Earths average temperature would rise significantly over the next 3 billion years. Damn Sun and his life circle...
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
Jul 31, 2015
0
#143
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Elroch wrote:
You are deluded and wrong: average temperatures continue to rise on the scale where short term oscillations are dominated by the signal of the trend (roughly a couple of decades).
Even the most arrogant science-denier can see that temperatures have risen significantly since global warming was identified as a threat. This is a successful prediction. Global warming is a long term phenomenon.
The main prediction is that they will continue to do so to a catastrophic level unless greenhouse gases are reigned in. Wise people who are concerned about future generations have to prevent greedy fools from causing this.
The Earth has been much warmer for most of its history - with no catastrophe.
And atmospheric carbon dioxide and global ambient temperture is not coupled
nope - they certainly are...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
Now let me help you with your denial. The next argument is but... but ... CO2 lags temperature. That is a stawman and here is why:
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. TheCO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Science isn't all it's cracked up to be. There you have it. Can't argue with that.
Jul 31, 2015
0
#145
marmot84 wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Elroch wrote:
You are deluded and wrong: average temperatures continue to rise on the scale where short term oscillations are dominated by the signal of the trend (roughly a couple of decades).
Even the most arrogant science-denier can see that temperatures have risen significantly since global warming was identified as a threat. This is a successful prediction. Global warming is a long term phenomenon.
The main prediction is that they will continue to do so to a catastrophic level unless greenhouse gases are reigned in. Wise people who are concerned about future generations have to prevent greedy fools from causing this.
The Earth has been much warmer for most of its history - with no catastrophe.
And atmospheric carbon dioxide and global ambient temperture is not coupled
nope - they certainly are...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
Now let me help you with your denial. The next argument is but... but ... CO2 lags temperature. That is a stawman and here is why:
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. TheCO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Science is predicated on the concept that natural laws remain constant over time. If you look at the graph in current post #148, you will see the decoupling the two variables.
Neither one "drives" the other.
Jul 31, 2015
0
#146
AlCzervik wrote:
Haha! And there it is!
"I'm the smartest in the room! How dare anyone debate me! Don't you all know how smart I am? Well, let me tell you..."
I am surrounded by mental midgets. Were you in the Wizard of Oz, by any chance?
It is a fact: I have more real world experience in these issues than you.
Aug 1, 2015
0
#147
JerryKasporav wrote:
Science isn't all it's cracked up to be. There you have it. Can't argue with that.
Jamie, let's be quite clear here: most people recognise someone who has inferior scientific understanding. That's because of what you have posted.
Let's check that by seeing if you are willing to acknowledge the fact that changes in temperature that have taken place at 200,000 times slower rate than those in the last century are irrelevant to the fact of anthropogenic global warming. (See the previous page).
If you can't acknowledge this and learn something from this discussion, you are simply a blind fool who is impervious to improving his understanding. [I'm betting on the latter, so you have a chance to prove me wrong].
Aug 1, 2015
0
#148
Hmm - graphs of temperature and CO2-concentration going back 400.000 years
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
I wonder where these folks got all that data from.
Aug 1, 2015
0
#149
Elroch wrote:
JerryKasporav wrote:
Science isn't all it's cracked up to be. There you have it. Can't argue with that.
Jamie, let's be quite clear here: most people recognise someone who has inferior scientific understanding. That's because of what you have posted.
Let's check that by seeing if you are willing to acknowledge the fact that changes in temperature that have taken place at 200,000 times slower rate than those in the last century are irrelevant to the fact of anthropogenic global warming. (See the previous page).
If you can't acknowledge this and learn something from this discussion, you are simply a blind fool who is impervious to improving his understanding. [I'm betting on the latter, so you have a chance to prove me wrong].
Most people = Amateurs LOLZ
"If you can't acknowledge this and learn something from this discussion, you are simply a blind fool who is impervious to improving his understanding. [I'm betting on the latter, so you have a chance to prove me wrong]." Misgendered - taking your cues from Al? Compounded by the name-calling fallacy.
You lack any sort of intellectual honesty.
Tell me, in which sciences do you have you degree(s)?
Aug 1, 2015
0
#150
Winnie_Pooh wrote:
Hmm - graphs of temperature and CO2-concentration going back 400.000 years
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
I wonder where these folks got all that data from.
If you are asking how paleotemperatures are derived, the bulk of the come from measurements of the ratio between the oxygen 18 isotope (18 O) and the oxygen 16 isotope (16 O). The isotopes are preserved in microscopic foraminifer tests (shells) - the type I studied.
Ice core data are accurate to about 800,000 years ago.
Tree ring data can be used to help calibrate and confirm warming and cooling periods, but to my knowledge, can not provide actual temperature. It is useful back to about 25,000 years before present.
There are other methods used, but I am not familiar with them.
Aug 2, 2015
0
#151
JamieDelarosa hat geschrieben:
Winnie_Pooh wrote:
Hmm - graphs of temperature and CO2-concentration going back 400.000 years
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
I wonder where these folks got all that data from.
If you are asking how paleotemperatures are derived, the bulk of the come from measurements of the ratio between the oxygen 18 isotope (18 O) and the oxygen 16 isotope (16 O). The isotopes are preserved in microscopic foraminifer tests (shells) - the type I studied.
Ice core data are accurate to about 800,000 years ago.
Tree ring data can be used to help calibrate and confirm warming and cooling periods, but to my knowledge, can not provide actual temperature. It is useful back to about 25,000 years before present.
There are other methods used, but I am not familiar with them.
@Jamie: I have problems to imagine any connection between the ratio of isotopes of oxygen and temperature.
Aug 2, 2015
0
#152
I am awaiting, with dread, the day when the environmental weenies are going to have me arrested for smoking a cigar while on my patio.
Aug 2, 2015
0
#153
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Elroch wrote:
JerryKasporav wrote:
Science isn't all it's cracked up to be. There you have it. Can't argue with that.
Jamie, let's be quite clear here: most people recognise someone who has inferior scientific understanding. That's because of what you have posted.
Let's check that by seeing if you are willing to acknowledge the fact that changes in temperature that have taken place at 200,000 times slower rate than those in the last century are irrelevant to the fact of anthropogenic global warming. (See the previous page).
If you can't acknowledge this and learn something from this discussion, you are simply a blind fool who is impervious to improving his understanding. [I'm betting on the latter, so you have a chance to prove me wrong].
Most people = Amateurs LOLZ
"If you can't acknowledge this and learn something from this discussion, you are simply a blind fool who is impervious to improving his understanding. [I'm betting on the latter, so you have a chance to prove me wrong]." Misgendered - taking your cues from Al? Compounded by the name-calling fallacy.
You lack any sort of intellectual honesty.
Tell me, in which sciences do you have you degree(s)?
You are a very poor judge. I have two degrees in mathematics and have worked half my career in applied physical sciences.
As expected, you have proven me right by not acknowledging the point about the stupendous difference in the rates of change of temperature.
That's intellectual dishonesty (how a fool protects his ego, rather than advancing his understanding).
Aug 2, 2015
0
#154
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Science is predicated on the concept that natural laws remain constant over time. If you look at the graph in current post #148, you will see the decoupling the two variables.
Neither one "drives" the other.
This post could not be written by someone with a competent level of understanding of physical sciences. You think in a sloppy, imprecise way and express that thinking to argue against a strawman position.
Firstly, the laws of physics are (as far as we know, and consistently with all of the evidence), absolute and universal to the maximum extent of our observations.
But any bright schoolchild with a basic education would understand that there can be no "law" that in every system, CO2 levels precede temperature changes. Nor has any competent scientist ever said that: it would be immediately recognised as plain daft.
Rather the sum total of all work done on climate science recognises that the truly massive short term injection of CO2 which will double pre-industrial levels in the atmosphere in a few decades time, and which is entirely explained by anthropogenic activities (primarily burning of fossil fuels), is causing a very significant and very rapid rise in temperature and other changes to climate.
It is a major cause for concern that the reverse causation also occurs: the release of greenhouse gases due to the rise in temperature (primarily methane which is more potent than CO2) may cause positive feedback and greatly accelerated climate change.
Perhaps you simply don't understand the fact that a stimulus A can cause an effect B in a system that is otherwise stable and and then B can cause more of A? Let me provide the example of a nuclear bomb for your edification.
Aug 2, 2015
0
#155
Elroch wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Elroch wrote:
JerryKasporav wrote:
Science isn't all it's cracked up to be. There you have it. Can't argue with that.
Jamie, let's be quite clear here: most people recognise someone who has inferior scientific understanding. That's because of what you have posted.
Let's check that by seeing if you are willing to acknowledge the fact that changes in temperature that have taken place at 200,000 times slower rate than those in the last century are irrelevant to the fact of anthropogenic global warming. (See the previous page).
If you can't acknowledge this and learn something from this discussion, you are simply a blind fool who is impervious to improving his understanding. [I'm betting on the latter, so you have a chance to prove me wrong].
Most people = Amateurs LOLZ
"If you can't acknowledge this and learn something from this discussion, you are simply a blind fool who is impervious to improving his understanding. [I'm betting on the latter, so you have a chance to prove me wrong]." Misgendered - taking your cues from Al? Compounded by the name-calling fallacy.
You lack any sort of intellectual honesty.
Tell me, in which sciences do you have you degree(s)?
You are a very poor judge. I have two degrees in mathematics and have worked half my career in applied physical sciences.
As expected, you have proven me right by not acknowledging the point about the stupendous difference in the rates of change of temperature.
That's intellectual dishonesty (how a fool protects his ego, rather than advancing his understanding).
What I point out it that if atmospheric CO2 and ambient temperature charge are coupled, than that relationship needs to stay coupled throughout time. I hasn't been, so the relationship between the two must be governed by other variables.
The graph which showed the two tracking one another for the past 400,000 years is no proof on drives the other. Alternative explanations are equally as sound; such as, they are both respondung independently to other stimuli.
Those who claim atmospheric CO2 levels and ambient temperature are coupled today, need to explain why they were not coupled in the geologic past.
That is how a real scientist thinks about the issue.
Aug 2, 2015
0
#156
Harvey_Wallbanger wrote:
I am awaiting, with dread, the day when the environmental weenies are going to have me arrested for smoking a cigar while on my patio.
It is coming. You will be taxed for your "carbon footprint" and arrested for "crimes against the environment."
Aug 2, 2015
0
#157
JamieDelarosa wrote:
What I point out it that if atmospheric CO2 and ambient temperature charge are coupled, than that relationship needs to stay coupled throughout time. I hasn't been, so the relationship between the two must be governed by other variables.
To you, the fact that you "point out" this is more important than the fact that it reveals sloppy thinking that would be dissected by any competent scientist. But to everyone else, what matters is that it is invalid reasoning, as I explained very clearly.
I suggest you improve your understanding to a level where you can understand this (my last post would be a good starting point) but having encountered your type before, I expect you will remain blissfully ignorant.
The graph which showed the two tracking one another for the past 400,000 years is no proof on drives the other. Alternative explanations are equally as sound; such as, they are both respondung independently to other stimuli.
Those who claim atmospheric CO2 levels and ambient temperature are coupled today, need to explain why they were not coupled in the geologic past.
That is how a real scientist thinks about the issue.
How would you know? Your poor reasoning makes it clear you are not a real scientist.
Also respond to the point the 200,000 times difference in rates of change of temperature: admitting that you have learnt something would be a big step forwards compared to giving everyone the impression your understanding was frozen a half a century ago and incapable of improving it.
Aug 2, 2015
0
#158
Jamie: "It is coming. You will be taxed for you "carbon footprint" and arrested for "crimes against the environment."
I've already seen on TV a county official issuing a citation for BBQ smoke drifting off someone's property.
It is bad enough with all the pc extremes (you'll one day be arrested for uttering a word that is criminal), being too fat (a burden on taxpayer medical plans), wafting BBQ smell, but then the thought police are coming too, I reckon.
There are not a lot of things all that wonderful about getting old. Some, though. But not living to see all this kind of crap is definitely one of them.
Poscript: I'm not talking about myself but, rather, that old fart Elly. 
Aug 2, 2015
0
#159
You fail, Elroch. Your premises are flawed, so your conclusions are flawed.
Ad homenim attacks betray the weakness of your position.
Haha! And there it is!
"I'm the smartest in the room! How dare anyone debate me! Don't you all know how smart I am? Well, let me tell you..."