Global cooling a crock, as oceans continue warming.

[ptif219]

I don't know. I'm not aware of any computer models that predict the effects of divine intervention. Human activity has added about .7 degrees C to the global average temperature so far. I suspect the earth would return to close to the same temperature it was around 1850, but there are factors that affect temperatures beyond pollution, so it probably wouldn't be exactly the same, just close. But that's really just a guess, like I said, nobody has done an in-depth analysis of impossible scenarios and I'm not qualified to make that calculation myself.

You don't know? Then how can you say it raised it? That tells me the GW world is guessing and do not know if this warming would have occurred anyway. Shows what a scam it is. Do not trust anyone that has to use scare tactics and a chicken little scenario

 

[Deuce]

You don't know? Then how can you say it raised it? That tells me the GW world is guessing and do not know if this warming would have occurred anyway. Shows what a scam it is. Do not trust anyone that has to use scare tactics and a chicken little scenario

You're like a broken record, ptif.

You're drawing yet another incorrect link. We DO know that we've caused warming, and we DO know that warming wouldn't have happened without our pollution. Science proves this. What science does NOT prove is what exactly would happen if divine intervention magically removed thousands of gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere instantaneously. Because wasting time researching an impossible scenario is stupid.

Here's what you're mistaking: We know that the earth would cool off if this magic scenario occured. What we don't know is precisely how fast and how far, because nobody has bothered to calculate such an absurdity. We might as well calculate what would happen if the earth turned into a giant ball of cheese. It's much easier to calculate the temperature had humans never existed, because that you can base off actual numbers and events. Your God scenario is not like that, because it involved an unnatural process.

Did you stop reading at the end of my first sentence or did you just not understand the rest of it?

 

[ptif219]

You're like a broken record, ptif.

You're drawing yet another incorrect link. We DO know that we've caused warming, and we DO know that warming wouldn't have happened without our pollution. Science proves this. What science does NOT prove is what exactly would happen if divine intervention magically removed thousands of gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere instantaneously. Because wasting time researching an impossible scenario is stupid.

Here's what you're mistaking: We know that the earth would cool off if this magic scenario occured. What we don't know is precisely how fast and how far, because nobody has bothered to calculate such an absurdity. We might as well calculate what would happen if the earth turned into a giant ball of cheese. It's much easier to calculate the temperature had humans never existed, because that you can base off actual numbers and events. Your God scenario is not like that, because it involved an unnatural process.

Did you stop reading at the end of my first sentence or did you just not understand the rest of it?

You can't say how much is man so I say it would have happened anyway unless you can prove how much is man and how much is nature

 

[Deuce]

You can't say how much is man so I say it would have happened anyway unless you can prove how much is man and how much is nature

I've told you several times, about .7 degrees C is from man.

 

[ptif219]

I've told you several times, about .7 degrees C is from man.

No you said it increased that much. What part is natural climate change and what part is man. If you can not seperate them then I assume it is nature and is happening inspite of mans pollution not because of it

 

[Deuce]

No you said it increased that much. What part is natural climate change and what part is man. If you can not seperate them then I assume it is nature and is happening inspite of mans pollution not because of it

.7C is from man, during the last 100 years. In the same time period, natural forcings have not changed appreciably. (they change on a much larger time scale)

 

[ptif219]

.7C is from man, during the last 100 years. In the same time period, natural forcings have not changed appreciably. (they change on a much larger time scale)

Wrong climate change is natural history proves that. You have no proof it is man just opinions and assumptions

 

[Deuce]

Wrong climate change is natural history proves that. You have no proof it is man just opinions and assumptions

Prove it, then.

 

[ptif219]

Prove it, then.

You prove it is all man. My proof is history. Climate change never stops. Did man cause the ice age? All of a sudden after millions of years of constant climate change it is now mans fault. Nice try but if we are breaking heat records from the late 1800's and early 1900's it was hot then to. Was that man back then or natural climate change?

 

[Deuce]

You prove it is all man. My proof is history. Climate change never stops. Did man cause the ice age? All of a sudden after millions of years of constant climate change it is now mans fault. Nice try but if we are breaking heat records from the late 1800's and early 1900's it was hot then to. Was that man back then or natural climate change?

Look, if you can't understand this 1800's thing then you'll never understand proof of anything scientific. You are literally failing to understand 4th grade mathematics.
Ptif, we didn't start directly measuring temperature enough until the 1850's or so. Prior to that, we have to use other methods to calculate global temperatures. Unfortunately, those methods can't go down to the specific year, only a range of years. Therefore, we may know the average temperature in the years 1700-1720, but we can't tell you the average temperature in 1716. Maybe that's what you're not understanding?

The 10 Warmest Years on Record By Rank

1. 1998
2. 2005
3. 2003
4. 2002
5. 2004
6. 2006
7. 2007
8. 2001
9. 1997
10. 2008

See any early 1900's or late 1800's on there?



You seem to think that the earth is not getting warmer. At this point, that' just plain ignorant. Even hardcore skeptics don't deny that fact.

And yet again, it shocks me that I have to explain the fact that just because temperature can change without man doesn't mean that man cannot change temperature. There is more than one way to change temperature. You literally seem to think that there can be only one cause of things.

 

[ptif219]

Look, if you can't understand this 1800's thing then you'll never understand proof of anything scientific. You are literally failing to understand 4th grade mathematics.
Ptif, we didn't start directly measuring temperature enough until the 1850's or so. Prior to that, we have to use other methods to calculate global temperatures. Unfortunately, those methods can't go down to the specific year, only a range of years. Therefore, we may know the average temperature in the years 1700-1720, but we can't tell you the average temperature in 1716. Maybe that's what you're not understanding?

The 10 Warmest Years on Record By Rank

1. 1998
2. 2005
3. 2003
4. 2002
5. 2004
6. 2006
7. 2007
8. 2001
9. 1997
10. 2008

See any early 1900's or late 1800's on there?



You seem to think that the earth is not getting warmer. At this point, that' just plain ignorant. Even hardcore skeptics don't deny that fact.

And yet again, it shocks me that I have to explain the fact that just because temperature can change without man doesn't mean that man cannot change temperature. There is more than one way to change temperature. You literally seem to think that there can be only one cause of things.

If we are breaking records from before oil, than oil is not the cause. We have natural warming as they did back then. It was warm then it is warm now. As for record keeping there is more manipulation of data now by the IPCC with placement of recording devices and other things. I do not trust the record keeping since GW became an issue since it has been proven data has been manipulated

 

[Deuce]

If we are breaking records from before oil, than oil is not the cause.

So, let's see if I can follow your logic here, because this is an interesting sentence.

1) Previously, Situation was X.
2) Then, Item Y was introduced
3) Now, Situation is Z.
4) Therefore, Y could not possibly have caused Z.

 

[iangb]

So, let's see if I can follow your logic here, because this is an interesting sentence.

1) Previously, Situation was X.
2) Then, Item Y was introduced
3) Now, Situation is Z.
4) Therefore, Y could not possibly have caused Z.

An analogy is called for, I feel. If some of what I write is in (parenthesis), it's the real-world equivalent of the analogy, just in case people can't keep up.

Take a 12-year-old boy (Earth). Naturally, 12-year-old boys tend to get stronger (warmer) over the course of several years (centuries), as they gradually go through puberty (natural climate change). Put that boy into a gym, and have him do fitness exercises all day for a couple of weeks (release loads of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere); this is something that can be experimentally proven to have a strengthening (warming) effect. Measure his strength (global temperature) all the while you do this - also look at how big his muscles are (other indicators, such as ice caps).
Then take him to see ptif219, who will proclaim that
a) He might not be stronger after all, you might just have been measuring a non-representative set of muscles (ignoring the fact that every indication shows the same trend)
b) As we can't tell exactly how strong he would have been without the gym, it's impossible to say that the gym has had any effect whatsoever.
c) It's possible that Al Gore owns the gym.

 

[ptif219]

So, let's see if I can follow your logic here, because this is an interesting sentence.

1) Previously, Situation was X.
2) Then, Item Y was introduced
3) Now, Situation is Z.
4) Therefore, Y could not possibly have caused Z.

No I look at history and how it repeats itself. What you call GW is another warming cycle of nature not caused by man. We would have warming even if we did not pollute

 

[ricksfolly]

Global warming research goes back before Gore was even born. It's really weird how conservatives ascribe the whole thing to a guy who isn't a scientist.

Nobody knows what the future will bring because there are too many unforeseen variables.

For example, scientific horse betters take everything into consideration, history, weight, time, odds, track length, jockey, weather, every form of comparison they can think of, and the odds on favorite still only wins a third of the time.

ricksfolly

 

[ptif219]

Nobody knows what the future will bring because there are too many unforeseen variables.

For example, scientific horse betters take everything into consideration, history, weight, time, odds, track length, jockey, weather, every form of comparison they can think of, and the odds on favorite still only wins a third of the time.

ricksfolly

so the doom and gloom and chicken little scenario coming from the GW propagandist is lies

 

[Deuce]

so the doom and gloom and chicken little scenario coming from the GW propagandist is lies

You've used that phrase, "chicken little" about a dozen times in this forum, but I don't understand the reference. Could you explain it?

 

[Deuce]

Nobody knows what the future will bring because there are too many unforeseen variables.

For example, scientific horse betters take everything into consideration, history, weight, time, odds, track length, jockey, weather, every form of comparison they can think of, and the odds on favorite still only wins a third of the time.

ricksfolly

Ironically, global temperature calculations would be far simpler than calculating the odds of a horse race. Biology on a small scale is incredibly complicated. Global Averate Temperature, on the other hand, actually has far fewer variables. (important distinction. average temperature is what I refer to, not climate movements or weather)

You see, the earth's average temperature is a function of how much energy goes in versus how much energy goes out. Rather basic phyics, once you get right down to it. Measuring how much energy goes in is incredibly simple, we have satelites that directly measure the sun's input. (and the sun is the only input of energy) How much energy goes out is somewhat more complicated, but it's just a matter of measuring how much energy is radiated versus how much is recaptured by some mechanism, and then figuring out what that mechanism, or mechanisms, might be.

If I remember right, Ricksfolly, you were a technician of some sort. Basic physics like this should be easy for you to grasp.

 

[iangb]

You've used that phrase, "chicken little" about a dozen times in this forum, but I don't understand the reference. Could you explain it?

Henny Penny (fable) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FYI

 

[Deuce]

Henny Penny (fable) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FYI

Ahh. Must have missed that fable as a kid.
In any case, let me assure the skeptics that I do not believe the sky is falling. "Trouble ahead" is a more apt description. Extinction, not so much.

 

[ptif219]

You've used that phrase, "chicken little" about a dozen times in this forum, but I don't understand the reference. Could you explain it?

Doing less carbon does not guarentee the temp will drop.

Yet GW propagandist keep saying if we do not change we will die the sky will fall

 

[ptif219]

Ironically, global temperature calculations would be far simpler than calculating the odds of a horse race. Biology on a small scale is incredibly complicated. Global Averate Temperature, on the other hand, actually has far fewer variables. (important distinction. average temperature is what I refer to, not climate movements or weather)

You see, the earth's average temperature is a function of how much energy goes in versus how much energy goes out. Rather basic phyics, once you get right down to it. Measuring how much energy goes in is incredibly simple, we have satelites that directly measure the sun's input. (and the sun is the only input of energy) How much energy goes out is somewhat more complicated, but it's just a matter of measuring how much energy is radiated versus how much is recaptured by some mechanism, and then figuring out what that mechanism, or mechanisms, might be.

If I remember right, Ricksfolly, you were a technician of some sort. Basic physics like this should be easy for you to grasp.

Another words you think it promotes your view on Global Warming so it is the only standard you accept

 

[Deuce]

Another words you think it promotes your view on Global Warming so it is the only standard you accept

Ptif, perhaps you can explain to me why discussing temperature changes is not the proper way to determing global warming?

The reason I made that statement is to point out that while weather is a very complex prediction to make, global average temperature is actually not as complicated.

 

[ptif219]

Ptif, perhaps you can explain to me why discussing temperature changes is not the proper way to determing global warming?

The reason I made that statement is to point out that while weather is a very complex prediction to make, global average temperature is actually not as complicated.

I have discussed it yet you keep making excuses why you are right and I am wrong when I use history

 

[iangb]

I have discussed it yet you keep making excuses why you are right and I am wrong when I use history

I posted a lovely analogy expalining this, which you ignored.

In short, it's experimental fact that CO2 has a warming effect - and we know that we've given out loads of CO2, so we know that we must have had a warming effect. The fact that sometimes other things also cause warming is a poor comeback, and is sliced to ribbons by Occams Razor - not to mention that we know that it can't be those other things, because they would have a slower rate of warming.