Environment gets Bushed

[skadistic]

Evolution is based on flawed data too, and we rightly dismiss the skeptics who point this out too, because until we become omnipotent, we'll never have anything but flawed data.

And what happens when that data is looked at again? Thats right they change their theory. That doesn't happen with global warming/global climate change/global crisis. But its ok.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

And what happens when that data is looked at again? Thats right they change their theory. That doesn't happen with global warming/global climate change/global crisis. But its ok.

Wrong. It does. However, evolution is an older theory, so it's to be expected that GW would have had smaller and fewer changes, assuming the distribution of changes is anything like a zeta distribution.

 

[skadistic]

"More then you read the list" isn't a proper sentence, so I have no idea what to reply to it. Go away and come back when you can make a coherent argument that isn't obfuscated to make replying difficult.

If you fail at understanding why don't you go away and think about it. There is nothing being obfuscated on my end.

 

[Ammar]

And what happens when that data is looked at again? Thats right they change their theory. That doesn't happen with global warming/global climate change/global crisis. But its ok.

Sure, they do. They adjust their predictions by some degrees. That's actually more change that what's doing on in the Evolution Theory right now (no wonder, Evolution is older and therefore slightly more mature).

But guess what? The amount of GW varies slightly, the effect of CO2 and the general trend are pretty much firm.

 

[Godwynn]

Yeah take it with as much as you do the ones who are 100% sure global warming is man made and that man can do something about stopping. Because they are of course right and the skeptics are all quacks who have no business at all being skeptical of junk science based on flawed data.

Since you are writing in the quote boxes, I'm not going to respond to those.

As far as salt is concerned, I take everything with it. I don't just roll over when I'm told.

Lists are useless without further research into the subject and the people "signing" their names onto them.

 

[skadistic]

Wrong. It does. However, evolution is an older theory, so it's to be expected that GW would have had smaller and fewer changes, assuming the distribution of changes is anything like a zeta distribution.

So when NASA updated it data and it was shown surface stations were in places that greatly increased then temp leading to flawed data what happened? Did the media and politicians and Al Gore step back and say hold on? Of did they change the name again to lead to more fear mongering?

GW has had massive changes in its data. Those are being ignored by the ones who have an agenda to see to it that global climate crisis is alive and kicking at an even greater rate.

But of course only the skeptics have an agenda and they can't be taken seriously. Every one else is on the up and up.

 

[skadistic]

Sure, they do. They adjust their predictions by some degrees. That's actually more change that what's doing on in the Evolution Theory right now (no wonder, Evolution is older and therefore slightly more mature). If by change you mean more exageration then yes.

But guess what? The amount of GW varies slightly,less then a full degree. I know this. the effect of CO2 and the general trend are pretty much firm.

Firm indeed.

Carbon Dioxide:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a minor greenhouse gas
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. or http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Humans can only claim responsibility for 3.4% of the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere annually.
Humans can only claim responsibility for 0.28% of the greenhouse effect

 

[Erik Mesoy]

If you fail at understanding why don't you go away and think about it.

It's not me who fails at understanding, it's you who strung together a set of words and didn't make a grammatical sentence.

There is nothing being obfuscated on my end.

Let me put it this way:

^Y_S^o_i^u_nc^a_e^re_yo^w_u^ri_c^t_oⁱ_uⁿ_l^g_dⁱ_eⁿ_as^q_i^u_l^o_y^te_w^b_r^o_i^x_t^e_e^s,_ou^w_t^h_sⁱ_i^c_d^h_e^c_q^a_u^u_o^s_t^e_e^s_bo^y_x^o_e^u_s^r_,^c_t^o_h^m_i^m_s^en_i^t_s^s_o^t_b^o_fuⁿ_s^o_c^t_at^g_i^e_o^t_n.^qu_T^o_h^t_e^e_r^d_e'^w_s^he_aⁿ_ls^I_o^a_a^tt_m^e_o^m_d^p_e^t_ra^t_t^o_or^re_a^p_c^l_t^y_io^t_n^o_a^y_g^o_a^u_i^r_ns^p_t^os_m^t_odⁱ_iⁿ_fy^s_i^t_n^a_g^nd_p^a_e^r_o^d_pl^f_e^a_'^s_s^hi_q^o_uⁿ_o^._tes.

 

[skadistic]

This will probably be my last thread in this thread unless someone actually makes a new intersting post.

Skadistic, the problem is that you have shown throughout the thread that you have little understanding how science and the scientific community works.No I haven't. In addition to that posting the graph you did to support your points shows an inability to make a logical/mathematical argument.Yup I lack the mathmatical ability to make an argument It's like using a ten cm ruler to find out how high a building is, which means you demonstrate an lack of understanding of scale.Yeah those lines are just to hard to understand.

This can be put down to a lack of specific knowledge which is neither surprising nor in any sort shameful. Yeah thats it. I obviously have no idea about anything that has to do with sciences.No one is an expert on all topics, right? You are an expert at knowing when I have no idea about science thogh aren't you.What's really the problem is that you are unable to reflect on what other people tell you an utter refusal to learn anything new. Yeah thats it exactly. I'm so glad you are in my head to tell me what I think. I've not seen any comment on the problems I pointed out with using your graph to support your position. This makes the whole discussion with you pointless. Not so pointless it seems since you read my mind and told me what I think. Thanks for that. I wouldn't know what to do if you didn't.

Finally, those "sources" you quoted:

The list of scientists is from a petition that has been widely criticised.Like ICPP has been widely criticized. It is unknown how many of the people that *signed* it actually exist. In addition to that most of the people on the list *never* did any research on Climate Change.Yeah so that makes then automatically unimportant. I got that already. People who are skeptics that aren't experts are just worthless.

Same thing with the articles, really. I didn't check them all out, but those I checked were obviously not material intended for scientific publication. Hell, almost all of them missed an *abstract*. HAd you read them all you would have come across peer reviewed material by climate exerts. But you didn't read them all.

The sad fact is that a single peer-reviewed article in a real scientific journal would have strengthened your position more than all those badly researched lists you posted. The sad thing is you didn't even read everything I posted.

The IPCC that you so rudely dismiss OTH has authors like
Tom Wigley writing for them, who has published quite a lot of papers on the subjects in reputatable scientific journals. Just take a loot at his publications list.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byauthor/wigley_tml.htm

This being said, I am out of here. Oh, by the same to say something positive : I liked that you hid those lists until clicking on them. Makes the thread more readable. Now just stop writing into quotes, please?No. You'd think people would stop asking. But given they don't read the stuff I post because its to much for them I can understand.

Those are called spoiler tags they are very effective for saving people from scrolling past them.

 

[skadistic]

It's not me who fails at understanding, it's you who strung together a set of words and didn't make a grammatical sentence.Its was grammatical. You just can't can't grasp it.

Let me put it this way:

Awwww thats to bad. You might have to cut and paste something. The horror of it all. I wouldn't want you to maybe do some work. I didn't know I was responsible for making your life easy. If its to difficult for you then don't reply.

 

[Ansar]

Awwww thats to bad. You might have to cut and paste something. The horror of it all. I wouldn't want you to maybe do some work. I didn't know I was responsible for making your life easy. If its to difficult for you then don't reply.

You know, skadistic, you could copy and paste too separate parts of a post instead of leaving it intact and simply replying inside. You know, something like this? (Obviously, not that long winded, since you usually don't refer to every sentence on it's own, but you get my point)

Awwww thats to bad. You might have to cut and paste something.

The horror of it all.

I wouldn't want you to maybe do some work.

I didn't know I was responsible for making your life easy.

If its to difficult for you then don't reply.

If it is too difficult for you, skadistic, to properly reply to a post, then don't reply.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Firm indeed.

Carbon Dioxide:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a minor greenhouse gas
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. or http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Humans can only claim responsibility for 3.4% of the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere annually.
Humans can only claim responsibility for 0.28% of the greenhouse effect

^I_Bu^s_t^ee_I^l_d^o_o^t_n^s_'t^of_se^l_eⁱⁿ_a^k_n^s_aⁱ_rⁿ_gu^y_m^o_e^u_n^r_t.^po_H^s_m^t_m^._.

Also, nice try at blaming me when you are making your remarks more difficult than normal to quote.

 

[Esckey]

Is anyone really suprised anymore by Bush? He's been doing crazy crap since day one, why would it be any different now? Lets face it....he's not all there in the head

 

[Ammar]

Yup I lack the mathmatical ability to make an argument

Well, how about showing me otherwise and give me a good argument why these numbers support your argument :

1. (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years.
2. (CO2) is only about 0.038%
3. Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect
4. Humans can only claim responsibility for 3.4% of the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere annually

Note that number 3 is actually too low. But let's assume that it is true and go from there.

Is anyone really suprised anymore by Bush? He's been doing crazy crap since day one, why would it be any different now? Lets face it....he's not all there in the head

Surprised by Bush? No. Just a little bit at the levels of support he still has.

 

[Truronian]

skadistic, what is the scientific flaw in the mechanism by which greenhouse gases trap heat?

 

[Sims2789]

Even George Bush and John McCain think global warming is real, though Bush won't do anything to regulate carbon dioxide.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Then there's the whole thing about the graphs being abused when the calculations of CO₂ (the O stands for a separate element and is to be capitalised; "Co" stands for Cobalt) show its effect to a much more precise degree.

Can you give me a link?

Because what I'd really like to see is a calculation from the absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O, and the black body radiation spectrum of the earth. Ignoring all the secondary effects like albedo reduction and so on - not that they can be ignored but it'd be nice to have a simple starting point that doesn't require a full climate model.

I Googled "images" "carbon dioxide absorptivity infrared" and got this as the first hit, which estimates that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the global average temperature by 1 degree C. It's one of the skeptical sites Skad cites. It isn't the way I'd approach the problem exactly, but it seems pretty reasonable.

 

[Truronian]

I Googled "images" "carbon dioxide absorptivity infrared" and got this as the first hit, which estimates that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the global average temperature by 1 degree C. It's one of the skeptical sites Skad cites. It isn't the way I'd approach the problem exactly, but it seems pretty reasonable.

That seems reasonable. CO₂ concentration has incresed by about 50% in the past 150 years while temperature has risen a bit less than a degree.

 

[History_Buff]

Yeah you do that. You go use flawed data.

ALL data is flawed. It will never be not flawed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve bias free data (Unless your area of study happens to be counting beans). Take for instance, the size of the Earth. For a long time, we simply didn't have the correct tools or methods to create an accurate judgement about the exact size and shape of the Earth. Over time, that has changed, and now that we can step outside the Earth entirely with satellites, we are only now creating a correct Geoidal map of the Earth, and creating new updates to the global datums. Thing is, the first real surveys were pretty close. Even now, the Clarke ellipsoid from 1866, long used by the USGS and other organisations wasn't too far off. It was wrong, it was skewed, but it was the best available, and it did a pretty good job. The NASA temp records are similar. They had data. Flaws were discovered, the data was updated. Similar conclusions can still be drawn. Science rolls on.

Some doubt can't be used to throw out your entire dataset, particularly when it is irreplaceable.

Except for the Russians and Australians and Poles and Canadians.......Yup just Americans.

And the IPCC is endorsed by nations! Yippy! That doesn't make it right. And the IPCC has its own credibility issues.

Yep, endorsed by just about everyone. It doesn't make it true. But it does make a little thing called Consensus

 

[skadistic]

Also, nice try at blaming me when you are making your remarks more difficult than normal to quote.

It isn't my fault if things are to difficult for you.