The Great Global Warming Swindle…
06-03-2017, 08:37 AM
-
#91
- RonaldMcflurry
- I woke up like dis
-
- RonaldMcflurry
- I woke up like dis
- Join Date: Jun 2016
- Posts: 14,495
- Rep Power: 80496
-
-
I am not saying that it is or isn't real. But if they passed a law stating that any solution to climate change must come out of the current budget, without raising any taxes or starting any new government agencies, and that nobody is allowed to profit off of a supposed solution, then a hundred scientific studies would pop up overnight claiming that global warming doesn't exist.
Nuggets of Wisdom
06-03-2017, 08:39 AM
-
#92
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Ugliestincel⏩
You really deserve the facepalm gifHttp s: //goo.gl/images/pNQ74v
Strong graph comprehension skills. There's an obvious increase in carbon dioxide.
And what models are you talking about? Models have nothing to do with corrleations. The correlation between temperature and co2 is based on numerical data obtained from ice cores, and are then curve fitted to determine if there's a correlation. It's not a strong correlation since obviously there are numerous things that effect the climate such as the earth's orbit/tilt, continent location, ect. But it is foolish to disregard the effect of greenhouse gases forming a blanket over the Earth, emitted by humans.
And to the poster above, the video just dodged the question. Just cause the Earth is in a warming period, doesn't mean they humans can't make the Earth even more warmer than it is supposed to be.
Strong graph comprehension skills. There's an obvious increase in carbon dioxide.
And what models are you talking about? Models have nothing to do with corrleations. The correlation between temperature and co2 is based on numerical data obtained from ice cores, and are then curve fitted to determine if there's a correlation. It's not a strong correlation since obviously there are numerous things that effect the climate such as the earth's orbit/tilt, continent location, ect. But it is foolish to disregard the effect of greenhouse gases forming a blanket over the Earth, emitted by humans.
And to the poster above, the video just dodged the question. Just cause the Earth is in a warming period, doesn't mean they humans can't make the Earth even more warmer than it is supposed to be.
...show me the correlation between co2 and temperature. Yawn
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 08:43 AM
-
#93
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
earths temp is as a result of many natural factors such obliquity, eccentricity, precession, volcanic emissions,Schwabe cycles, and yes its true that atmospheric co2 was much higher in prehistory such as during precambrian times.
Lets get a sense of perspective, The Mount Pinatubo eruption (1991) emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2(human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2). The strongest eruption over the last
half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year. In fact humans emitt 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes cumulatively
Obliquity, eccentricity and precession all occur on multi millenial cycles of which we are not near, so they can be discounted as having an impact on temperature.
CO2 and CH4 are at their highest levels for 650,000 yrs. Current warming and CO2 levels are unprecedented under present ‘boundary conditions’, furthermore, 15 of the 16 hottest years on record since 1880 were since 2000, which coincides nicely with the following:
Also on the topic of the bs time article, here is a study on what scientists were actually saying at the time, its just that the media likes to pick up on what the think will sell, hence why you need to lok at peer reviewed journals.
Lets get a sense of perspective, The Mount Pinatubo eruption (1991) emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2(human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2). The strongest eruption over the last
half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year. In fact humans emitt 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes cumulatively
Obliquity, eccentricity and precession all occur on multi millenial cycles of which we are not near, so they can be discounted as having an impact on temperature.
CO2 and CH4 are at their highest levels for 650,000 yrs. Current warming and CO2 levels are unprecedented under present ‘boundary conditions’, furthermore, 15 of the 16 hottest years on record since 1880 were since 2000, which coincides nicely with the following:
Also on the topic of the bs time article, here is a study on what scientists were actually saying at the time, its just that the media likes to pick up on what the think will sell, hence why you need to lok at peer reviewed journals.
06-03-2017, 08:51 AM
-
#94
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
You do realize that this biased graph manages to clip off hundreds of millions of years. 400,000 is 1/1500th the last 600 million years.
You also don't realize that the tail end of that graph is complete bullchit. They don't take ice core data at less than 100 years increments. Most of the data taken is in thousand year increments if i recall. So that whole up-shoot is a complete misrepresentation meant to deceive.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 08:57 AM
-
#95
- Ugliestincel
- Registered User
-
- Ugliestincel
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2017
- Age: 32
- Posts: 15
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
@faxandu
ITT: You don't understand how correlations work. There still is a correlation, but it's not a strong one; it's still there nonetheless. Also the temperature also slightly lags behind the rise in co2 for obvious reasons. The continents we're in different locations at different times in the earths history. If they're closer to the poles there will be colder temperatures even if the amount of co2 is higher because of the albedo effect of the glaciers.
Once again you've proven to not understand what you're talking about. There's clearly a correlation between co2 and temperature although it won't be super strong because of how complex climate is and how many factors affect it.
But it still plays a major role.
ITT: You don't understand how correlations work. There still is a correlation, but it's not a strong one; it's still there nonetheless. Also the temperature also slightly lags behind the rise in co2 for obvious reasons. The continents we're in different locations at different times in the earths history. If they're closer to the poles there will be colder temperatures even if the amount of co2 is higher because of the albedo effect of the glaciers.
Once again you've proven to not understand what you're talking about. There's clearly a correlation between co2 and temperature although it won't be super strong because of how complex climate is and how many factors affect it.
But it still plays a major role.
06-03-2017, 08:59 AM
-
#96
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Annual (subaerial) volcanic emissions range from 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 Anthropogenic activities - approximately 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year
also for those who say “It’s all due to the sun” Temperature has actually increased as solar activity has decreased over the last ~30 years…
Also, Global mean surface temperature relative to the period 1901 compared to simulations using anthropogenic (human) and natural forcings, basically destroying anthropogenic induced climate change is a myth promoters.
Top one is a predictive model based on anthropogenic + natural with thye black line being the resultant outcome, while the bottom graph is just natural based co2 change modelled and its effect on temp change in comparison to the black line of actual observation which happens to be in keeping with the human based emissions model!
wish i had joined the debate sooner, so fcking easy to wreck all the naysayers
also for those who say “It’s all due to the sun” Temperature has actually increased as solar activity has decreased over the last ~30 years…
Also, Global mean surface temperature relative to the period 1901 compared to simulations using anthropogenic (human) and natural forcings, basically destroying anthropogenic induced climate change is a myth promoters.
Top one is a predictive model based on anthropogenic + natural with thye black line being the resultant outcome, while the bottom graph is just natural based co2 change modelled and its effect on temp change in comparison to the black line of actual observation which happens to be in keeping with the human based emissions model!
wish i had joined the debate sooner, so fcking easy to wreck all the naysayers
06-03-2017, 09:01 AM
-
#97
- Ugliestincel
- Registered User
-
- Ugliestincel
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2017
- Age: 32
- Posts: 15
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
You do realize that this biased graph manages to clip off hundreds of millions of years. 400,000 is 1/1500th the last 600 million years.
You also don't realize that the tail end of that graph is complete bullchit. They don't take ice core data at less than 100 years increments. Most of the data taken is in thousand year increments if i recall. So that whole up-shoot is a complete misrepresentation meant to deceive.
How is it a misreprsentation? It's a measurement of the composition of the atmosphere. Just instead of getting it from gas bubbles trapped in the pores of ice, it was obtained from our present atmosphere. The increment at which the data is taken doesn't change that the levels are much higher than they were in pretty much all of earths historyYou do realize that this biased graph manages to clip off hundreds of millions of years. 400,000 is 1/1500th the last 600 million years.
You also don't realize that the tail end of that graph is complete bullchit. They don't take ice core data at less than 100 years increments. Most of the data taken is in thousand year increments if i recall. So that whole up-shoot is a complete misrepresentation meant to deceive.
06-03-2017, 09:08 AM
-
#98
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
The oceans and land mass put out almost a trillion tons of co2 according to the scientists. And you're co2 graph is just as misleading and propaganda as the other guys.earths temp is as a result of many natural factors such obliquity, eccentricity, precession, volcanic emissions,Schwabe cycles, and yes its true that atmospheric co2 was much higher in prehistory such as during precambrian times.
Lets get a sense of perspective, The Mount Pinatubo eruption (1991) emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2(human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2). The strongest eruption over the last
half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year. In fact humans emitt 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes cumulatively
Obliquity, eccentricity and precession all occur on multi millenial cycles of which we are not near, so they can be discounted as having an impact on temperature.
CO2 and CH4 are at their highest levels for 650,000 yrs. Current warming and CO2 levels are unprecedented under present ‘boundary conditions’, furthermore, 15 of the 16 hottest years on record since 1880 were since 2000, which coincides nicely with the following:
Lets get a sense of perspective, The Mount Pinatubo eruption (1991) emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2(human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2). The strongest eruption over the last
half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year. In fact humans emitt 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes cumulatively
Obliquity, eccentricity and precession all occur on multi millenial cycles of which we are not near, so they can be discounted as having an impact on temperature.
CO2 and CH4 are at their highest levels for 650,000 yrs. Current warming and CO2 levels are unprecedented under present ‘boundary conditions’, furthermore, 15 of the 16 hottest years on record since 1880 were since 2000, which coincides nicely with the following:
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 09:12 AM
-
#99
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
You do realize that this biased graph manages to clip off hundreds of millions of years. 400,000 is 1/1500th the last 600 million years.
You also don't realize that the tail end of that graph is complete bullchit. They don't take ice core data at less than 100 years increments. Most of the data taken is in thousand year increments if i recall. So that whole up-shoot is a complete misrepresentation meant to deceive.
firstly on ice cores: Ice core data can produce a lag in CO2, since as we are determing concentration of atmosphere determined from bubbles It can take several thousand years for the bubbles to become isolated from the atmosphere and so you can get very hit and miss observations and so it cant really be used on such a small scale like 100 year increments.You do realize that this biased graph manages to clip off hundreds of millions of years. 400,000 is 1/1500th the last 600 million years.
You also don't realize that the tail end of that graph is complete bullchit. They don't take ice core data at less than 100 years increments. Most of the data taken is in thousand year increments if i recall. So that whole up-shoot is a complete misrepresentation meant to deceive.
bruh Eccentricity 100,000 yr cycle, Obliquity 41,000 yr cycle, Precession 22,000 yr cycle will all give rise to any major changes seen distances further back.
Furthermore, Ice core records (Vostok) show strong 100, 000 yr cyclicity amongst many other cycles agreeing with what i just said
notice a uniform pattern with the earths orbital irregularity cycles?
06-03-2017, 09:16 AM
-
#100
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Ugliestincel⏩
hmmm lets see co2 at record highs during the Triassic period while the temperature at record lows. Oh ya... same thing for the cretaceous, jurassic, and ordovician. 300 million years ... mheh ... that's not a lot of time.@faxandu
ITT: You don't understand how correlations work. There still is a correlation, but it's not a strong one; it's still there nonetheless. Also the temperature also slightly lags behind the rise in co2 for obvious reasons. The continents we're in different locations at different times in the earths history. If they're closer to the poles there will be colder temperatures even if the amount of co2 is higher because of the albedo effect of the glaciers.
Once again you've proven to not understand what you're talking about. There's clearly a correlation between co2 and temperature although it won't be super strong because of how complex climate is and how many factors affect it.
But it still plays a major role.
ITT: You don't understand how correlations work. There still is a correlation, but it's not a strong one; it's still there nonetheless. Also the temperature also slightly lags behind the rise in co2 for obvious reasons. The continents we're in different locations at different times in the earths history. If they're closer to the poles there will be colder temperatures even if the amount of co2 is higher because of the albedo effect of the glaciers.
Once again you've proven to not understand what you're talking about. There's clearly a correlation between co2 and temperature although it won't be super strong because of how complex climate is and how many factors affect it.
But it still plays a major role.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 09:19 AM
-
#101
- thigoonar
- Registered User
-
- thigoonar
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2012
- Posts: 3,659
- Rep Power: 9006
-
-
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
You're missing the point. I showed the interview where a climate scientist was saying an ice age might happen to illustrate that temperatures had been going down for decades despite an increase in CO2 emissions. This is one of many things that came up in the documentary.Also on the topic of the bs time article, here is a study on what scientists were actually saying at the time, its just that the media likes to pick up on what the think will sell, hence why you need to lok at peer reviewed journals.
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
All of those points that you make are addressed in the documentary.wish i had joined the debate sooner, so fcking easy to wreck all the naysayers
Still looking for a crew... crew
http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=169710413
06-03-2017, 09:26 AM
-
#102
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
You keep showing 100 year data which is basically pointless when you're talking about half a billion years.wish i had joined the debate sooner, so fcking easy to wreck all the naysayers
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 09:26 AM
-
#103
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Originally Posted By thigoonar⏩
And im giving you the peer reviewed evidence from to prove you/him wrong.You're missing the point. I showed the interview where a climate scientist was saying an ice age might happen to illustrate that temperatures had been going down for decades despite an increase in CO2 emissions. This is one of many things that came up in the documentary.
It's a very isoolated avenue you are agreeing with, do any wider reading and you will realise this scientist is in tiny minority.
06-03-2017, 09:27 AM
-
#104
- Ugliestincel
- Registered User
-
- Ugliestincel
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2017
- Age: 32
- Posts: 15
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
Once again there's numerous factors that affect temperature like I said. The greenhouse effect is very real, just look at Venus. Just cause co2 increases doesn't mean the temperature will increase, however temperature would be warmer than if there were less co2. It's simple science. If the levels of greenhouse gases increase the role they play in temperature will continue to increase. I don't see what's so hard to understand.hmmm lets see co2 at record highs during the Triassic period while the temperature at record lows. Oh ya... same thing for the cretaceous, jurassic, and ordovician. 300 million years ... mheh ... that's not a lot of time.
06-03-2017, 09:28 AM
-
#105
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
strong comprehension skills, scroll up a bit, you will see a wider scale graphYou keep showing 100 year data which is basically pointless when you're talking about half a billion years.
06-03-2017, 09:29 AM
-
#106
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
scroll up to the ice core data i posted on multi millenial scale, i dont think the images worked before i edted themYou keep showing 100 year data which is basically pointless when you're talking about half a billion years.
06-03-2017, 09:31 AM
-
#107
- HomerJThompson
- Registered User
-
- HomerJThompson
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2012
- Age: 50
- Posts: 13,602
- Rep Power: 21472
-
-
Did not watch. Fact is human beings have been destroying the world, 8 billion now, polluting all kinds of stuff and destroying earths beauty. Earth was more beautiful and clean when there were less of us.
06-03-2017, 09:31 AM
-
#108
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By Ugliestincel⏩
1. The numbers aren't higher or even remotely close. I already proved that.How is it a misreprsentation? It's a measurement of the composition of the atmosphere. Just instead of getting it from gas bubbles trapped in the pores of ice, it was obtained from our present atmosphere. The increment at which the data is taken doesn't change that the levels are much higher than they were in pretty much all of earths history
2. You can't sample data at 1000 year increments and then toss in 10 year increments when you feel like. If you don't see how a 1000 years represented by a single point gets completely distorted by tossing in a point that only represents 10 years ... then you're truly lost. That's equivalent to me taking a 10 year stock chart where the stock is up twenty fold, waiting for a day that it dips slightly from the previous, and then saying, "See the value is collapsing!"
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 09:39 AM
-
#109
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
in that case we might as well just ignore all the obvious evidence because we haven't had 1000 years of anthropogenic fukkery yet.1. The numbers aren't higher or even remotely close. I already proved that.
2. You can't sample data at 1000 year increments and then toss in 10 year increments when you feel like. If you don't see how a 1000 years represented by a single point gets completely distorted by tossing in a point that only represents 10 years ... then you're truly lost. That's equivalent to me taking a 10 year stock chart where the stock is up twenty fold, waiting for a day that it dips slightly from the previous, and then saying, "See the value is collapsing!"
2. You can't sample data at 1000 year increments and then toss in 10 year increments when you feel like. If you don't see how a 1000 years represented by a single point gets completely distorted by tossing in a point that only represents 10 years ... then you're truly lost. That's equivalent to me taking a 10 year stock chart where the stock is up twenty fold, waiting for a day that it dips slightly from the previous, and then saying, "See the value is collapsing!"
that is basically your logic.
06-03-2017, 09:47 AM
-
#110
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
Temperature has been rising for the last 50 million years. Sharper in the last 10 million years. Prove humanity is the cause of this.firstly on ice cores: Ice core data can produce a lag in CO2, since as we are determing concentration of atmosphere determined from bubbles It can take several thousand years for the bubbles to become isolated from the atmosphere and so you can get very hit and miss observations and so it cant really be used on such a small scale like 100 year increments.
bruh Eccentricity 100,000 yr cycle, Obliquity 41,000 yr cycle, Precession 22,000 yr cycle will all give rise to any major changes seen distances further back.
Furthermore, Ice core records (Vostok) show strong 100, 000 yr cyclicity amongst many other cycles agreeing with what i just said
notice a uniform pattern with the earths orbital irregularity cycles?
bruh Eccentricity 100,000 yr cycle, Obliquity 41,000 yr cycle, Precession 22,000 yr cycle will all give rise to any major changes seen distances further back.
Furthermore, Ice core records (Vostok) show strong 100, 000 yr cyclicity amongst many other cycles agreeing with what i just said
notice a uniform pattern with the earths orbital irregularity cycles?
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 09:48 AM
-
#111
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Originally Posted By HomerJThompson⏩
pretty much this.Did not watch. Fact is human beings have been destroying the world, 8 billion now, polluting all kinds of stuff and destroying earths beauty. Earth was more beautiful and clean when there were less of us.
global warming deniars:
brb dumping cyanide and acid mining debris in lakes
brb "nah bro its sweet, damage to the environment doesn't exist, climate change is just like because its hotter when the suns out man, it's just a myth honestly"
06-03-2017, 09:57 AM
-
#112
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
disprove all of what i just told showed youTemperature has been rising for the last 50 million years. Sharper in the last 10 million years. Prove humanity is the cause of this.
Show me the peer reviewed source of that information and I will work on a reply!
You have given me one graph which i immediately accounted for with orbital cycle and various core data, I also for showed you the anthropogenic and natural emission scenario model data which you basically just ignored, before showing you that contrary to what the media says, the scientific community has NEVER been in favor of global cooling.
nd
06-03-2017, 09:59 AM
-
#113
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
You're underlying assumption is that the evidence is obvious, it is not. We've been taking temperature records for what ... a century? You're comparing that to data across millions of years with a resolution of 1000 years. You cant take a century of data with a resolution of 24 hours and compare that to half a billion years with a resolution of a millennium and prove anything.in that case we might as well just ignore all the obvious evidence because we haven't had 1000 years of anthropogenic fukkery yet.
that is basically your logic.
that is basically your logic.
Temperatures are going up. Have been for 50 million years. 100 years is meaningless.
I'm not even sure why people even attempt to argue it.
The only worthwhile angle scientist have is comparing expected feedback (rise in temperature) to what their models predict. Not a single scientist has a model with any reasonable accuracy. How could they? You're talking about an open system (Earth) with an infinite amount of variables.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 10:04 AM
-
#114
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
That's not how it works. You claim humanity is the cause. It's on you to prove it not me.disprove all of what i just told showed you
Show me the peer reviewed source of that information and I will work on a reply!
You have given me one graph which i immediately accounted for with orbital cycle and various core data, I also for showed you the anthropogenic and natural emission scenario model data which you basically just ignored, before showing you that contrary to what the media says, the scientific community has NEVER been in favor of global cooling.
nd
Show me the peer reviewed source of that information and I will work on a reply!
You have given me one graph which i immediately accounted for with orbital cycle and various core data, I also for showed you the anthropogenic and natural emission scenario model data which you basically just ignored, before showing you that contrary to what the media says, the scientific community has NEVER been in favor of global cooling.
nd
I've never argued that there is cooling. I've never argued that there isn't warming. You're saying there is warming, i agree. You claim its humanity (i neither agree or disagree), prove it.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 10:08 AM
-
#115
- Rayzor84
- Callandor
-
- Rayzor84
- Callandor
- Join Date: Sep 2012
- Location: United States
- Posts: 12,193
- Rep Power: 30439
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
This is the issue right here. I'm all for climate science but honestly all the graphs in the world don't change that there isn't a single accurate prediction to date. I'd really like to see some accuracy in practice, not speculation on paper.You're underlying assumption is that the evidence is obvious, it is not. We've been taking temperature records for what ... a century? You're comparing that to data across millions of years with a resolution of 1000 years. You cant take a century of data with a resolution of 24 hours and compare that to half a billion years with a resolution of a millennium and prove anything.
Temperatures are going up. Have been for 50 million years. 100 years is meaningless.
I'm not even sure why people even attempt to argue it.
The only worthwhile angle scientist have is comparing expected feedback (rise in temperature) to what their models predict. Not a single scientist has a model with any reasonable accuracy. How could they? You're talking about an open system (Earth) with an infinite amount of variables.
Temperatures are going up. Have been for 50 million years. 100 years is meaningless.
I'm not even sure why people even attempt to argue it.
The only worthwhile angle scientist have is comparing expected feedback (rise in temperature) to what their models predict. Not a single scientist has a model with any reasonable accuracy. How could they? You're talking about an open system (Earth) with an infinite amount of variables.
06-03-2017, 10:26 AM
-
#116
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
It's important to note that the ice caps on Mars are retreating. However, until ice samples are taken from Mars (compared to earth) and quantum computers capable of actually modeling infinite variables become mainstream ... the human derived global warming community will continue to be met with skepticism.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 11:51 AM
-
#117
- chapz
- Registered User
-
- chapz
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2014
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 29
- Posts: 1,136
- Rep Power: 1115
-
-
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
wrong, it is almost universally agreed by the scientific community that anthropogenic cc is a cold hard fact. The onus is on anyone who disagrees to disprove that global warming is induced by us, because this is mainstream scientific consensus, and really the only judgement that holds any weight.That's not how it works. You claim humanity is the cause. It's on you to prove it not me.
I've never argued that there is cooling. I've never argued that there isn't warming. You're saying there is warming, i agree. You claim its humanity (i neither agree or disagree), prove it.
I've never argued that there is cooling. I've never argued that there isn't warming. You're saying there is warming, i agree. You claim its humanity (i neither agree or disagree), prove it.
06-03-2017, 12:54 PM
-
#118
- faxanadu
- Registered User
-
- faxanadu
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2009
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 13,123
- Rep Power: 54413
-
-
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
Provide proof that at least 2/3rds of scientist agree that humans are the overwhelming cause of climate change.wrong, it is almost universally agreed by the scientific community that anthropogenic cc is a cold hard fact. The onus is on anyone who disagrees to disprove that global warming is induced by us, because this is mainstream scientific consensus, and really the only judgement that holds any weight.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius
?start=(#seconds)
TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
06-03-2017, 01:06 PM
-
#119
06-04-2017, 10:22 PM
-
#120
- Kalmah6661
- Banned
-
- Kalmah6661
- Banned
- Join Date: Sep 2010
- Age: 38
- Posts: 8,245
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Any well-made documentary will have you believing whatever it is they're pushing by the end of the film.
Remember that documentary about 9/11 being an inside job? I watched the whole thing, and I can see why people would be like "WOW. IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. 100%!!"
Documentaries are very effective vessels for pushing an agenda, and the outcome isn't always true.
You can watch a documentary that discusses three-headed pigeons on Jupiter, but it doesn't mean the guy who made it is right.
Remember that documentary about 9/11 being an inside job? I watched the whole thing, and I can see why people would be like "WOW. IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. 100%!!"
Documentaries are very effective vessels for pushing an agenda, and the outcome isn't always true.
You can watch a documentary that discusses three-headed pigeons on Jupiter, but it doesn't mean the guy who made it is right.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts