|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
|
You guys simply cannot make your case without cherry-picking your own data. Amazing. That is why the scientific community finds it hard to take your fringe seriously.
I know you had only just recently gotten over the fact that the Earth is not flat or the center of the universe so take it slow when it comes to climate change. You'll get it one day, I know you will.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zorbman]
#8082780 - 02/28/08 06:36 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why would we cherry pick our data when you do it so well for us? Nice link, by the way. What was it again?
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?



Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zorbman]
#8084848 - 02/29/08 02:57 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You guys simply cannot make your case without cherry-picking your own data.
Incredible. I even left off the huge dip at the end so as not to "taint" the chart of peaks and still you go on denying the trend.
How sad.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: xFrockx]
#8085245 - 02/29/08 08:39 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: We are the fucking rulers of this planet. Our species evolved beyond the capacity of every other animal on this planet, so in my eyes, we won.
Wow, this is the most ignorant thing I've read in at least a month.
The rulers of this planet? Reading through this entire thread for the first time, I was marveling at the picture all of the different perspectives on this issue have painted regarding how majestically vast and dynamic this planet is as a system... and then I saw this.
Humans... won? How does being the most capable of playing our own game have any sort of relevance to other species, who are playing their own game? You do realize that our time on this planet has been very brief and that, with attitudes like that, we soon will be gone?
Wow, that's just wrong...
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
boomer q
Comrade General



Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Lucky for us there are those with open minds who don't swallow every "crisis" hook, line and sinker.
Quote:
so to me, you can pull up any kinds facts
Good to know the facts don't matter to you.
no, the point is that there are tons of statistics which easily lend themselves to misinterpretation, like the fact the the last year was slightly cooler than some people expected...this doesnt say much at all about global warming. speaking of facts, i posted a link to the most recent 940 page IPCC report which has gobs of facts on each page, but none of you climate change deniers wanted to dispute any of those facts, just offer up some bullshit quotes about how there are some scientists who dont agree with the report
and speaking of facts, none of you seemed to want to deal with the fact that we are pouring billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas...why dont you dispute those facts?i had a nice long rant which you deniers seemed to have ignored... ignoring things is your business, ey?
-------------------- I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons
|
boomer q
Comrade General



Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8085485 - 02/29/08 10:07 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
incidentally, how is your name luvdemshrooms, and you deny global warming? havent you learned anything about how to be one with nature from shrooms? you should take a large dose and go watch a glacier fall into the sea
-------------------- I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8085958 - 02/29/08 12:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> we are pouring billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas...why dont you dispute those facts?
Yep, we are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yep, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
So, now what? Are suggesting that the above two statements prove global warming?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
boomer q
Comrade General



Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: Seuss]
#8086010 - 02/29/08 12:36 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
im asking how you can believe those two basic statements and not believe that humans are having an effect on the global climate. i honestly dont see the argument, please enlighten me as to how you can acknowledge that we humans are putting a gas into the atmosphere at a record pace which we know will warm the planet, and still not believe that we are having an effect on the climate? is it that you think the amount of carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere is insignificant? that we have not put nearly enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to have an effect on the global climate? or is it that you just feel that there are other causes for the recent warming trend, and that humans have a very minimal effect?
-------------------- I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons
|
boomer q
Comrade General



Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8086163 - 02/29/08 01:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
let me copy something from IPCCs 4th assessment report, found here http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm (topic 2), and let me know if you agree with it, or dont
"Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed the pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spenning many thousands of years. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005."
disagreements?
heres somethin else, as long as im readin the IPCC...
"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to natural causes alone. During this period the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming."
so do you disagree with the assertion that that there is widespread warming of the atmosphere and oceans? or do you disagree with the assertion that the warming would very likely not have happened without external forcings? or do you say yea, they say its extremely likely, but not impossible? or just that these scientists dont know what theyre talking about?
-------------------- I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8086195 - 02/29/08 01:31 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Its pretty conclusive that the warming and cooling of the earth is resultant of the Sun's output of energy more than anything. Humans might be putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere; however, there is a point at which you could dump twice as much of it into the atmosphere and it still would not produce any real effect as far as cooling is concerned. Phred covered this in his first couple of posts in this thread. Go read them.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
boomer q
Comrade General



Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8086207 - 02/29/08 01:34 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
"A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[31] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Oreskes.2C_2004
how bout responding to this, also? i know we dont believe that wikipedia is reliable, but i also read the link it provided to the actual essay, and you can, also, if you like
-------------------- I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8086221 - 02/29/08 01:38 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: There are three kinds of curves to consider, though -- arithmetic, geometric, and logarithmic. The thing is, absorption of infrared by CO2 is a logarithmic function. Most of the absorption occurs with the first little bit of gas present, with each additional doubling of concentration yielding smaller and smaller absorption. Doubling the current concentration of CO2 would result in almost no further absorption. In fact, there are some scientists who say the point of maximum absorption has already been passed, at least in regards to CO2. It certainly has been passed with water vapor and oxygen. There comes a point at which the concentration of a greenhouse gas is sufficiently high that all radiation at the affected wavelengths are blocked.
So no, it does not necessarily stand to reason that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the greater the effect.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8086237 - 02/29/08 01:41 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
boomer q said: incidentally, how is your name luvdemshrooms, and you deny global warming? havent you learned anything about how to be one with nature from shrooms? you should take a large dose and go watch a glacier fall into the sea
This is one of the most ridiculuous statements I've heard in a month, as long as I'm handing out awards.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
boomer q said: incidentally, how is your name luvdemshrooms, and you deny global warming? havent you learned anything about how to be one with nature from shrooms? you should take a large dose and go watch a glacier fall into the sea
Ahh, allow me to actually address the most ridiculous statement of the month. I don't understand how it is implied that someone who takes psychadelics is suspossed to believe in "climate change", such as it is being referred to as. I say this as someone who took a nice hit of acid and climbed a hill in the unglaciated area of Wisconsin. I then sat at the top, with my legs dangling over the edge of a limestone bluff, above the tree tops below, and gazed out over the Wisconsin River Valley. The unglaciated area is in Southwestern Wisconsin, and its interesting because all of the land in every direction surrounding the unglaciated area was paved pretty flat by glaciers. This is why it exists in its state of hills and trees and pristine environment. Of course, once the glaciers further up North began to melt, all of that water came through the Wisconsin River, forming the valley.
From this vantage point, so magnificently soaring on acid, I could actually sense the changes that had occured over very long amounts of time. I could actually feel exactly how it all happened, the glacial water easing through and forming the terrain, down to the last detail, because all of that information exists in the present moment, in those details; the big picture completely visible through the pure magic of acid. 
It was definitely one of the greatest experiences I've had. After personally witnessing first-hand the end of the last Ice Age, I think a tripper would feel pretty good sitting there, one with nature, observing a glacier fall into the sea. I've seen its melted remains sweep through the land, at least. 


--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Yossarian22
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/07
Posts: 415
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: Its pretty conclusive that the warming and cooling of the earth is resultant of the Sun's output of energy more than anything. Humans might be putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere; however, there is a point at which you could dump twice as much of it into the atmosphere and it still would not produce any real effect as far as cooling is concerned. Phred covered this in his first couple of posts in this thread. Go read them.
Wow, the sun you say? Good lord, it looks like you've shown all those fancy pants scientists. Who woulda thunk that all those advanced climatological predictions and models should have taken into account solar energy and basic chemistry? My God, it's genius! Thanks for revolutionizing the field of climate study with your cunning and original insight, anonymous Shroomery poster!
PS: Did I mention that it's snowing outside therefore global warming has to be false? I mean, it's not as if scientists are predicting a vast and complex destabilization of weather patterns; clearly, global warming means that the entire Earth is going to uniformly increase in temperature.
Edited by Yossarian22 (02/29/08 02:09 PM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: Yossarian22]
#8086348 - 02/29/08 02:12 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So, if it obviously isn't CO2 that is making the difference, then what is it? My point is pretty simple, yes, but that doesn't mean it has been underestimated. My point is that the Sun is responsible for it all and any other factor plays no real role in climate change. Did you have anything of substance to address my point with, instead of this logical fallacy you have presented?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: Yossarian22]
#8086363 - 02/29/08 02:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yossarian22 said: PS: Did I mention that it's snowing outside therefore global warming has to be false? I mean, it's not as if scientists are predicting a vast and complex destabilization of weather patterns; clearly, global warming means that the entire Earth is going to uniformly increase in temperature.
To what is this in regards to? Something I've said? Who is presenting the perspective that you are being sarcastic towards?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: Yossarian22]
#8086429 - 02/29/08 02:33 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yossarian22 said: Wow, the sun you say? Good lord, it looks like you've shown all those fancy pants scientists. Who woulda thunk that all those advanced climatological predictions and models should have taken into account solar energy and basic chemistry?
Can you please substantiate the role in which the sun's output has been figured into their predictions and models, please? I'm most curious to know specifically what role the Sun's output as played. The impression I get from reading this article here suggests it really hasn't played a signfigant role:
Quote:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Scientists, industry leaders and environmentalists have argued for years whether humans have contributed to global warming, and to what extent. The average surface temperature around the globe has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880. Some scientists say the increase could be part of natural climate cycles. Others argue that greenhouse gases produced by automobiles and industry are largely to blame.
Willson said the Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods.
I'm doing my own research into your amusing statement, of course, but, since you're the one making the claim, its your responsibility to back it up. Please do.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Yossarian22
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/07
Posts: 415
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: So, if it obviously isn't CO2 that is making the difference, then what is it?
When did I say it wasn't the CO2? It's also caused by other greenhouse gases, too, but CO2 certainly plays a large part.
Quote:
My point is pretty simple, yes, but that doesn't mean it has been underestimated.
What do you mean "underestimated"? The point is that it's pure craziness to think that modern science is unable to take into account such an elementary idea. The sun hypothesis has been studied and debunked.
Quote:
My point is that the Sun is responsible for it all and any other factor plays no real role in climate change.
And my point is you're entirely wrong. Of course the sun's important, but there haven't been any changes that could explain the unprecedented rise in global temperatures. Here's one link debunking that hypothesis.
Quote:
Did you have anything of substance to address my point with, instead of this logical fallacy you have presented?
I presented no logical fallacy- and don't say "appeal to authority"(it's only a fallacy when it's an appeal to false authority). Science is a self-correcting process; certainly, it makes mistakes and it's not perfect, but every scientific idea that becomes a matter of consensus has been rigorously tested, debated, and exposed to criticism worldwide. There are hundreds of thousands of people who've studied climatology for decades and understand the science more intimately than any of us here could possibly hope to. While studies and technological advances have altered the details of our understanding of climate change, it hasn't altered the core theory; in fact, the library of climatological research has confirmed the existence of global warming many times over. To say "nope, the scientific community is wrong" and to present such scant and superficial evidence is not just arrogant, but stupid. Do you really think none of those scientists asked themselves "maybe we should look at the sun"?
The truth is, there is no controversy over anthropogenic climate change in the scientific community. Amongst talk radio MCs, conspiracy theorists, and energy sector boardrooms, sure, there's a controversy. There has been an orchestrated effort by many whose financial interests argue against environmental regulation to portray it as a controversy, that insipid "let's teach the controversy" the creationists were pushing. The thinking is, if we spread enough half-truths, sophisms, and downright lies, and thus cast doubt as to the existence or severity of global warming amongst the lay but voting populace, we can weaken the public's resolve to address the problem and retard environmentally sound but unprofitable(at least in the immediate short term) regulations. And you've bought it hook, line and sinker. Congratulations, you're spouting Exxon's disinformation. You've been used.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?



Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8086744 - 02/29/08 03:49 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
boomer q said: incidentally, how is your name luvdemshrooms, and you deny global warming? havent you learned anything about how to be one with nature from shrooms? you should take a large dose and go watch a glacier fall into the sea
It's moronic statements like that which make you not worth the time.
I enjoy nature. I just don't swallow the stupidity of many.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
|