmospheric carbon monoxide.
Science 263 (1994), 1587-1590
[Prather 94] M. Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser,
E. Sanhueza, X. Zhou, Other trace gases and atmospheric chemistry.
Pages 73-126 in [IPCC 94]
[Prather 95] M. Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser,
E. Sanhueza, X. Zhou. Other trace gases and atmospheric chemistry.
Pages 86-103 in [IPCC 95]
[Quay] P.D. Quay, B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong, Oceanic uptake of fossil
fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
[Schimel 94] D. Schimel, I.G. Enting, M. Heimann, T.M.L. Wigley,
D. Raynaud, D. Alves, U. Siegenthaler, CO2 and the carbon cycle.
Pages 35-71 in [IPCC 94]
[Schimel 95] D. Schimel, D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos,
D. Raynaud, T. Wigley, CO2 and the carbon cycle. Pages 76-86
in [IPCC 95]
[Schneider] Stephen H. Schneider, Global Warming: Are We Entering
the Greenhouse Century ? Vintage Books, New York 1990
[Siegenthaler] U. Siegenthaler & J.L. Sarmiento, Atmospheric
carbon dioxide and the ocean. Nature 365 (1993), 119-125
[Sundquist] Eric T. Sundquist, The global carbon dioxide budget.
Science 259 (1993), 934-941
[White] J.W.C. White, P. Ciais, R.A. Figge, R. Kenny &
V. Markgraf, A high-resolution record of atmospheric CO2 content
from carbon isotopes in peat. Nature 367 (1994), 153-156.
Discussion: Nature 371 (1994), 111-112

Hay zat, he who cuts and pastes neato names and references of which he is clueless:

Don't you think we should start at step one when determining the effects and causes of global warming? I do.

Consider a perfectly static planet for your model and control group. We'll pretend that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas. (it's actually water by a couple of factors, but you refuse to believe that -- but we won't go there)

If the level of CO2 raises 3%, what will the average global temperature rise be in the course of a decade in this static model?

You don't know? Don't feel bad. No one does. But if we can't figure out that very simple basic premise for a static model, how the hell can you pretend to know the effect of CO2 on the planet when you add all the real world dynamics like ocean currents, albedo, seasonal temperature changes, ruminant farts, lunar and tidal effects, winds, jet stream, local effects, volcanic activity, industrial effects, and 10,000 different variables?

I think this is where you would add your senseless combination of H, B W, and A, so I'll do it for you:

BHHWHAABWHAABWWAAA

So please, Mr. Wizard -- answer the most basic question of global warming that I posited in the fourth paragraph of this post. If you can't, quit pretending you now the answers to the more complex ones.

"it's actually water"

No it isn't.

Fail.

"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere."

Swimming in your pool today ZAT?

"it's actually water"

No it isn't.

Fail.

Yes it is.

Fail

By effect, the most important greenhouse gases are:[5][6]

water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%
methane, which causes 4-9%
ozone, which causes 3-7%

Do try and keep up.

Do try to answer my very simple and very basic question without ham handed deflections of cut and pasting stuff that you are clueless about.

What effect does a 3% rise in CO2 have in a perfectly static global model over a period of ten years?

Answer that, then we'll start stirring in the dynamics.

WBAHBWHBAHWBHABHWBHABWHBHBAHW

Tyndall, John, 1861.

PS, zat, my data is more current than 1861.

Do try to keep up. You are more than a century and a half behind the times.

a perfectly static global model

Static?

Try telling that to the Polar Bears.

They'll prolly gnaw yer head off.

Be Well.

Drive to work today Spud? I assume you have a job.

What are you using to heat your house right now spud? I mean besides your own hot air.

Try telling that to the Polar Bears.

Of the 13 different populations of polar bears, 11 are actually rising in number.

The one that is in decline (not really) loses 15 bears a year to weather-related deaths and 3 times that many to shootings.

Also, the notion that said population is in decline is absurd. It's statistical manipulation. Go ALL the way back to 1987 and do a before and after numerical analysis, and THEN come back here and claim that said population is in decline. HINT: The current population number is nearly 3 times what it was in 1987.

Try telling that to the Polar Bears.

If I could communicate with them, I would indeed. And I would ask for any folklore (or if lucky, written data -- they can talk after all. I can wish, can't I? *grin*) from centuries past that told of other ice shelf meltdowns.

Talking ursus maritimus units aside, it would appear that deth cannot answer the simple question either, but pretends to know the answer to the far more complex ones.

It figures. I guess you have data more recent than zat's? Say 1901 or sommat LOL

I guess you have data more recent than zat's?

ZATs swimming laps today - 57 degrees in Austin right now. Remember, he loves to swim laps in December.

If I could communicate with them, I would indeed. And I would ask for any folklore (or if lucky, written data -- they can talk after all. I can wish, can't I? *grin*) from centuries past that told of other ice shelf meltdowns.

As far as modern science can determine the arctic ice shelf has existed in one form or another fer the last 26 million years.

It now looks like it might disappear entirely within our lifetimes.

If you wanna call that "static" go to, moron.

Just get used to being mocked and laughed at, is all.

Be Well.

Shit. I should have read zat's reference. I just never thought he would post something that contradicted his stance. Strange debate tactic there, zat. Anyway, from your 150 YO C&P:

"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O).

As far as modern science can determine the arctic ice shelf has existed in one form or another fer the last 26 million years

To what extent? Do you have a link?

I can tell you right off the bat that this is BS, deth. Core samples > ~ 100k years (at the most -- this is a very liberal number) are impossible to come by in the arctic because the ice shelf builds from the top and melts away at the bottom. (precipitation pushing the ice down) IOW, the oldest part of the arctic ice cap is at th bottom and it is ~ 100k years at the very most -- certainly not in the millions of years. So how in the world could you possible deduce the age of the ice cap without core samles? I'd love to see your link that supports your statement.

Let's stick to reality, shall we?

BTW, still stumped on that very simple, basic, climatology 101 question deth? Yet still pretending to know much more. LOL

Just get used to being mocked and laughed at, is all.

Just like Kepler was. He got used to it. But when he used facts instead of fantasy, he had the last laugh, Ptolemy.

Anyway, keep ignoring the fact that you are clueless about a static model, much less a highly dynamic one. Oh, yes -- please keep posting these wild numbers like 26 million. They are highly laughable to those of us with a brain.

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

I said the age of the arctic ice is ~100,000 years. I think I was confusing that with the antarctic ice which is not floating.

The actual age of the arctic ice is between 5 and 100 years. But you can believe it is 26,000,000 years if you want, deth.

Current estimates put the lifespan of the Arctic's sea ice somewhere between 5 and 100 years.

"Core samples > ~ 100k years (at the most -- this is a very liberal number)"

"The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr for the EPICA core."

If you wanna call that "static" go to, moron.

???

I never called anything 'static'. I asked for numbers based on a static model. In fact, I stated quite the opposite. I was calling the real world a dynamic (opposite of static, btw) system.

The morons are those who do not read or fully comprehend what they do read, deth.

What was that crack about 'get used to being mocked and laughed at'? LOL

According to your link,that number refers to ice on land, Danforth. Floating ice (of which most of Arctic ice is) is younger than 100 years because of constant melting at the bottom and precipitation replacing it from the top. Obviously, the bottom doesn't melt away on land (e.g. Anarctic) ice, though it may move away as a glacier.

If there is no problem with CO2, then obviously there will be no problem producing a little to talk about it.

If there is, then there's still no avoiding using the fossil fuels to move those bodies, because research into alternatives tends to die out when the price of these fuels drops. Of course, they COULD use public transportation instead of chartered jets, and doubtless some are. Perhaps better network and teleconferencing technology will eventually make physical travel to such things irrelevant, but not yet.

Water may be the leading 'greenhouse gas', but the effect of CO2 is there. And warmer air (gasp!) can carry more water. It's almost as if the problem is somewhat more complicated than the cited 19th century observations say.

Of course I'd be the first to admit that there are more pressing problems. Desertification is proceeding unchecked. Human population is growing unchecked, and is by in large uneducated. Habitats for various species are vanishing unchecked. A lot of things are just dying off. More wild animals are coming into human populations and exposing humans and their pets/livestock to their unique new pathogens unchecked.

So the big question is how long we can postpone the inevitable crash, and how can we control it? It's a given that the poorest third world nations will get the worst of it. We'll by no means be left untouched if a global war or pandemic is the result, but heck, you gotta talk about the scenarios and make plans, or nothing will be in place when the sh!t hits the fan.

what the fuck is a tonne

it's a "ton" goddamnit

what the fuck is a tonne?

it's a "ton" goddamnit

#36 ~Kinger

"Tonne" is metric.
"Ton" is Imperial.

Be Well.

In other words, ton = 2000 pounds.

Tonne = 2200 pounds.

It's -3C in Detroit, damn cold!

""UN Climate Talks Will Create 13,000 Tonnes of CO2""

And 5,000 used condoms and 23,000 empty scotch bottles.

When the UN starts taking their own emissions seriously, maybe I'll listen.

** Rtard Alert **

** Incoming Goatman post **

The actual age of the arctic ice is between 5 and 100 years. But you can believe it is 26,000,000 years if you want, deth.

Spud sed that 26 million years is how long Science estimates how long there has been an artic ice cap not that all the ice up there is that old.

Yer reading and comprehending skills need work.

Case in point...

The article you cited as "proof" of the age of the arctic ice.

Did you read the part that preceded yer quote?

A three-strong team of explorers will set out early next year to spend several months trekking across the Arctic ice, gathering data they hope will enable scientists to more accurately predict how many years are left before there is no longer a permanent ice cap at the North Pole.

Current estimates put the lifespan of the Arctic's sea ice somewhere between 5 and 100 years

They are talking about how long the arctic ice cap HAS LEFT not how long it's been there.

/Spud to El Cidney:

Yeah, Spud's really "getting his ass kicked" here.

wOOt!

Be Well.

** Incoming Goatman post **

"The actual age of the arctic ice is between 5 and 100 years."

This is like the second-hand smoke nazis having a rally, and traveling by way of tobacco fueled steam engines across the country to get to it. Except more ridiculous.

Goatman should go present his "findings."
I'm sure he will get an appropriate reception.

We are talking about the current ice cap, zat. Most anyone could have figured that out since we were talking about taking core samples and people haven't done that until quite recently. I'm pretty sure Ice Age men weren't doing it.

Fuck, you're stupid! Doesn't it embarass you to keep displaying it?

Or are just pitifully twisting in the wind with your weak-assed deflections? It's hard to tell with you.

Anyway, you still haven't answered my question. (wonder why? LOL!) What would be the effect of a 3% rise in CO2 in a perfectly static planetary model (the planet being earth) over the course of a decade. You don't know? Yet you pretend to know what it will be in a highly dynamic system?

BWHABHWBAHBWHBAHBHBWHBABAHBWHA
B!

BTW, go ahead and keep ignoring the question. Your silence speaks far louder than your pitiful deflections.

Idiot

Spud sed that 26 million years is how long Science estimates how long there has been an artic ice cap not that all the ice up there is that old.

*yawn*

ANd spud says he is a 5.5 inch potatoe wot don't spell 2 gud.

I'd like to see a link that supports your claim. I didn't think so.

LOL

Deth, sometimes it's just better to fade back silently into the night instead of continuing to prove yourself an idiot.

They are talking about how long the arctic ice cap HAS LEFT not how long it's been there.

OK. Let's say that there is only 10% left. (there is far more than that, of course, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt)

Simple arithmatic then says that it replaces itself in 50-1000 years. Does simple math escape you, too?

No wonder you and zat are joined at the hip. I've never seen a more similiar pair of idiots.

Yeah, Spud's really "getting his ass kicked" here.

I see you took my advice I gave yesterday about making an attempt to try honesty for a change. Kudos, dude! I honestly thought there was no hope for you.

"The actual age of the arctic ice is between 5 and 100 years."

That explains this 100,000 year ice core all right.
www.wunderground.com

As my link said, zat, "arctic sea ice". YOur link says "Greenland ice". Newsflash, idiot: the ice in greenland is not considered 'sea ice'.

It must be sheer stupidity, because even my dog can do a better job at deflections, zat.

BTW, any answer to that very, very simple question on which all global warming models must be built? That one using a static model?

I didn't think so. But yet you can predict the far more complicated dynamic models with thousands of variables. LOL!

Idiot

The actual age of the arctic ice is between 5 and 100 years.

~Goatman

Current estimates put the lifespan of the Arctic's sea ice somewhere between 5 and 100 years.

~Goatman's cite.

They are talking about how long the arctic ice cap HAS LEFT not how long it's been there.

~Spud

I see you took my advice I gave yesterday about making an attempt to try honesty for a change. Kudos, dude! I honestly thought there was no hope for you.

Either you A) can't recognise sarcasm when it smacks you across the nose like a rolled up newspaper in which case yer simply a moron or B) You can recognise sarcasm but yer just to stubborn to admit when you've had yer ass handed to you in which case you are an intellectually dishonest moron.

Yer "Ooh, it's all too complicated to be able to say anything fer sure about MMGW/CC" argument is beyond pathetic, Goat.

The very definition of oblivious is the inability to see the obvious and that's you, Goat.

Yer worse than an idiot, yer a willfull idiot.

And a hack and a shill and a bore and a boor.

Wot's worse is that those are yer good points.

Be Well.

When he finds himself in a hole of his own devising Goat's solution, apparently, is to just keep on digging.

Simple arithmatic then says that it replaces itself in 50-1000 years. Does simple math escape you, too?

Wot orifice did you pull them numbers outta?

Never mind, Spud can tell from the smell.

Do the math then, bright boy, tell all us dummies how an ice cap that's existed for 50 million years can suddenly "replace itself" in "50-1,000 years" after disappearing?

Yeah, that right you transparent shill, Spud sed "50 million years".

Spud got the 26 million year figure from the documentary Spud watched last night on the disappearing polar cap.

A quick google found this...

I'd like to see a link that supports your claim. I didn't think so.

~Goatman.

Did you like the link ya saw that supports Spud's claim?

Yeah, Spud didn't think so.

Be Well.

/Outtie fer bit
stage left.

deth: You know so much about what a rise of CO2 will do in the highly dynamic system of the earth, so you will have no problem at all answering the question that zat is avoiding.

Consider a completely static planetary system identical to earth. What will a 3% rise in atmospheric CO2 do to that system in a period of a decade?

You don't know? I didn't think so. Even climatologists with their fancy computer models can't answer that question.

But you, deth, know what will happen in a much more complicated system as our own planet is when a thousand variables are added to the equation.

LOL

Do you really get that big of a charge pretending to know so much about something that even the most knowledgable scholars on the planet are only to barely scratch the surface of?

Whatever blows air up your skirt, dude. Pretend away!

Seriously, just apologise fer being a liar and a moron and Spud'll let this all go like it never happened.

You speak as if the most imortant thing in my life is to have you "let this all go like it never happened".

News flash: I don't give a fuck what you do, you self absorbed ass.

Do you ever come down off your lofty perch? I've never met anyone even a fraction as arrogant as you, deth. I honestly hope that this is just part of your blog persona along with the 4.5 inch potato thing because I simply can't understand how an ego like yours could be tolerated by anyone within 80 miles of you.

Anyway, mr climatologist: What would be the effect of a 3% rise of CO2 in on this planet if it was a perfectly static (no variables like sea currents, solar fluctuations, constant albedo, etc) model?

You don't know? I didn't think so. So quit pretending you know how a highly complex model would react. You only reinforce what most know already: Your ego is out of control

What an arrogant idiot.

Tis the season to be jolly, fa la la la la la la la la....

Sing with me Goatman and Spud!!!

/Outtie fer bit

The blog world waits with 'bated breath for your return.

or so you think. Truth is, no one would even notice your absence if you didn't so self-aggrandizingly announce your departure and arrival daily.

What an egotistical ass

Sing with me Goatman and Spud!!!

Bah, humbug

*g*

'Bah, humbug"

OOOOOOO...don't let Santa hear you say that or it's coal in your stocking young man!!!

don't let Santa hear you say that or it's coal in your stocking young man

What I want for xmas comes in two stockings.

'What I want for xmas comes in two stockings."

Ya ain't gettin' nuttin' if you don't start being good! He's making a list you know! ; )

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa --

Do you really think that after 53 years I'm going to start being good? *grin* Old dogs, new tricks, and all that jazz . . .

What will a 3% rise in atmospheric CO2 do to that system in a period of a decade?

You keep asking this question like it's the end all and be all to the MMGW/CC debate.

It aint.

Do you know wot "projecting" is, Goatsheadsoup?

What an egotistical ass

you self absorbed ass.

What an arrogant idiot

Your ego is out of control

THAT'S projecting.

Now why don't you give blogworld even more excruciating details about yer trip to the dentist today, explain further genetic tendencies in yer family, whine about yer pc problems or post another picture of yerself and then call Spud an egotist again.

Yer hypocrisy is so massive it must be visible from space.

Spud at least tries to stay on topic all you seem to do is try and make this blog all about you.

Yer love affair with yerself is nauseating to observe and then you have the unmitigated audacity to complain about the mote in Spud's eye w/o ever acknowledging the beam in yer own?

WTF?!

All that bruhaha, but still can't answer the very simple question, huh, deth?

It seems to me that someone with the brainpower to prognosticate the world's fate due to global warming in this complicated world could at least let us know what a 3% rise in CO2 in a completely static system would do over the course of a decade.

I guess not. Maybe you ain't as smart as you'd like us all to believe, huh, deth?

Carry one, loser. LOL

Done with you for now.

Really? I'm so fucking relieved. Better get back to center stage. Oh, don't forget to let us all know when you are gone so that we can all wait for your encore and tell us you are really gone. LOL. Love that limelight, don't you deth?

What will a 3% rise in atmospheric CO2 do to that system in a period of a decade?

You keep asking this question like it's the end all and be all to the MMGW/CC debate.

Actually, no, it's not the 'end all' to a debate. It seems it would be the start, not end a person concerned about excessive CO2 would try to educate themselves on before they moved on to the more complex systems.

But they (read, YOU, deth) can't even tell us what happens at square one, but they (you) try to pretend to know what will happen at square 147.

FAIL

Do you know wot "projecting" is, Goatsheadsoup?

What an egotistical ass

you self absorbed ass.

What an arrogant idiot

Your ego is out of control

Ah, yes, the ever popular, "I know you are, but what am I" schoolyard taunt. It hits me deep everytime, deth. You are just too clever.

LOL

Goat you dumb fuck.

"deth: You know so much about what a rise of CO2 will do in the highly dynamic system of the earth, so you will have no problem at all answering the question that zat is avoiding.

Consider a completely static planetary system identical to earth. What will a 3% rise in atmospheric CO2 do to that system in a period of a decade?

You don't know? I didn't think so. Even climatologists with their fancy computer models can't answer that question.

But you, deth, know what will happen in a much more complicated system as our own planet is when a thousand variables are added to the equation."

This is a direct quote, now shut up and listen.

We aren't just randomly messing with figures and getting conclusions, as fun as that would be, for the exact reason that you specified. It would be very, very complicated and difficult.

However we are seeing that the Earth's temperature is rising, and, when we compare it to our own history, we see a correlation between the temp and the rise in greenhouse gasses.

This is hardly some sort of magical, abstract algortithm. But, then again, I wouldn't expect you to grasp even the most basic scientific principles. so go back to 8th grade and finish your education.

By the way, that's called a "correlation". Good SAT word, so when you take that in 3 or 4 years, make sure to remember that one.

And let's discuss comp models, hmm?

PIf we see a rise in temp, then we can measure the rate of change. If we assume that rate to be constant, we can project into the future.

"PIf we see a rise in temp, then we can measure the rate of change."

And if we see a drop in temp, then we can measure the rate of change too...right? Kinda like what has been happening since 1998?

"If we assume that rate to be constant, we can project into the future."

Assume? Constant? That would be a hell of an assumption as this chart shows.

PIf we see a rise in temp, then we can measure the rate of change. If we assume that rate to be constant, we can project into the future.

Posted by Postscript624 at 2008-12-03 08:11 AM

This is hardly some sort of magical, abstract algortithm. But, then again, I wouldn't expect you to grasp even the most basic scientific principles. so go back to 8th grade and finish your education.

My, aren't we smug, postscript?

So prove the correlation, smart guy.

There is oil at the pole. Maybe you heard about the Russians wanting to drill for it. Do you know where oil comes from? (hint: It's called a fossil fuel) Yes, it takes millions of years of dead dinosaurs and plants to oil. That tells me that there was once lots of dinosaurs and plants at the north pole. These things don't thrive too well in ice.

See the correlation? LOL

If the earth existed without an ice cap without man, don't you tnink it's possible that it could happen again?

BTW, there's been a lot of data recently of record cold and even hints of a cooling trend. Personally, I take that with a grain of salt because unlike you, I refuse to let a few thousand years of data speak for the entire history of a 4.5 billion year old planet. That would be like trying to figure out the temperature extremes of one 24 hour period by looking at the last few minutes before midnight. I'm not that stupid. You, zat, and deth apparently are.

BTW, Is this the thinking process one develops after 8th grade where you live? LOL

Wow, zat. A data chart for 1,000 years. I'm impressed. Do you have one that shows the other 4,499,999,000 years the earth has been around? Maybe one that shows number of SUVs vs temperature rise during the Carboniferous era? LOL

BTW, zat: Let's start with some basics, shall we? Consider a perfectly static planetary model with an atmosphere identical to earth's. Now increase the CO2 in that model by 3%. Is there a temperature rise? If so, how much?

You don't know? But you claim to know what will happen in a highly dynamic system with an increase of CO2? LOL!

This from a guy who will not even admit that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas component of our atmosphere. BWBABHHAHHHAAWB

500 Myr ago CO2 levels were likely 10 times higher than now.[11] Indeed higher CO2 concentrations are thought to have prevailed throughout most of the Phanerozoic eon, with concentrations four to six times current concentrations during the Mesozoic era, and ten to fifteen times current concentrations during the early Palaeozoic era until the middle of the Devonian period, about 400 Mya

Oh no, you've got me, there were other times when there is a high temperature during the earth's history. Critical Fact:
Your graphs show that the rate of increase for these warm periods is somewhat slow compared to the sharp increase of the most recent past.

Conclusions:
1) Globing warming is occuring, and is aided (if not produced) by man and his greenhouse gas emissions.

OR

2) The Earth's temperature is becoming dangerously unstable and is falling out of its cycle, and we don't know why.

"There is oil at the pole. Maybe you heard about the Russians wanting to drill for it. Do you know where oil comes from? (hint: It's called a fossil fuel) Yes, it takes millions of years of dead dinosaurs and plants to oil. That tells me that there was once lots of dinosaurs and plants at the north pole. These things don't thrive too well in ice. "
Again you fail 8th grade science. Ever heard of "continental drift"? It's the way that chunks of land MOVE around on the earth's surface. Thats why we see rocks and fossils in Africa, that we also see in North and South America. Now why don't you go back to elementary school and leave the HARD thinking to the BIG boys.

By the way:
"BWBABHHAHHHAAWB"
Weirdest laugh ever. Why are you throwing random "b's" in there?

You have also further demonstrated your ignorance:
"So prove the correlation, smart guy"

The word prove doesn't actually relate to a correlation, that is the property of the scientific method, which involves experimentation. You don't "prove" a correlation, the point is not to establish causation, it is to draw a connection. We see an increase in CO2 emmision, and a sharp increase in temp. Conclusions:
1) The earth's temp is causing us to use more fossil fuels/release more CO2

OR

2) Our fossil fuels/CO2 Emmissions are causing the temp to rise.

Which do you want to go with? Because the first one seems a tad improbable.

Again you fail 8th grade science. Ever heard of "continental drift"?

Why yes, I have.

Have you ever heard of 'google'? Might want to google some history maps of the earth between 10 and 160 million years ago (major oil formatin periods) before you use that stupid '8th grade' joke again. LOL The land masses weren't that much different than they are now.

BTW, what do you think about the CO2 levels being 10 to 16 x higher during the mesozoic? That suggests to me that the earth's climate can change without mankind. Fuck, there goes my 8th grade logic again. LOL

Weirdest laugh ever. Why are you throwing random "b's" in there

That's a laugh? I did not know that. Zat has this obsession with adding random B, H, A, and As to his post, so I give 'em back. Now I know what the fuck he was trying to do.

Because the first one seems a tad improbable

Improbable, but not impossible. That is why I keep my mind open and don't make a claim either way like some of you other self professed know it alls.

It is highly improbably that the ratio of the diameter of the moon to it's distance from the earth is the same as the sun's. Very, very improbable, in fact. But I would rather consider that as an option during a solar eclipse than that a dragon is eating the sun.

Odds prove nothing. Facts do. Fact is, the earth has undergone major climate changes many, many times in the past and will most likely do so in the future.

And how many starving people could be fed w/ the money they'll spend on gourmet food & gallons of booze, yadda, yadda. It looks a lot like a Hollywood fundraiser. Photo ops and drinking.

Which do you want to go with? Because the first one seems a tad improbable.

As is usually the case with the ignorant -- they are very binary and freak out that there may be a third option. That third option is: The earth is going through a natural climate change.

Indeed, your first two have never been observed or proven. The third one has. Open your mind, mister binary. Everything isn't always black/white, up/down, left/right. We do indeed live in world where possibilty > 2

"Assume? Constant? That would be a hell of an assumption as this chart shows.

www.longrangeweather.com"
I just had time to really look at that one, and I realized: it's the dumbest fucking graph in the world. It distorts the y-axis numbers, so -54 is actually almost twice as large as +58. It doesn't even give y-axis numbers for about half of the temps it shows. FAIL.

"BTW, what do you think about the CO2 levels being 10 to 16 x higher during the mesozoic? That suggests to me that the earth's climate can change without mankind. Fuck, there goes my 8th grade logic again. LOL"
I think I want a source. But hey, the climate probably was quite different back then. It may well have been warmer. BUT:
We don't live then, if it is going to get warmer, then we'll still be screwed, because the ice caps will melt and then we'll get global flooding and a whole host of other problems. And, if it was so warm back then, and CO2 levels were so high, wouldn't that seem to suggest that increased CO2 means hotter earth?
And we are pumping a good bit of CO2 into the atmosphere right now. So, uh, maybe we have a problem? Thanks for helping me out there.

re: That suggests to me that the earth's climate can change without mankind. Fuck, there goes my 8th grade logic again. LOL

Indeed. There it goes again. Who in this debate has ever suggested that the earth's climate is static?

The question is what impact human activity currently has on the earth's climate. Whether or not there is an impact has effectively been answered.

"Because the first one seems a tad improbable

Improbable, but not impossible. That is why I keep my mind open and don't make a claim either way like some of you other self professed know it alls.

It is highly improbably that the ratio of the diameter of the moon to it's distance from the earth is the same as the sun's. Very, very improbable, in fact. But I would rather consider that as an option during a solar eclipse than that a dragon is eating the sun.

Odds prove nothing. Facts do. Fact is, the earth has undergone major climate changes many, many times in the past and will most likely do so in the future."

Odds actually prove more than you think. When you use evidence to argue a point, all you're doing is improving the odds that you are right. You COULD always be wrong. However, the more cases you find where you are right, the more likely you are to BE right.

Would you take a bet of 1 to 1,000,000? That's a bit of an exageration, but my point is still there. We live in a statistical world. Not that I would expect a binary person like you to understand.

"As is usually the case with the ignorant -- they are very binary and freak out that there may be a third option. That third option is: The earth is going through a natural climate change.

Indeed, your first two have never been observed or proven. The third one has. Open your mind, mister binary. Everything isn't always black/white, up/down, left/right. We do indeed live in world where possibilty > 2"

Oh there could well be the possibility of the third option, but then we look at data, and using deductive logic we can rule it out with relative safety. See above.

BTW, postscript, a PS from me:

I am not saying that man isn't causing climate change. I am saying that I don't know. I am also saying that you nor anyone else knows. There simply isn't enough data. We haven't explained past climate changes. We haven't explained the current cooling trends.

I asked a question above that you didn't answer. Would you base the temperature range of a 24 hour period using the last two minutes of the day as your entire data set? No? Well, that is what you are doing when you try to base current climage changes on the data set we have for this 4.5 billion year old planet.

I'm not that presumptuous. Though you think I have only an 8th grade education, at least I'm smart enough to look at the big picture and not focus on a few hundred years of data.

Admitting what we don't know is just as important as looking at what we do know.

But that's just me -- a stupid 8th grader waiting to grow up. Big brains like you will take their three inches of data and build a hundred mile model.

Oh there could well be the possibility of the third option, but then we look at data, and using deductive logic we can rule it out with relative safety. See above.

Admitting you don't know all the facts is actually a sign of intelligence, not ignorance when it comes to forming workable models. But there are some idiots who think they can build a 24 hour model with only a few seconds of of data. Go for it, dude.

btw, do the math: You may think that I have only an 8th grade education, but I can do simple math. 1 second is to one day as 52,000 years is to the age of the earth. IOW, we are working with a few seconds of data if the earth was one day old. Would you like to explain daily temperature fluctuations when all your data comes from a few seconds before midnight?

I just had time to really look at that one, and I realized: it's the dumbest fucking graph in the world. It distorts the y-axis numbers, so -54 is actually almost twice as large as +58. It doesn't even give y-axis numbers for about half of the temps it shows. FAIL.

Of course betelg ingores the primary message of the chart and focuses on the minutae. I suppose when you see one of these stylized maps in the yellow pages or drawn on a napkin you scream, "This map isn't right! The road bends here this way, then back again! They show it as a straight line. Also, they show the distance between these two intersections as being the same when I know they are different". And I'll bet you label that map unusable and never visit that particular merchant, right? LOL

Mea culpa. The above post was intended for postscript, not betelg.

Some advice: Never go on "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader".

BTW, childlike attempts at insulting my education really do drive your point home. Keep 'em coming if you really want to convince me you are right about anthropogenic global warming.

Oh there could well be the possibility of the third option, but then we look at data, and using deductive logic we can rule it out with relative safety.

???

So you rule out teh possibility of natural changes in climate even though they have been proven to have happened many times on both small and large scales in the history of the planet?

Wow. I don't know how to respond to such an ignorant statement.

Even climatologists with their fancy computer models can't answer that question.

And so ends the discussion. Please inform ZAT.

Please inform ZAT.

I will when he gets out of his pool. OOPS. Can't do that -- he swims year 'round now.

and they will also creat a LOT OF millionaires who are pushing green..........and who will pay for all of that

same people who might be about to bail out the big three.....me and you

"And so ends the discussion. Please inform ZAT."

I'll say one thing for ol' ZAT, DeadPud and their little friends....they are sure quick on their feet. When the "global warming" crisis sorta faded as the cooling trend was exposed, they changed the mantra to "climate change." Can't go wrong that way, can they? Since the climate is always changing we're going to have a perpetual crisis and therefore will ALWAYS have to rely on ZAT's scientific, peer-reviewed pool for climate data to save the planet. I don't really know what DeadPud's stake in all this is though. Maybe he has talked ZAT into financing the publishing of his books of poetry and prose. Perhaps he could sell those in Canada....and maybe California.

Goat, you have finally cinched it for me, so I will say two things:
1) Okay, your main point is that we don't have enough data to say anything, mine is that we do. Here's why:
a. Our climate is not representative of the entire history of earth.

b. However, our climate is very important to continuing to live as we do now.

c. The Earth is clearly getting warmer.

d. As you have said before, there have been other times when the earth has been warm. Like the mesozoic, which you claim had elevated CO2 levels.

e. If you look at it scientifically, we can see that elevated CO2 in the atmosphere could produce a warmer climate. The above claim supports that hypothesis.

f. So it follows that if we pump CO2 into the atmosphere then the temperature could rise. We are doing so right now.

g. We would expect to see a rise in temp that reflects the rise in CO2 levels. We do.

Conclusion:
We have a problem that we are contributing to.

To say that man is CAUSING global warming is difficult. We could certainly be entering a warm period. To say that we are CONTRIBUTING to it, and somehow speeding up the process is much more feasible. This is what I argue.

Now let's talk about your misconceptions about science. You argue that, because we haven't closed for every variable, we can't possibly know what's going on. Did you know that it's possible that there could be aliens in the center of the Earth who are just using giant tractor-beams to pull us all inwards, and that our conception of gravity is completely off? That is a POSSIBILITY. However, it's not probable. Everything is POSSIBLE, but for us to give everything the same degree of scientific respect is foolish.

"Of course betelg ingores the primary message of the chart and focuses on the minutae. I suppose when you see one of these stylized maps in the yellow pages or drawn on a napkin you scream, "This map isn't right! The road bends here this way, then back again! They show it as a straight line. Also, they show the distance between these two intersections as being the same when I know they are different". And I'll bet you label that map unusable and never visit that particular merchant, right? LOL"

Actually that is wrong. The graph certainly shows us that there were warm periods, and cold periods in the history of Earth. However, what it tries to do is assign arbitrary magnitudes of temperature to each time period, which is an attempt to lead the viewer to believe that our period is not all that warm. So, while it does provide some information, the information isn't as important as it is being presented to be. All it can reliably tell us is that the Earth has been cool and warm.

Please try to think about what I'm saying, instead of drawing simplistic conclusions based on your warped understanding of science and logic. That's what a ten year old does. If you keep this up you're going to go down to 6th grade.

And yes, I will keep insulting you, mostly because you've earned it, as anyone with a frontal lobe can see.

"So you rule out teh possibility of natural changes in climate even though they have been proven to have happened many times on both small and large scales in the history of the planet?"

Hardly, that is your conclusion. My point is that our immediate period is anomalous in regards to its rate of development. I don't know where you got that conclusion from.

What I was saying was that it is unlikely that our current situation is the same as previous ones.

Please stop being stupid.

We have a problem that we are contributing to.

OK. So are you willing to go back to the lifestyle your ancestors of only 5 generations ago had in order to save the world? You're not? Nor am I or 99% of the rest of the civilized world. So I ask you, why are you whining? Better yet, why don't you abandon your current lifestyle in order to change the world?

Seems to me if you want to whine about a problem that you self admittedly are causing you are a hypocrite.

So put up or shut up.

c. The Earth is clearly getting warmer.

In the very small sliver of time you choose to look at it, it may be. Even that isn't clear. Remember the October debacle just last month? It was declared yet another scorcher for the planet by the climatogist scientist gods. Then calmer heads prevailed, looked at the data, and guess what? -- it was actually a very cold October!

Now let's talk about your misconceptions about science.

I have no misconeptions about science. Science is by definition a process where data is analyzed and a conclusion is drawn from it. I fully adhere to that. You and the rest of the chicken littles only want to look at selective data instead of the big picture and draw your conslusions. That ain't science. It is you my friend, not I, who has misconceptions about science.

WEEELLLLLL, ever heard the phrase "alternative energy"?
There are certainly ways to combat this crisis. However it is dumbasses like you who keep telling everyone it's not true that are the big problem. We have to convince people that it's real, so we can get them interested and invested in creating technologies to work around the problem.

"So put up or shut up"
Basically what your telling me is to fix the problem, while all the while having people like you telling everyone that I'm crazy. Man your demanding. Fortunately I hope to do some work in technologies to help fix the problem. But while we're at that, maybe it is you and your people who should "shut up" and let us fix it in peace. Then you can start telling everyone how much of a lie it all was.

"I have no misconeptions about science. Science is by definition a process where data is analyzed and a conclusion is drawn from it. I fully adhere to that. You and the rest of the chicken littles only want to look at selective data instead of the big picture and draw your conslusions. That ain't science. It is you my friend, not I, who has misconceptions about science."

Okay, are you actually reading my posts or what? We are looking at the earth and seeing that there is a NET warmth, that is inconsistent with the past. I'm not ignoring the fact that there are climate fluctuations, I'm saying that this time it's different. Okay? Can you understand that?

The Earth is heating at a rate greater than in the past. A past which shows, by the way, warmth associated with CO2 (by your own admission). So it logically follows that if we put CO2 up there, then it gets hotter. We have done the former, and we are seeing the latter.

Everything is POSSIBLE, but for us to give everything the same degree of scientific respect is foolish.

LOL You say this, but mere hours ago you stated:

Oh there could well be the possibility of the third option, but then we look at data, and using deductive logic we can rule it out with relative safety. See above.

#82 | Posted by Postscript624 at 2008-12-03 10:51 AM |

We had three options in that scenario. The two you posited were pure conjecture and not proven. The third that I offered (natural climate changes) is a well known and proven fact.

IOW, you think it is foolish to give proven data the same amount of 'respect' as something that hasn't been proven.

HOnestly, dude, you crack me up.

FINALLY!
Are you familiar with something called a "chi-squared test"? Basically it allows you to rank your data according to significance. It's a useful scientific tool because not all data is equal! Thus, while we are not saying that the earth never has temperature fluctuations, we are saying that those fluctuations that occurred are different from the one that is happening right now. Thus we cannot treat/rank them the same.

Okay, fine, I admit my word choice was imperfect. I'm not saying that what you suggested was an IMPOSSIBILITY by "ruling it out", I'm saying that the amount of data we have makes it IMPROBABLE that there is no connection between our actions and global warming.

Please try to think about what I'm saying, instead of drawing simplistic conclusions

I do listen to what you are saying. I still maintain that we do not have near enough data to even determine if there is a global warming trend, much less if it is anthropogenic.

Or do you really think it is possible to make predictions on a 24 hour model with less than 15 seconds worth of data? (I presume you saw my math above)

If so, I really have no argument. It would be tempting to say that your scientific method has a lot to be desired, but you are screaming that fact loudly and clearly in just about everything you say, so I will not be redundant in that respect.

And yes, I will keep insulting you

Cool. Always the loser's option in a debate as he grasps at straws. Kudos though for admitting you will continue that tactic. Few people display that degree of candor.

Hardly, that [natural climate changes] is your conclusion.

???

Do you really read my posts? Apparently not. I clearly stated that neither I nor anyone knows the real cause because there is not enough data:

BTW, postscript, a PS from me:

I am not saying that man isn't causing climate change. I am saying that I don't know. I am also saying that you nor anyone else knows. There simply isn't enough data. We haven't explained past climate changes. We haven't explained the current cooling trends.
. . .
#83 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-03 10:51 AM |

WEEELLLLLL, ever heard the phrase "alternative energy"?
There are certainly ways to combat this crisis. However it is dumbasses like you who keep telling everyone it's not true that are the big problem. We have to convince people that it's real, so we can get them interested and invested in creating technologies to work around the problem.

???

Again, a big, giant, FAIL!

I have advocated alternative energies many times on this blog. Ask anyone here. I have even advocated fuel taxes to help fund it.

Do you ever get anything right?

Okay, let's give it one more go, to see if you can wrap your pathetic mind around these very simple concepts.

Okay, are you actually reading my posts or what? We are looking at the earth and seeing that there is a NET warmth,

Yes, it is in the very tiny sliver of time you choose to look at. If you step back and look at the big picture, you are wrong.

Let me tell you what the temperature was here in SA 10 seconds before midnight last night. Then you come back and tell me if there is cooling or warming trend the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds. LOL

Basically what your telling me is to fix the problem, while all the while having people like you telling everyone that I'm crazy.

???

I never said you are crazy. I said you don't have enough data to come to a valid conclusion.

That was an honest question above: Do you ever get anything right? Your constant putting of words in my mouth is really becoming annoying.

"Hardly, that [natural climate changes] is your conclusion."

Actually the [natural climate change] bit leaves some stuff out. Your conclusion that I was referring to was that I was ignoring those natural changes. Not that they existed. That was my mistake for not being clearer.

"I have advocated alternative energies many times on this blog. Ask anyone here. I have even advocated fuel taxes to help fund it.

Do you ever get anything right? "

Being new here I am unfamiliar with your stances. However my overall point is still solid. People who deny that global warming exists/is a problem typically also refuse to welcome alternative energy and climate protecting technologies. My mistake for lumping you in with them.

The Earth is heating at a rate greater than in the past

???

Well, you are the only one on the planet who knows this. You need to share your data and how you made that determination with teh scientific community. They'll admit that they don't know how long it took for temperatures to rise in the Mesozoic. They simply know they were higher.

And for christ's sake, when are you going to understand that the trend is ALREADY FUCKING CLEAR. We are seeing abnormality in our time period that is inconsistent with the rest of history. THUS WE CANNOT TREAT THEM THE SAME. What we CAN DO is see that warmth corresponds with CO2 historically. CO2 GOES UP TODAY, AND THEN IT GETS WARM. DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND? BECAUSE I'VE ONLY SAID THIS ABOUT TEN TIMES. I CAN REPEAT IT SOME MORE IF THAT MIGHT HELP.

A past which shows, by the way, warmth associated with CO2 (by your own admission).

What was solar activity at that time? How about ocean currents? Albedo from the clouds at the time? Was there a comet striking the earth which put a lot of water vapor into the air.

For someone who claims they adhere to the scientific method, you sure miss a lot of factors. In fact it seems you miss them all except the CO2 thing.

Yes, of course CO2 is a factor. But it's not the only one.

"Well, you are the only one on the planet who knows this. You need to share your data and how you made that determination with teh scientific community. They'll admit that they don't know how long it took for temperatures to rise in the Mesozoic. They simply know they were higher."
Finally you give me something. But even more recently than that, we can get a better picture of temperature rise. Like in the 10,00 BC and upward area.

Also, we can still infer that CO2 corresponds in the past with higher temperatures. We are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, and we are seeing a rise in temperature. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what's going on. Then again, we may need a 10th grader.

...you can wrap your pathetic mind...

I'm stopping right there. The rest of your posts are going unread by me.

Grow up and get back with me if you want a real debate. Later

" A past which shows, by the way, warmth associated with CO2 (by your own admission).

What was solar activity at that time? How about ocean currents? Albedo from the clouds at the time? Was there a comet striking the earth which put a lot of water vapor into the air.

For someone who claims they adhere to the scientific method, you sure miss a lot of factors. In fact it seems you miss them all except the CO2 thing.

Yes, of course CO2 is a factor. But it's not the only one."

Yes, this is true. However we do have some experimental proof, which would be right now. While CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) was probably not the only factor back then, it is apparently important. Because we are seeing the effects of two much CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) right now. We are putting them in, and it gets hotter. It may just be coincidence, however, when we look back and see that increased CO2 corresponds with higher temps we can conclude that it is probably and IMPORTANT factor. So again, we may be dead wrong, but the probability is that we are not.

nice exit line, by the way. But don't act stupid if you're not willing to be called on it.
Did you know that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result? Well, if you keep saying the same thing over and over and over again, while ignoring what the other guy is saying over and over and over again, you're going to get called insane. Or at least stupid.

But don't act stupid if you're not willing to be called on it.

Yeah, whatever.

As a stupid man, I will continue to look at all the facts available and form an opinion based on it. I will not jump to a conclusion to fill in missing data. These are things we stupid guys do, according to you.

You, the well refined expert in climatology that you are may continue the name calling, considering only selective data, depending on emotion over fact, and putting words into people's mouths. I'll do what works for me, you do what works for you.

BTW, what you are doing is not working.

Hmmmm....I'd like a second opinion actually. Because if all you can do to repute my argument is cry to mommy that the big boy on the play ground called you mean names then you're probably not the best guy to talk to for this kind of thing.

Oddly Enough:
I'm not usually this aggressive, actually. I usually make a point to refrain from swearing and name-calling. Weird.

Hmmmm....I'd like a second opinion actually.

Clearly, only if it is agreement with yours

Because if all you can do to repute my argument is cry to mommy that the big boy on the play ground called you mean names then you're probably not the best guy to talk to for this kind of thing.

???

I have not reputed your argument. I am saying (for the umpteenth time) that you do not have enough data to come to a valid conclusion. Unless of course your argument is, "I have all the data I need to come to a valid conclusion on climate changes and their causes", then I do indeed reput it?

Are you indeed saying that you have enough data to come to a valid and sound conclusion on climate changes and their causes? If your answer is 'yes', then you are very misinformed and have no respect for the scientific method. If your answer it 'no', then we are in complete agreement.

"If your answer is 'yes', then you are very misinformed and have no respect for the scientific method"

Actually I would argue the opposite. I say that we can draw a reasonable conclusion from the data at hand, and if you think about it logically you can see that. We have historical evidence (see all of my posts) and we can support it with lab data (CO2 does work as an insulator) and we are pumping it into the air. The hypothesis then is that we are going to cause a global warming period. The test results yield that we are in fact entering a global warming period. We conclude that our hypothesis is correct. That's called the scientific method.

" then you are very misinformed and have no respect for the scientific method "

...big boy on the play ground called you mean names....

In a serious and honest debate, 'big boys' don't call names. Watch one on TV sometime, or even go watch your local HS's debate team in action if you don't believe me. I was on my HS's debate team for two years, and trust me, it doesn't happen -- at least not with the big boys.

If you want to have a 'play' debate like I have with buffalo bob and deth, then I'll get into the name calling, too. But for some reason, I though you were actually serious. I guess because you are new here and I haven't figure you out yet.

But if you want to be lumped in with boob and deth, I'll be glad to treat our interactions thusly.

Goatman -

Totally off topic. Dropped by this thread for a sec to leave you the below link re yesterday's Nooner discussion on your Epson 800. Didn't think you'd see it if I put this link on yesterday's Nooner and didn't know how else to get it to you except to put it on this thread where you've been posting.

On yesterday's Nooner you mentioned in that one post the possibility your Epson wireless printer connection problem maybe having something to do with Vista, needed drivers, etc. -- whatever.

At the end is a link which may provide some help.

It's Epson 800 printer driver info and downloads for different computer systems.
Don't know if this is of any use to you. You're on your own from here.

That is when you can spare the time from bilge pump maintenance.

I have time now. I don't get back to bilge pump maintenance until Friday.

BTW, zat, can you answer the most basic of basics in this debate? (I know you can't but I love the silence that follows this question)

If the earth was a static model and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere rose 3%, what would be the rise (if any) in temperature over the course of a decade.

You don't know? But you profess to know what the results in a higly dynamic model? LOL

*crickets* Always *crickets* with that question. LOL

Now go cut and paste a lot of meaningless references as if you actually know what are in them. LOL

As I said, usually not this aggressive, but I just really feel like a dick today. So pardon me as I submit to my basest desires for now, although I assure you that I will keep our next interaction more high-brow.

I'm also, foolishly I'm sure, going to answer your question:
The temperature would increase.

I say that we can draw a reasonable conclusion from the data at hand,

Cool. I'd like to see this sort of prognostication in action:

Between 23:59:45 and 23:59:59 last night it was 58 degrees in San Antonio. Using only that data, what will be the temperature the next minute?

53,000 years is to the age of the earth what 1 second is to 24 hours. Hope this helps

No idea, we need another piece of data to answer that one. You need two points to draw a line. So gimme a second temp and I'll establish a trend.

I'm also, foolishly I'm sure, going to answer your question:
The temperature would increase.

By how much? Barely measurable (< .01 degree), moderately noticable, or melt the ice caps increase?

CC: Talked with New Delhi for an hour and we got it going. Thanks for the links and advice yesterday and today.

So pardon me as I submit to my basest desires for now, although I assure you that I will keep our next interaction more high-brow.

Fair enough.

Honestly? Not sure, w'd have to look at some experiments and see.
I'm going to admit ignorance and ask a question:
Relative to our recent increase, is 3% a lot or a little?

No idea, we need another piece of data to answer that one. You need two points to draw a line. So gimme a second temp and I'll establish a trend.

Exactly. I could give you the minute temperature fluctuations for each second and they would probalby be up and down. But you can't take any two and say "It's getting colder", because I could pick another pair and say "it's getting warmer". One needs to consider a much larger data set.

So you say, "Pick the last two data points".

OK, I pick the last two seconds and I see the temperature has risen in that time. But you pick the last two tenths of a second and in that time frame the temperature fell. What is our trend? I would say neither is valid since both are extremely small data sets, but if you had to pick one, it would be the one that covered the greater range of time.

Which brings us full circle. The more data we have, the more accurate our model. So far in our 24 hour model of the earth's history, we have only a few seconds of data. Not near enough to come to an accurate conclusion

Relative to our recent increase, is 3% a lot or a little?

Probably moderately small.

CC: Talked with New Delhi for an hour and we got it going.
Thanks for the links and advice yesterday and today.

#134 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-03 05:

You're welcome.

53,000 years is to the age of the earth what 1 second is to 24 hours. Hope this helps

Posted by goatman

Uh, excuse me. The Earth is 6000 years old

TAKITEZ

Okay, so I actually have understood what your saying before this, but my point is this:
When you say "Cool. I'd like to see this sort of prognostication in action:

Between 23:59:45 and 23:59:59 last night it was 58 degrees in San Antonio. Using only that data, what will be the temperature the next minute?

53,000 years is to the age of the earth what 1 second is to 24 hours. Hope this helps"
You only give me 1 piece of data. We cannot conclude anything from this. Now let's say you give me another, say, that 2 minutes ago it was 61 degrees. The logical conclusion is that in one minute it will be 56.5 degrees. Now we apply this to the globe and we see a trend of warm vs cold periods.
However, all that history doesn't account for one crucial fact: We were not around.
We can change the shape of the coastline in a year if we want, and every minute we are pumping out excess carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. So you've added that extra variable. Now, when we look at our greenhouse gas emission over time we see a curve that pretty directly corresponds to the increase in temperature over time. Now we look back in time and we see that high temperature is associated with high CO2 levels. Thus we are not basing our conclusion solely on one type of data (temperature), but we are in fact using and comparing several data sets. From this we can establish a trend.

Also, considering the nature of the threat, were we to wait and see, we would have a serious problem. Therefore it is also crucial that we act on what we know. I do not think that this will have any negative effects on humanity, other than acting as a safeguard for, what I believe, to be a threat, but as you point out, is not definitely guaranteed. I would currently put the odds at about 80-20 in favor of global warming. But this is by no means a lock. Therefore, while you do have points, it is crucial to factor in the benefit to risk to cost analysis as well.