Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
The fact that there is no geological correlation between CO2 levels and temperature should be enough evidence, but then something that does not characterize our society is objectivity :s
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
The fact that there is no geological correlation between CO2 levels and temperature should be enough evidence, but then something that does not characterize our society is objectivity :s
But Tinchote. Look at the graphs they post showing correlation!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGG GGGGGGGGGH!!!! We're all going to die! Die I tell's ya!
Except that the graph posted earlier in this thread regarding atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature shows an overall upward trend....Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
I would like to see a coherent argument on this thread regarding WHY the evidence concerning global warming is flawed and point out flaws in the methodology of the research done instead of regressing to junior school science.
tinchote posted a graph which showed extremely high levels of co2 in the atmosphere and low temperatures
Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton university, is an expert in examining climate records from the distant past. He has said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
There is also an article from him here. He mentions something I've been thinking since I first met the terms "climate change":Quote:
There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years... On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?
Quote:
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
Argh Tinchote! I bet he's paid by Exxon, Shell and BP. He doesn't agree with what other scientists say so I'm going to suggest that he is biased with no evidence whatsoever because I'm part of the Eco-Cult.
Daniel seems to become more and more cultivated, post by post. :-)
Global Warming is likely a fact ... what causes it? THE SUN!
In order to know what part of GW is caused by man you MUST know what is caused naturally.
Again, I would suspect that the climatologists who come down on the side of man-made global warming haven't forgotten to factor this in to their calculations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blancvino
Prove it ...Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I can be convinced with REAL evidence. So show me. It's not to much to ask if I am to be totally inconvenienced by radical programs to cut greenhouse gases. I'll be a strong supporter if you can show me we are in extreme peril AND we can do something about it. But I think it's kind of hard to turn down the Sun's thermostat.
Should we do things now to curb greenhouse gases? Yes, just not in some crazed obsessive manner.
Aluminum + gallium + water = Hydrogen on demand.
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html
Not quite champ. I formed my opinion way before I saw the movie. The movie was flawed, but had some good points. I didn't like the fact that it seemed to be a fluff peice for Al Gore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Man Made Global Warming can be stopped. As I have said before: I am not concerned by the fact that the planet is warming. I AM concerned about the speed of its warming and the change in makeup off the atmosphere.
Would a realist look at a few million displaced people that can no longer be fed and say we just have to move our farms north (or south)?
Can someone show me somewhere that the sun is warming. I think its bizare that people pull this little bit of myth out all the time and I have not seen any scientific evidence of it.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/s...06/1740858.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233
I have plenty more where that came from if you are genuinly interested.
Can someone ask Professor Patterson what the hell climate records from 450million years ago has to do with todays planet?Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.
Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.
The fact is that theh coolest period agreed with way higher concentrations of CO2 than today are considered deadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Patterson's remarks have as much authority as anyone else. The guy's an expert in understanding the climate in terms of geological evidence.Quote:
Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.
A climatologist cannot go very far without data. And where can they get their data? The atmosphere has been seriously studied for less than 100 years. And with that data they can tell what will happen in another 100 years? Hard to believe. Science works in terms of theories, and climate theories are not known to be particularly sound. Because even if the theory is perfect (which I doubt it is) then to make predictions you have to implement computer models, and that could be really tricky.
In any case your claim shows a lot of bias. For example, one question hanging here is whether the sun is radiating more these days than at certain times in the past. And that's a question for an astronomer, not a climatologist. And, as I said, if you want to assess the climate from more than 100 years ago, you need to study different kinds of evidence (trees' rings, ice layers, etc., etc.), and none of those are the area of expertise of a climatologist.
It's the same planet my friend. Rather than just analysing one small bit of data he's using a lot more. Like me making the assumption that you must be an eco-nazi and nothing else just because I've only seen your posts on this thread. I could be right but I'm probably wrong. I have no other evidence of you doing anything else and I'll dismiss any other evidence you present with the line "What does it have to do with today's rah?"Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
I've never really thought of it from that perspective. :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
All of the factors that you mentioned will have a vast effect on the climate.
Oceans currents for example would be much different when the only continent was Pangaea. Small changes in ocean currents can cause major changes with the climate, as Great Britain may find out.
But the atmosphere 450million years ago was a completely different thing. The effect of large concentrations of CO2 will have a different effect then to now. Not to mention that light levels, contintal shape, size and location will have an effect on the atmosphere. The data from 450 million years ago, while very interesting, does not have meaning in todays world. Have a look at the Ordovican period to get an idea of the difference. This could help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrdovicianQuote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Where do I show bias? Not saying I don't but I would like to know where. I do try to keep an open mind, however one does get carried away.
The Sun question is not hanging. It is dead. I can find more links to the research if the previous links were not good enough.
Its a completely different planet my friend. Just using the same rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Eco-nazi is not only a very strong label, it is also a very insulting one.
If it makes you feel better, I like F1, MotoGP, WRC, V8 supercars, CC and a little IRL. I also like long walks in the park and pina coladas.
How do you know? Were you there before? Were the scientists there? before? :mark: You can't be argued with though. You'll just say "That's wrong cos it's different now lyke" :dozey: I wish my life was as simple as modern climatology Been fun knowing you though.
Hey dude, not sure if we are on the same page here. I don't want to be right. I don't want to beleive what just about every scientist in the related field is saying. But from my reading, all I can see is bad news. If you can tell me something I am missing please do. But have you pointed anything out? Can you shown me the evidence that I am missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
There are some very smart minds working on this, and I am not one of them. Hell, there are people riding short buses to school that are sharper than me, but I do know how to read. Whenever you read something regarding AGW, check the sources.
I was concretely talking about the fact that you said the the only person qualified to talk about this is a climatologist. And I just don't agree with that. And, by the way, Patterson doesn't mention just things from 450 million years ago. He mentions that 6000 years ago temperature was 3C higher than it is now: can you deny that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
In any case, my main point is not to deny the warming, but to discuss its consequences. We are told that an increase in temperature is catastrophic. As I have asked many times: does that mean that a decrease in temperature will improve the world in any sense? Or does it mean that the current temperatures are "perfect"? I find that hard to believe.
I know I'm biased on this particular bit, but being someone that walks to work in January under -40 weather, it's tough to convince me that "warmer is worse" ;)
Ahh no, what I said was if you want to know what is happening now, ask a climatologist. I never said they are the only people qualified to talk about the climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Not sure about the temp 6000 years ago, can you post a link?
As I have said before, an increase in temp is not catastrophic. The speed of the increase is.
Fair enough on the -40 bit. Never experienced that kind of temp so its hard for me to guess what it is like. But spare a thought for the environmental refugees. At least your country is not disappearing.
As I said before. Explain the Thames freezing over in the middle of this century? The climate has always been changing. Get used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
No, I won't 'get used to it'. because plenty of scientists who, with respect, know more about the situation than you do think otherwise. Do you seriously think that they have discounted the differences over long periods of time in their calculations? I do not believe that they would have made such a fundamental error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Why not ring one up and ask them if they have investigated this particular point?
Ok. You tell me how much of a change in air temperature would cause a large body of water like the Thames to freeze over. Then tell me that we've not seen larger changes in air temperature in the past when CO2 levels have been high, not as high or just downright bloody irrelevant.
I don't know. I'm not a scientist. Neither are you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Scientists once thought the earth was flat and the sun went into the underworld at night. I could go on....
You choose to believe some scientists, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
But I do that on the understanding that it's only theory and possibly wrong. When as Tinchote states there have been periods where CO2 levels have been high but temperatures low. Explain that? If CO2 is such a strong greenhouse gas then why weren't temperatures at alltime highs?
I can't. I'm not a scientist. Why do you think that so many climatologists have failed to take this point you keep making into account? If you think they're all wrong, tell one and see what they say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Can't be bothered. No use telling a religious/cultist person that one of the cornerstones of their religion/cult may be incorrect.
Very simple explanation, the water was colder then. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I rather resent the fact that you think that anyone who holds the same views as I do is a 'religious/cultist person'. I don't see it that way at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The problem is that our ability to extrapolate geological records into the average temperature of certain periods isn't accurate either and it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain short term fluctuations in temperature if you're looking at records over several thousand years old. Manmade records are of course imperfect because they only go back for such a short period of time but they are accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Therefore I don't see how your climatologists evidence is more sound than the current consensus in the scientific community.
Sea levels are linked to average temperature due to the increase/decrease in ice in the polar caps taking water out of or pushing more into the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Such increases or decreases in sea level didn't matter so much when we as a species either didn't exist or lived a nomadic lifestyle. However since many of the most economically productive cities are now most at risk since they lie either on the coast or not very far from one an increase in sea level is going to have a serious effect. Then there are certain countries whose very existence is at threat, the Netherlands and some Pacific states come to mind.
We do have ways of getting around a rise in sea level of course, flood defence technology has improved in leaps and bounds over the past few years but whether or not we invest in them now depends on whether we believe there actually will be an increase in sea level... hence the debate.
Of course poor countries won't be able to afford such defences but then we're not so concerned about them are we.
When cities like NY, Tokyo, London are flooded on a regular basis and insurance claims rise through the roof, stock markets fall because of uncertainty as to the extra cost of coping with such disasters in the future I suspect you'll find it'll hurt you in the pocket too.
I doubt you can argue that maintaining sea levels at their current position or even reducing them will have the same negative effects as increasing them.
That applies equally to you since I've not been able to see a single coherent argument from you as to why the scientific consensus is incorrect yet hold tenaciously to your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Constant name-calling (eco-Nazi, religious/cultist person) is not an adequate replacement for a reasoned argument btw.
The fact that graphs have been posted which show obscenely high levels of atmospheric CO2 while there have been low temps kind of points out that there may be merit to my argument. Oh wait you ignore anything which doesn't agree with what the scientists think and any scientist which doesn't agree with popular belief is said to be working for the oil companies :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
It is a religion. If you speak out against it you are beset upon by hordes of eco-warriors blindly following the scientists (prophets?) who ignore any evidence to the contrary ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No it isn't. For you to say so is, with respect, ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
As I have said time and time again, your assertion that every scientist who has studied global warming and come to the conclusion that it's man-made is misguided on the basis that you reckon they have forgotten to take natural causal factors into account has little foundation. Go and talk to just such a person and I am sure they would put you right.
My point with regards to this thread was merely to say that it's possible that the scientists could be wrong......... As I said scientists with the best scientific knowledge available to them in the past have made errors of judgement. I don't think anyone honestly knows. That's my opinion and perhaps ib 50 years time I might change my mind. I still think we should make efforts to increase the efficiency of powerplants and cars and so on to conserve fossil fuels and dare I say it also to decrease CO2 emmisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
OK, fair enough. That's more reasonable. However, I think that to label the climate change theory as being equivalent to a religion is going too far. I also suspect, still, that scientists who are convinced of climate change would argue that they do know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel