Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#276
#276
I'll admit that that is what you do for a living. But it doesn't mean that just because you strongly believe it that it's true! I believe you said the same thing to me about my faith! It's seems we have come full circle.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#277
#277
MG1968 said:
what's the point in backing up our skepticism with links to science? You've already made your line in the sand clear, AGW is real, settled and convincing. Any who oppose that POV are "hired guns", dentists, and doddering old men.
Click to expand...

If you have something show it. There's never been anything said on this site that holds water. I'm tired of seeing Micheal Jackson gif's and giggles every time it snows by people who don't know anything except that they don't "believe" in it. If it's all so stupid and wonky, it should be easy to refute with hard evidence.

But you can't. Because the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
 
#278
#278
IPorange said:
Oldvol. What do you know about climate, other than putting your coat on?

So then how is it an insult?

I'm ignorant about Taoism. NASCAR. Lots of stuff.
Click to expand...
I've watched it for 53 years! How much observation have you done?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#279
#279
Oldvol75 said:
I'll admit that that is what you do for a living. But it doesn't mean that just because you strongly believe it that it's true! I believe you said the same thing to me about my faith! It's seems we have come full circle.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This is what men of faith like to do: make it seem like everything is taken on faith.

Faith has different meanings in different connotations. And in any event, what we're discussing is something that has been measured, had hypotheses proposed, tested, and confirmed, and been observed across a wide array of settings. That can never be said about anything spiritual by it's very nature.
 
#281
#281
Oldvol75 said:
But were those that were opposed to Darwin be considered hired guns then?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It took less than a decade for the community to get fully behind Darwin. Initial reception wasn't even disbelief, but more on principle and some things that needed revision by Darwin.

It was not as if 98% of the scientific community disagreed and 2% agreed and were proven correct. Once the enormity of the published work was looked at, a consensus was quickly formed. It didn't take long.

It isn't as though those 2% are still having to argue against the 98%, either.

So, I ask you, what is taking that 2% on climate change so long, whereas Darwin was able to accomplish his mentality change so quickly?
 
#282
#282
So you don't have any faith in what you believe? Just because you have no proof of my faith, does not mean that I have no proof. It was measurable, it was observable. Science truly loves what it doesn't understand or comprehend.
Now back to you. As MG stated, everyone that disagrees with your pov is an idiot. You have to have some faith it what you believe or else you believe that science is the only authority that is 100% correct 100% of the time. Kind of locks you in.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#283
#283
IPorange said:
Personally? 8,000.
Click to expand...

Is this talking about looking at ice cores? Does an ice core really tell about every single day? Or just the day that layer of ice was laid down? I really would like to know!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#284
#284
Oldvol75 said:
Is this talking about looking at ice cores? Does an ice core really tell about every single day? Or just the day that layer of ice was laid down? I really would like to know!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Can you talk with certainty every single day of your 53 years, or do you just recall a summer of a certain year being rather warm?

If you are actually curious, and not using it in an attempt to state that his 8,000 years through ice cores is ridiculous, but your 53 years isn't, because you were there, then I apologize.
 
#285
#285
fl0at said:
Can you talk with certainty every single day of your 53 years, or do you just recall a summer of a certain year being rather warm?

If you are actually curious, and not using it in an attempt to state that his 8,000 years through ice cores is ridiculous, but your 53 years isn't, because you were there, then I apologize.
Click to expand...
I was actually wondering. But why would my 53 years of living everyday not be considered an reliable source of data? I may have a diary that I've been keeping. And I did also live during the time period when scientists where saying we were fixing to have another ice age. They were sure of their science too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#286
#286
Oldvol75 said:
I was actually wondering. But why would my 53 years of living everyday not be considered an reliable source of data? I may have a diary that I've been keeping. And I did also live during the time period when scientists where saying we were fixing to have another ice age. They were sure of their science too.
Click to expand...

Did you keep a diary? What type of thermometer did you use? How was its precision and accuracy? Was it calibrated frequently? What were your methods and procedures for taking those temperatures?
 
#287
#287
fl0at said:
Did you keep a diary? What type of thermometer did you use? How was its precision and accuracy? Was it calibrated frequently? What were your methods and procedures for taking those temperatures?
Click to expand...

The best Walgreens had to offer. Look then write down. How else would you keep it? What about that ice age?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#288
#288
MG1968 said:
what's the point in backing up our skepticism with links to science? You've already made your line in the sand clear, AGW is real, settled and convincing. Any who oppose that POV are "hired guns", dentists, and doddering old men.
Click to expand...

Well, those "hired guns" upon examination turn out to be less than reliable sources.

I haven't seen "The Insider" but I'm assuming I don't have to go into the tobacco industry.

Let's take Fred Singer. He's been caught out on the Leipzig Declaration. He's testified before Congress that both the Ozone Hole and Global Heating don't exist (contrary to 99.9% of opinion). He gets his money from Oil and Coal.

If you study the contrarians, it's the same six names over and over and over and over and over. Lindzen is the only respectable scientist, and he comes across as a classic contrarian trying to prove how smart he is. Lindzen wears a couple of hats too: professional tobacco health skeptic and global heating skeptic.

So, these guys aren't just "hired guns." They simply don't have reputations as credible skeptics. They aren't, in short, solid sources.
 
#289
#289
Oldvol75 said:
Is this talking about looking at ice cores? Does an ice core really tell about every single day? Or just the day that layer of ice was laid down? I really would like to know!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Ice cores can provide annual data. Day to day data isn't really relevant to climate, hence why I always scoff when people freak out over a cold January or a hot July when discussing these things. They go back about 500,000 years.

Tree rings can give semiannual data, but records only go back about 3,000 years, and get really spotty after about 2,000 years.

I use sediment data, which can potentially go back more than 100,000 years.

There are exceptions in different categories that go back further, I am speaking of what is "robust."

There are also geological sources of information that provide small windows going back millions of years.
 
#291
#291
Oldvol75 said:
The best Walgreens had to offer. Look then write down. How else would you keep it? What about that ice age?
Click to expand...

What ice age? More scientists than not published papers to the contrary. They also weren't suggesting that it was going to occur "soon." They suggested over the next few centuries.

I don't like having to turn into gsvol, but here we go:
GlobalCooling.JPG


Since you are on mobile, the image might not show, but it says 62% predicted warming.
 
#293
#293
And our current interglacial period (which is much shorter than the typical ice age, all of human history has actually occurred in a small gap between them) is due to end in a couple thousand years. It remains to be seen how global climate change will affect that. It's possible that it will bring one about sooner than it otherwise would, although not necessarily even in our grand children's lifetime.
 
#295
#295
Question? When looking at sediment, how do you know if the sediment hasn't been mixed with different layers? Floods, heavy rains, someone digging in that spot before and turning the soil over. Is there a way to know that anything like that has not happened in the past? That the samples you are looking at have not been disturbed in anyway from that time period. In short, is it a true picture of what went on in that exact time period?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#296
#296
fl0at said:
What ice age? More scientists than not published papers to the contrary. They also weren't suggesting that it was going to occur "soon." They suggested over the next few centuries.

I don't like having to turn into gsvol, but here we go:
GlobalCooling.JPG


Since you are on mobile, the image might not show, but it says 62% predicted warming.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation
Mobile

You didn't live in the 70's did you?
 
#298
#298
Oldvol75 said:
Question? When looking at sediment, how do you know if the sediment hasn't been mixed with different layers? Floods, heavy rains, someone digging in that spot before and turning the soil over. Is there a way to know that anything like that has not happened in the past? That the samples you are looking at have not been disturbed in anyway from that time period. In short, is it a true picture of what went on in that exact time period?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's a big shortcoming of sediments over the others. What you do is date material at intervals within the sediment, construct a chronology of depth to age, and look for anomalies. There is always going to be some mixing, bioturbation, etc. The idea is that most of it will average out on the longscale. Also, with sediments you usually are looking at a more coarse resolution of time. In other words, you are looking at "century" trends to rather than annual ones. This is also because there is a lag between vegetation and favorable conditions (trees have to grow, flourish, etc. before they start putting out pollen, and they don't just disappear or move right when conditions change), and thus a lag in what is in the sediments.
There are some sediments that have annual depositional patterns that make it possible to date to an annual basis, but even still they can't be exactly "placed in time." In other words, you can know they are annual, but you can't say they are 1377 until 1584 or something. But you can know they are roughly in that range.

Knowing things at a century or decadal level is good enough though, when you are talking about 1,000's of years ago. Doesn't really matter if it was a Tuesday or Wednesday, you know?
 
#300
#300
fl0at said:
No I did not. Did you actually believe everything the media told you when you were living in the 70s?
Click to expand...

That's what the scientific community was saying then, that we were fixing to have another ice age. Today's version is now global warming. They had all of their information lined up too and were sure. You see, some of us have lived through these "sure things" before.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top