Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >
Invisiblecottlestonpie
wanderer
I'm a teapot


Registered: 01/18/03
Posts: 800
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
    #8047670 - 02/20/08 02:58 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

^well said


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zorbman]
    #8047776 - 02/20/08 03:19 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I no longer believe the global warming hype. Just more fear mongering propaganda IMO.


--------------------
"In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson

"Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: bradmassive]
    #8047784 - 02/20/08 03:20 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

bradmassive said:
I no longer believe the global warming hype. Just more fear mongering propaganda IMO.




yup.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8050437 - 02/21/08 02:53 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
When it comes to something that could potentially wipe out humanity, precaution is a good idea.




There are many things that could possibly wipe out humanity. Global warming is among the more far-fetched.


--------------------
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
    #8050452 - 02/21/08 03:03 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

and no one from "Newsmax" is gonna convince me oherwise




They merely referred to other articles. Weak that you should focus on them.

Quote:

if you go to 100 doctors and 95 of them tell you that you have cancer, are you gonna say that theres no consensus because the other 5 guys arent convinced?



Depends on how much opposing evidence the 95 ignore.

Quote:

also, 2013 is only 5 years away



And 2023 is only 15 years away. By then people will be back to freaking about the next ice age. It's what people do. And the gullible do it more. And the evidence will likely be as weak.


--------------------
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Lots of ice cubes now *DELETED* [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8051945 - 02/21/08 01:46 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8051959 - 02/21/08 01:48 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Which research I'm sure you can understand and will post quite soon. How come CO2 increases follow temperature increases. Historically speaking, of course.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Lots of ice cubes now *DELETED* [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8052053 - 02/21/08 02:05 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8052099 - 02/21/08 02:18 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
When it comes to something that could potentially wipe out humanity, precaution is a good idea.


\

Investigation of the facts is a 'good idea' above and before any precaution.


--------------------
"In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson

"Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8052102 - 02/21/08 02:19 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Really? A million years, huh? I'd love to see the links on that. So, do you have anything that proves a causal relationship in the CO2 to temperature increase. Because I sure as shit haven't seen one. It actually makes more sense the other way, that is, that temperature increase allows more CO2 in the atmosphere. Further, I have read that we are actually coming out of a baby ice age, that there really has only been a tiny temp increase in one hundred years (less than 1 degree), that a lot of it is due to monitoring stations being located in increasingly urbanized areas, and that the 1930s were warmer, for example. Also angry sun syndrome. But I'd love to see anything about these 800,000 year cycles. When was the last ice age? 10,000 years ago?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8052104 - 02/21/08 02:20 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Chemical Lobotomy, you don't know jack.

Global warming strikes again!
Posted by Cassy Fiano
Published: February 20, 2008 - 12:40 PM

Global warming has struck yet again! The Goracle has proved that he truly is able to predict what the weather will be like 10+ years from now, and if we simply bow down to him and put ourselves into the Economic Dark Ages, he will be able to save all of our lives.

Who needs the Obamamessiah when you've got the Goracle?

In case you're wondering what it is that has cemented the reality of global warming, here it is.

All that arctic ice that the Goracle's acolytes were hyperventilating over, that caused the crying over polar bears that were drowning and dying, and the whining that we would soon see 50 foot tidal waves putting the coasts of the United States underwater, the arctic ice that had supposedly melted and gone away for good?

Well, um, it's, uh, back.

Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.

It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.

But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the "lost" ice has come back.

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

...

Vast swathes of the world have suffered chaos because of some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades.

Central and southern China, the USA and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms.

Even the Middle East saw snow, with Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman and northern Saudi Arabia reporting the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan snow and freezing weather killed 120 people.

In Britain the barmy February weather came to an abrupt halt at the weekend as temperatures plunged to -10C in central England.

Experts believe that this month could end up as one of the coldest Februaries in Britain in the past 10 years.

The freezing night-time conditions look set to stay around -8C until at least the middle of the week.

Maybe that consensus isn't as ironclad as the Goreacle has led us to believe (but who actually believed that it was?).

But then again, this is probably due to global warming, too. According to the Goracle's global warming fanatical followers, everything is caused by global warming! Extreme heat? Global warming. Extreme cold? Global warming. Polar ice caps melt? Global warming. Polar ice caps swell? Global warming. Too many hurricanes? Global warming. Not enough hurricanes? Global warming. An ant is killed by some kid with a magnifying glass? Global warming!

So fear not, ye followers of the Church of Climate Change. I'm sure the apocalypse caused by global warming will still come in ten or so years time if we continue to refuse to bow to the will of the Almighty Goracle.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/02/20/global-warming-strikes-again.php


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Lots of ice cubes now *DELETED* [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8052520 - 02/21/08 04:12 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/22/08 12:23 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Lots of ice cubes now *DELETED* [Re: Luddite]
    #8052536 - 02/21/08 04:16 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesnoopaloop53
No BetterFriend. NoWorse Friend.


Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 311
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8052746 - 02/21/08 05:01 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

What is more important now, getting the increases in temperature under control and perhaps bringing the temps down or accepting the fact that temps are going up and how do we deal with those accompanying issues? Is the slow rise of sea level going to be a bigger problem or the random storm surge that destroys lots of the coast?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8055730 - 02/22/08 10:00 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

Really? A million years, huh? I'd love to see the links on that.




Deep ice tells long climate story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm





" The most famous ice core, the Vostok (Antarctica) core, with air inclusions allegedly representing the global paleoatmospheres over the last 160,000 years, show CO2 levels below 200 ppmv for many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to 110,000 years BP (Barnola et al., 1987). "Most geochemists were convinced that changes such as these could not occur", says Sarmiento (1991) about these low alleged paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Such low atmospheric CO2 levels below approximately 250 ppmv (McKay et al., 1991) would have led to extinction of certain plant species. This has not been recorded by paleobotanists, showing clearly that the ice core CO2 results are not representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b), hence the CO2-ice-core-method and its results must be rejected."

Ice core data not so reliable.
Quote:



Quote:

So, do you have anything that proves a causal relationship in the CO2 to temperature increase. Because I sure as shit haven't seen one.




Hot off the projector #3: Atmospheric CO2 to 800 kyr ago

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/hot-off-the-projector-3-atmospheric-co2-to-800-kyr-ago/langswitch_lang/sw

The graph 2/3 of the way down in this article shows a definite correlation in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide & methane with temperature over the last 500,000 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw

Prior to very modern times, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been above 300 parts per million for at least 650,000 years. That they have been increasing above this & are presently about to 400 ppm is undeniably the cause of multiple human activities (burning fossil fuels being #1 & deforestation being #2, I believe). That increased amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to warming can be seen today & in very recent history, regardless of which one drove the other in the past (which isn't fully understood yet) where there was without a doubt a correlation between the two (or three if you count methane) factors.




Right. I asked for a causal relationship, not a correlation, and one in a specific direction, i.e. that CO2 drives temp. Other people seem to think it just might go the opposite direction.

"Kondratyev (1988) argues that: "The fact is that the atmospheric CO2 content may be controlled by the climate" and not the opposite."
Quote:



Quote:

that there really has only been a tiny temp increase in one hundred years (less than 1 degree)




It's been about + 1.25oF, give or take a quarter of a degree either way.




Looks pretty tiny to me
Quote:



While some people (very few of them actual scientists) are still attempting to raise doubt & create public confusion on this issue, the scientific community has moved to here...



Ecologists from across the globe who specialize in the study of many different types of ecosystems have reached a general consensus that the lower end of the predictions of what is to come, although severe & presenting many challenges & hardships, wouldn't be catastrophic, while the upper end of them will be.

Quote:

Oceans' Acidity Influences Early Carbon Dioxide And Temperature Link Estimates

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040317074024.htm

- An international team of geoscientists believes that carbon dioxide, and not changes in cosmic ray intensity, was the factor controlling ancient global temperatures. The new findings resulted from the researchers inclusion of the ocean's changing acidity in their calculations.

"Reviewing the geologic records of carbon dioxide and glaciations, we found that carbon dioxide was low during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high during other, warmer periods," says Dr. Dana L. Royer, research associate in geosciences at Penn State. "Previous suggestions that cosmic ray flux correlated better with ancient temperatures than carbon dioxides do not appear true. While cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance, it is likely of second-order importance on a multimillion year timescale."

The researchers looked at climate changes that occurred over the past 570 million years. A direct record of global temperature and carbon dioxide exists for the past 100 years and ice cores provide carbon dioxide information for the past 400,000 years. However, for the remainder of the years, there are no direct measurements.

"A close correspondence between carbon dioxide and temperature has generally been found for the past 570 million years," says Royer. Scientists typically use proxies to determine carbon dioxide and temperatures in the distant past. Oxygen isotope ratios in shallow marine carbonate fossils were used by some researchers to determine surface water temperatures, and this indicated that carbon dioxide and temperature were not correlated, but that cosmic ray fluxes were correlated to temperature. Other proxies can determine carbon dioxide concentrations in both the atmosphere and the oceans.

Royer, working with Robert A. Berner, The Alan M. Bateman professor of geology and geophysics, Yale University; Isabel P. Montanez, professor of geology, University of California Davis; Neil J. Tabor, research associate, Southern Methodist University; and David J. Beerling, professor of animal and plant sciences, University of Sheffield, U.K., compared the results of a variety of carbon dioxide proxies to a model, GEOCARB III, that predicts carbon dioxide over time by tracking carbon entering and leaving the atmosphere. "Proxy estimates of paleo carbon dioxide agree, within modeling errors with GEOCARB model results," the researchers reported in the March issue of GSA Today.

The researchers also found good correlation between low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the presence of extensive continental glaciations.

However, the proxy for temperature obtained from shallow oceanic carbonate deposits did not correlate well with the other temperature proxies or the carbon dioxide estimates.

"The acidity of the oceans changes depending on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the amounts of calcium and calcium carbonate in the water," says Royer. "When corrected for acidity, the temperature curve matches the glacial record much better."

The researchers applied correction factors for changes in acidity due to changes in carbon dioxide alone, changes in calcium ions in the water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and also for changes in calcium ions, carbon dioxide and calcium carbonate saturation of the water. The corrected temperature curves correctly predicted two major glaciations, one around 300 million years ago and one 30 million years ago. The cosmic ray flux does predict these glaciations, but also predicts cold temperatures when there is no evidence for ice.

"The global temperatures inferred from the cosmic ray flux model do not correlate with the temperature record determined from oxygen isotopes in shallow marine carbonate fossils, when these estimates were corrected for past changes in oceanic acidity," says the Penn State researcher.

The U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation supported this research.





I don't see any evidence, just modeling and "adjusted proxies".
Quote:



The following is a good article in presenting evidence that dispels the idea that CO2 levels increase as a result of temperature increases:

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html






I didn't find that there. I found this though:
"There is still some resistance to the theory that the increase in CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuel, and that the increase in CO2 is responsible for global warming."

My quotes above were taken from this:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

There is quite a lot of stuff like this from a bunch of rogue climate scientists who haven't fallen into lockstep with the dogma.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineboomer q
Comrade General
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: bradmassive]
    #8055843 - 02/22/08 10:30 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

bradmassive said:
Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
When it comes to something that could potentially wipe out humanity, precaution is a good idea.


\

Investigation of the facts is a 'good idea' above and before any precaution.





yes, thats why climate scientists at every major university ARE investigating the facts about climate change, and their findings are in the IPCC reports

im not sure what motivations you think scientists have for this so called "fear mongering"... what do you think theyre trying to scare us into doing or thinking? oh my god, the terrible scientists are telling us that we should find fuels other than the ones we are using, which are running out anyway!!! is saying that oil is going to run out fear mongering also?

its really easy to say "oh, i dont agree with the evidence, im not convinced" when you havent really looked at most of the evidence. why dont you skim the thousand or so pages written by the best climate scientists in the world and pick out some things you disagree with, instead of reading a few paragraphs and patting yourself on the back because there was a sentence saying that not everyone is convinced that CO2 emissions are contributing to global warming. why dont you find some of the physical evidence that you disagree with, instead of just propping up the view of a small minority in the scientific community, just saying, oh, they dont disagree

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

have fun


--------------------
I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Lots of ice cubes now *DELETED* [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8060058 - 02/23/08 11:52 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8060171 - 02/23/08 12:22 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

Looks pretty tiny to me




A few degrees can make a huge difference. A 2oC increase over the next century is going to be problematic, but not a mass catastrophe. A 4oC increase, however, may be.




Except there hasn't been a few degrees.  It has been tiny, a lot can be ascribed to solar activity and some more yet can be ascribed to urbanization around monitoring stations.
Quote:



Quote:

" The most famous ice core, the Vostok (Antarctica) core, with air inclusions allegedly representing the global paleoatmospheres over the last 160,000 years, show CO2 levels below 200 ppmv for many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to 110,000 years BP (Barnola et al., 1987). "Most geochemists were convinced that changes such as these could not occur", says Sarmiento (1991) about these low alleged paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Such low atmospheric CO2 levels below approximately 250 ppmv (McKay et al., 1991) would have led to extinction of certain plant species. This has not been recorded by paleobotanists, showing clearly that the ice core CO2 results are not representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b), hence the CO2-ice-core-method and its results must be rejected."




The ice core data shows that C02 levels in the atmosphere have been between 180-300 ppm for the last roughly 800,000 years; only has the concentration shot above 300 ppm very recently.

Is this the ‘Sarmiento’ cited, or was it someone else?

http://www.princeton.edu/aos/people/faculty/jorge_sarmiento/

If so, this more up-to-date article by him & a colleague would be agreeing with me. It even suggests that current atmospheric levels of CO2 are higher today than they have been in the last 20,000,000 years. That what contradict what was attributed to him (assuming it’s the same person) in that paragraph. Where was it even from? A scientific journal?

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-8/p30.html

What plant species should have been extinct at what time but weren’t? That paragraph says nothing at all about it. Without any specifics it's a meaningless assertion.




I never had any intention of posting the entire paper and you would have to find your own way through the footnotes.  The whole point of that excerpt was to illustrate the unreliability of ice core data.  You are aware that plants use CO2 for transpiration, right and the idea that some species will become extinct if it drops down below 200PPM is quite sound.  Other ice cores show levels of 140PPM.
Quote:

 
As far as the assertion about the validity of ice core sampling & dispute within the scientific community... Let me guess: the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Geographic, the Weather Channel & the PBS program Nova are all part of the "liberal media" global warming propaganda machine. :rolleyes: 

http://nicl-smo.unh.edu/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore.html

http://son.nasa.gov/winterstory/snowice/index_e.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1110_041110_antarctic_ice.html

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_8151.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/

Another source cited from that paragraph is from Jaworowski. A rebuttal to his attacks on ice core dating is found here. The man writing the letter, one of the earliest leaders in the field of ice core research, also has a medal named after him given out annually by the European Geosciences Union:

http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/7394





There was also this paragraph:

Quote:

It was believed that snow accumulating on ice sheets would preserve the contemporaneous atmosphere trapped between snowflakes during snowfalls, so that the CO2 content of air inclusions in cores from ice sheets should reveal paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) compiled all such CO2 data available, finding that CO2 levels ranged from 140 to 7,400 ppmv. However, such paleoatmospheric CO2 levels published after 1985 were never reported to be higher than 330 ppmv. Analyses reported in 1982 (Neftel at al., 1982) from the more than 2,000 m deep Byrd ice core (Antarctica), showing unsystematic values from about 190 to 420 ppmv, were falsely "filtered" when the alleged same data showed a rising trend from about 190 ppmv at 35,000 years ago to about 290 ppmv (Callendar's pre-industrial baseline) at 4,000 years ago when re-reported in 1988 (Neftel et al., 1988); shown by Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) in their Fig. 5.





Obviously people seem to be tossing out data that doesn't fit since there is quite a range.  What doesn't surprise me is that the father of ice core data disagrees.  It doesn't convince me either.
Quote:



If that shoddy paragraph is your evidence against ice cores, you're gonna have to do a lot better than that.

That the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide & methane is directly proportional to temperature over the last several hundred thousand years is documented by the most modern procedures known to science.

Temperature change and carbon dioxide change

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

What has driven what over the past hundreds of thousands of years is not as important as (a) acknowledging a direct relationship between the two (or three) exists & (b) acknowledging what is driving the current cycle. The enormous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions humans are putting into the atmosphere is a documented fact. What greenhouse gases do in the atmosphere is also documented fact. It's rather elementary science as to what is happening & why. Like I said, based on projections by scientists & statistical analysts, the scientific community has moved on to what is going to happen & the consensus is a 2-4oC increase in temperature over the next century. Ecologists have weighed in & commented on what they think the different amounts will mean. It is entirely possible, seeming probable in some documentations of ice core data, that temperature began to rise slowly & then within 500 or so years CO2 levels began to rise as some of what was in the ocean was released into the atmosphere. Once it began to be released it acted as an amplifier for the further several thousand years of warming until the warming portion of the cycle was complete & cooling began.

For that to be the case does not contradict the current scientific consensus. While CO2 probably rises in the past cycle (not more than ~ 100-120 ppm over several thousand years) came likely primarily from the warmer ocean (& most methane from warmer wetlands), it is known what is the cause of their rise today (i.e. human activity). There is also no reason to believe that cooling will began so long as greenhouse gas emission remain stable (or increase, which they probably will being doing at least for a couple of decades or more maybe even longer), & there is every reason to believe that temperatures will continue to rise with them. Those who deny that the current warming is from human activities releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have nothing to offer for what is causing it, as solar radiation has been thoroughly disproven, nor do they have a believe scenario to offer as to what will begin the cooling in the absence of significantly reduced emissions (unless the hydroxyl system were to fall apart, which is not relevant to the crux of this discussion & would actually be worse & far more severe in a much, much shorter amount of time). To say it what will happen with 100% certainty would be foolish given there is no precedent for what is happening now, & that is why climate scientists say that their speculations, based on all available evidence from the most modern techniques, are presently a 90-95% certainly instead of guaranteed. To argue against this is to argue against basic, elementary science principles, as well as advanced, highly researched & modern science.

What caused the pattern of cycles that has been documented over the last several hundred thousand years is not fully understood, although solar radiation and/or planetary tilt & orbit very likely played a role in initiating the heating, & natural cycles of carbon exchange alone will cause fluctuation in how much is in what form & where, also. What is known about the current situation, though, is that solar radiation is not a force of present global warming. To the contrary, between the 1950s to the 1990s (& maybe still today), the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface has been falling due to pollutants in the air. This has actually moderated the greenhouse effect thus far & possibly explained why temperatures have perhaps been rising slower than one might expect with the vast & rapid increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the last fifty years. This presents a paradox in that decreasing pollutants without similarly decreasing greenhouse gas emissions would probably exacerbate global warming in the coming decades.   

The author of the book Global Warming and Other Eco Myths, Reason magazine science editor Ronald Bailey, has since said, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up," & also, "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now." Anyone who objectively looks at the data & the science, & doesn't have a preconceived belief, will arrive at the same conclusion. Within the scientific community, denying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is a fringe, minority position about equivalent to 9-11 conspiracy theorists, who make mountains out of molehills in a vain attempt to bolster their weak arguments while ignoring the mountains of evidence against them.




And I am still all atremble at the anticipation that you will at some point provide me with any proof that there is a causal relationship, pointing in one direction and one direction only, between CO2 and increased global temperature.  Because you sure seem to be twitching all over the place without once getting to the point.

I'm not sure there even is a statistically significant real increase at all.  Not with all the pictures of monitoring stations next to air conditioning condensers I've seen.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8060869 - 02/23/08 03:04 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

I had been listening to one of my chemistry professors




Ah. A college student. That explains much.


--------------------
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Lots of ice cubes now *DELETED* [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8060898 - 02/23/08 03:11 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 994 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,558 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.