0
BIGUN

Global Warming - A Different Approach

Recommended Posts

what is this graph measuring? I don't understand the term temperature anomaly. Is the average global temp right around 0C, 32F?

The flat line though the 60s and 70s is interesting too. Then the sudden rise - is that a delayed effect of accumulated gases? Or a reflection of the developing world started to develop rapidly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I don't understand the term temperature anomaly. Is the average global temp right around 0C, 32F?

It's around 50F. The graphs represent deviation from the average temperature during the measurement period.

>The flat line though the 60s and 70s is interesting too. Then the sudden
>rise - is that a delayed effect of accumulated gases? Or a reflection of the
>developing world started to develop rapidly?

Well, CO2 increases stopped (i.e. the concentration leveled out) for a short time right before then. See attached graph. (Low time-axis resolution, sorry.) I don't know what caused the temporary 'plateau' in CO2 emissions though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm; the debate is now over how much and what effect it will have. (snipped)



Question: Does the observed warming on Mars sway you in any direction? I'm still on the fence as to the level of GW that man is causing.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

what is this graph measuring? I don't understand the term temperature anomaly. Is the average global temp right around 0C, 32F?

The flat line though the 60s and 70s is interesting too. Then the sudden rise - is that a delayed effect of accumulated gases? Or a reflection of the developing world started to develop rapidly?



I recall reading something about some of the temperature readings being called into question due to 'urban heat islands' or something like that... basically, that the buildup around airports and the like create a 'heat island' that could skew the reading.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm; .



I quit reading here. This statement is a blatant lie.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Does the observed warming on Mars sway you in any direction?

I don't think we know enough about Martian climate to know what's happening there yet. On the one hand, the ice caps shrinking could be due to higher insolation. On the other hand, there are a lot of mechanisms on Mars that cause polar shrinkage/expansion (like dust storms.) A long clear period would cause some ice (dry ice actually) to melt, and this can then cause the same sort of CO2-mediated greenhouse effect that we see here. Which is happening? I don't think we know. We barely have a handle on what happens _here_ with weather.

>I'm still on the fence as to the level of GW that man is causing.

I think most people are to some degree. No one knows exactly how much, hut I think it's clear that we're having at least a significant effect. Much of the work going on now is attempting to nail down that number. I think we'll get closer, but will never know with 100% certainty how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural variation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I quit reading here.

Well, there's your problem, right there! No wonder you think I'm not answering your questions.

BTW if you have that reaction whenever you read something you disagree with, I can better understand why you don't think man has anything to do with climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I quit reading here.

Well, there's your problem, right there! No wonder you think I'm not answering your questions.

BTW if you have that reaction whenever you read something you disagree with, I can better understand why you don't think man has anything to do with climate change.



If the post starts with a lie why should I continue??
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I quit reading here.

Well, there's your problem, right there! No wonder you think I'm not answering your questions.

BTW if you have that reaction whenever you read something you disagree with, I can better understand why you don't think man has anything to do with climate change.



go get 'em - one from the other side

the score is tied

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2699263#2699263

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If the post starts with a lie why should I continue??

You should not read anything you dislike! Knowing that about you makes it easier to understand where you're coming from. It's not that you read the science and disagree with it, apparently. Whenever an article starts to discuss the facts surrounding anthropogenic warming, you stop reading, to avoid reading "lies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>If the post starts with a lie why should I continue??

You should not read anything you dislike! Knowing that about you makes it easier to understand where you're coming from. It's not that you read the science and disagree with it, apparently. Whenever an article starts to discuss the facts surrounding anthropogenic warming, you stop reading, to avoid reading "lies."



Twist and twist . What you post is not what I said or meant.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>What you post is not what I said or meant.

It is what you typed. You will not continue reading if the material starts with a lie. You consider the statement "science has proven man is causing the planet to warm" a lie, and most scientific research on the topic has a similar conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Whenever an article starts to discuss the facts surrounding anthropogenic warming, you stop reading, to avoid reading "lies."



anthropo - human

genic - pertaining to, resembling, or arising from a gene or genes

therefore, humans arising from genes
therefore - anthropo = reproduction

therefore - anthropogenic warming = hot sex

maybe he's just a bit shy about 'private' stuff or those "warming gels" sold by fine relationship stores everywhere. Which, strangely enough, are many times attempted to be formulated as non-petroleum based.

Thus warming gels = non-petroleum

therefore, "anthropomorphic warming" equals "non-petroleum based philosophy."

Which is a good thing for those concerned with global warming.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said

"Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm;'


That statement is a lie.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm
>That statement is a lie.

Nope. We now have proof that man is causing the planet to warm, from a number of methods, CO2 being the chief one. (Heck, even deniers admit that there are "heat islands" near cities!) The debate now is how much we're doing, what other stuff is going on, how to mitigate our impact, and what the effects will be in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>What you post is not what I said or meant.

It is what you typed. You will not continue reading if the material starts with a lie. You consider the statement "science has proven man is causing the planet to warm" a lie, and most scientific research on the topic has a similar conclusion.



I don't know that much about how the scientific community reaches a consensus, but it seems like whenever something comes to be considered a universal truth, they proclaim a "theory" or a "law" stating that truth.

Are there any such laws/theories about man's impact on global warming? Or are there still too many unknowns for leading scientific organizations to make such an absolute statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>>Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm
>That statement is a lie.

Nope. We now have proof that man is causing the planet to warm, from a number of methods, CO2 being the chief one. (Heck, even deniers admit that there are "heat islands" near cities!) The debate now is how much we're doing, what other stuff is going on, how to mitigate our impact, and what the effects will be in the future.



Nope, what you have are theories based on computer models (that are flawed) and claims that temp and CO2 graphs prove something.

Dam big difference!

You want/need the debate to switch to "how much" because the rest can't stand up for much longer.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I don't know that much about how the scientific community reaches a
>consensus, but it seems like whenever something comes to be considered
>a universal truth, they proclaim a "theory" or a "law" stating that truth.

I think that happens when the underlying axiom is simple and fundamental, like the 'law' of gravity (which we still don't fully understand) or the Pythagorean Theorem. When it's a complex system being discussed, I don't think the terms "law" or "theorem" are used very often. We now know that smoking is bad for you, but there's no Smoking Theorem or Law of Smoking, just data, experiments and conclusions. There are, of course, many laws and theorems that underlie that conclusion, like Boyle's Law and the oncogene theory.

>Are there any such laws/theories about man's impact on global warming?

At the top level? I've never heard of one. There are, of course, a large number of theories/law supporting the discussion (laws of the chemistry of combustion and atmospheric physics, Maxwell's Laws etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Nope, what you have are theories based on computer models (that
>are flawed) and claims that temp and CO2 graphs prove something.

And now we have real data showing increases in CO2 and increases in temperature as predicted. That's why the deniers are going to be taken less and less seriously as time goes on. As the predictions that they claim are false come to pass, their credibility will steadily decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Nope, what you have are theories based on computer models (that
>are flawed) and claims that temp and CO2 graphs prove something.

And now we have real data showing increases in CO2 and increases in temperature as predicted. That's why the deniers are going to be taken less and less seriously as time goes on. As the predictions that they claim are false come to pass, their credibility will steadily decrease.



We will see whos credibility slides.

An no, you do not have real data.[:/]
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>An no, you do not have real data.

You know, the people reading these threads (if any are) can look at the data you've posted and look at the data I've posted and make up their own minds. I'm perfectly happy with that.



As am I, exspecialy if they look deeply into it.

This is a political issue, not a scientific one. And the side playing the game is the pro GW alarmists[:/]
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>An no, you do not have real data.

You know, the people reading these threads (if any are) can look at the data you've posted and look at the data I've posted and make up their own minds. I'm perfectly happy with that.



As am I, exspecialy if they look deeply into it.

This is a political issue, not a scientific one. And the side playing the game is the pro GW alarmists[:/]



Sometjmes I think you are serious, but mostly I just wonder about you and what kind of reality you live in.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>This is a political issue, not a scientific one.

That's why we see this differently. The climate really won't stop changing if we all vote to not believe in it, and it won't get worse due to Michael Moore making another bad documentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>This is a political issue, not a scientific one.

That's why we see this differently. The climate really won't stop changing if we all vote to not believe in it, and it won't get worse due to Michael Moore making another bad documentary.



billvon, we can't affect the change. I have over and over again agreed change is happening. My position is that it is NOT man caused. If the change is not caused by man then man can not stop the change. Very simple.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0