• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead [W:398]

sookster said:
He has used data since 1900.

Why hasn't he used data using ice core samples that track back until 4000 BC?

Do you know how to insert graphics from a PDF? I could show you that data. (The data might have reached as far back as 40000 BC, but I am unsure)
Click to expand...

Perhaps because ice core samples aren't a good temperature proxy.:peace
 
I doubt it. Both sides of the debate it seems to me credit ice core samples. I suspect he is doing it to get a possible mathematical model, or to get the numbers he wants.

We will see.
 
sookster said:
I doubt it. Both sides of the debate it seems to me credit ice core samples. I suspect he is doing it to get a possible mathematical model, or to get the numbers he wants.

We will see.
Click to expand...

No one credits ice core samples as a temperature record.
 
Jack Hays said:
No one credits ice core samples as a temperature record.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no one? Not one person at all? Then why have I read studies and summarizes that cite ice core samples? They wouldn't use them if they didn't credit them, no?
 
sookster said:
Absolutely no one? Not one person at all? Then why have I read studies and summarizes that cite ice core samples? They wouldn't use them if they didn't credit them, no?
Click to expand...

They don't cite ice cores as temperature records.
 
Jack Hays said:
No one cites ice cores as temperature records. Perhaps for atmospheric make-up.
Click to expand...

"Figure 4: Temperature change since AD 1400 based on ice core samples, with recent instrumental record added."

There are more.

These quotes can be found here:

Fowler, Thomas B. "The Global Warming Conundrum." Modern Age (2012): 51. Academic Search Elite. Web. August 28 2013.
 
sookster said:
"Figure 4: Temperature change since AD 1400 based on ice core samples, with recent instrumental record added."

There are more.

These quotes can be found here:

Fowler, Thomas B. "The Global Warming Conundrum." Modern Age (2012): 51. Academic Search Elite. Web. August 28 2013.
Click to expand...

Please post it as a link, otherwise it doesn't exist.
 
sookster said:
"Figure 4: Temperature change since AD 1400 based on ice core samples, with recent instrumental record added."

There are more.

These quotes can be found here:

Fowler, Thomas B. "The Global Warming Conundrum." Modern Age (2012): 51. Academic Search Elite. Web. August 28 2013.
Click to expand...

The global warming conundrum. - Free Online Library

Free News, Magazines, Newspapers, Journals, Reference Articles and Classic Books - Free Online Library › ... › Modern Age › January 1, 2012‎
Free Online Library: The global warming conundrum. ... Thomas B. Fowler is adjunct professor of engineering at George Mason University and a retired systems ...
 
Are you serious? Could there be sources, let's say a PDF, that isn't online in HTML form?

I tried to attach the file to this post, but the 13 MB PDF file is too large. I assure you that it exists.
 
Jack Hays said:
The global warming conundrum. - Free Online Library

Free News, Magazines, Newspapers, Journals, Reference Articles and Classic Books - Free Online Library › ... › Modern Age › January 1, 2012‎
Free Online Library: The global warming conundrum. ... Thomas B. Fowler is adjunct professor of engineering at George Mason University and a retired systems ...
Click to expand...

Cool link!

But not to get too off track, the link does not show the graphics that the original PDF shows. They omitted the text that I quoted before. I assure you that scientists use ice core samples to measure temperature way far back in the Earth's history.
 
sookster said:
Cool link!

But not to get too off track, the link does not show the graphics that the original PDF shows. They omitted the text that I quoted before. I assure you that scientists use ice core samples to measure temperature way far back in the Earth's history.
Click to expand...

Ice core samples can, at best, indicate broad relative temperature changes. They have very little utility in determining actual temperature.:peace
 
sookster said:
What is your reasoning/evidence that CO2 concentrations does not effect the climate?
Click to expand...

Where did I say they had no effect? The problem is how much effect and n what manner... The assumption it can warm the warmer surface, in effect using the same energy to do the same task is a serious stretch. But that doersn't mean no effect...

Sure it has an effect, but take into consideration it is logorythmic and not linear, meaning more CO2 does not automatically mean more warming per. More CO2 means makes each PPM less effective. We have a certain amount of energy coming in, more CO2 or GH gases will not mean more warming if the energy that causes that warming does not increase.. OR x amount of energy in and y amount of GH gases, add more GH gases it just spreads the x amount of energy thinner.

That alone should tell you warmers it's more than likely going to cool due to GH gas concentrations. But no, you people are committed now. Don't feel bad there's a whole scientific community in the same boat now. They claimed cooling, then changed it to warming when their limited understanding became apparent. Then it became apparent they could be wrong again, so now it's climate change and they can jump on either scenario.. The fact is they don't know for sure, and if you can't see that yet, you're blind.. They are making bold claims based on relatively little information and evidence, and are now getting called on it..

Scientists overstate their findings or their importance quite often for any number of reasons. Some even stated we would be using flying cars by now. Others claimed we would be clonizing mars by this time. Remember Moore's Law? Processor speed was supposed to double every 2 years. But lately that hasn't been the case. Scientists do it quite often, for fame, for money, for whatever reason..
 
Threegoofs said:
And you're just an aw shucks guy who has an unspecified job, little science education, and, gee-whiz, coaches kids in baseball.


But somehow you know more about science than actual trained people.
Click to expand...

Aw shucks???

ROFL, I correct you at nearly every exchange, and even busted you trying to use jargon you had no clue about, so I say I'm doing okay... And as far as my job, I gave a description, if it bothers you take a guess at it.. Why should I tell you what I do or what my education may be? Will it win me a debate? Hasn't worked for you yet Mr. Medical whatever you are today... I think until you can win a debate here based solely on your words and abilties expressed in the exchange, you can call yourself Albert Einstein and it won't mean squat... People can claim to be anything online, but people cannot BS a win..
 
No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead

code1211 said:
You keep saying that and yet cannot find the scientific organization that has elevated this notion to being a scientific theory the way you do.

What do the real scientists understand about this that is escaping you?
Click to expand...

It's a stupid premise. I've covered this.
 
No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead

gslack said:
Aw shucks???

ROFL, I correct you at nearly every exchange, and even busted you trying to use jargon you had no clue about, so I say I'm doing okay... And as far as my job, I gave a description, if it bothers you take a guess at it.. Why should I tell you what I do or what my education may be? Will it win me a debate? Hasn't worked for you yet Mr. Medical whatever you are today... I think until you can win a debate here based solely on your words and abilties expressed in the exchange, you can call yourself Albert Einstein and it won't mean squat... People can claim to be anything online, but people cannot BS a win..
Click to expand...

If you gave a description, I forgot it.

I have the scientists on my side. You have blogs and weathermen.
 
Threegoofs said:
If you gave a description, I forgot it.

I have the scientists on my side. You have blogs and weathermen.
Click to expand...

Nah, that's your silly excuse whenever you are faced with something you don't like.. And weathermen? LOL, the AMS assumes your side of the debate silly.. For a self proclaimed man of science you sure aren't privy to your side of the debate...

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

But I know you won't check the link anyway.. The AMS must be a blog, since according to you that's all I have.. Funny but for such an uneducated person I know more about whose on your side of this issue than you do.. ROFL
 
gslack said:
Nah, that's your silly excuse whenever you are faced with something you don't like.. And weathermen? LOL, the AMS assumes your side of the debate silly.. For a self proclaimed man of science you sure aren't privy to your side of the debate...

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

But I know you won't check the link anyway.. The AMS must be a blog, since according to you that's all I have.. Funny but for such an uneducated person I know more about whose on your side of this issue than you do.. ROFL
Click to expand...

97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?

Climate Change: Evidence
 
No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead

gslack said:
Nah, that's your silly excuse whenever you are faced with something you don't like.. And weathermen? LOL, the AMS assumes your side of the debate silly.. For a self proclaimed man of science you sure aren't privy to your side of the debate...

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

But I know you won't check the link anyway.. The AMS must be a blog, since according to you that's all I have.. Funny but for such an uneducated person I know more about whose on your side of this issue than you do.. ROFL
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming that even the meteorologists are on my side. Yes, I was aware of this, as I repeatedly post this link...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

By weathermen, I specifically was referring to Anthony Watts ( who is the source of much of the 'skeptic' talking points you seem to have absorbed) and a couple others who have been mentioned here.

Funny how I know the source of where this BS comes from more than you, who eats it up unthinkingly because it fits your pre-decided viewpoint. Nice way to duck the point, BTW.
 
ethanUNC said:
97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?

Climate Change: Evidence
Click to expand...

OH NO!!!

The dreaded 97% of all papers selected that stated a cause agree it's manmade... LOL, whatever shall I do???? Oh, I know, I'll point out the fact that claim has been busted more times than I can count now. From the fact they left out any paper that didn't specifically pick a cause... You know like a scientific paper is supposed to do when dealing in theory...AMAZING... Science acting as it should...

get a grip dude...
 
Threegoofs said:
Thanks for confirming that even the meteorologists are on my side. Yes, I was aware of this, as I repeatedly post this link...

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By weathermen, I specifically was referring to Anthony Watts ( who is the source of much of the 'skeptic' talking points you seem to have absorbed) and a couple others who have been mentioned here.

Funny how I know the source of where this BS comes from more than you, who eats it up unthinkingly because it fits your pre-decided viewpoint. Nice way to duck the point, BTW.
Click to expand...


Weathermen plural silly... Weather man singular.. get it? Of course you do, you were just rambling nonsense as per your usual..

What BS are you talking about now? The BS you just tried to pull after getting caught being ignorant on the subject again? Dude throwing your own ignorance back in your face has become a daily thing now..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom