http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...termediate.htm
I can link the studies supporting this if you want.
You have to show conclusively that these studies are flawed or unreasonable. (edit) or better yet show how your theory better explains the observed data(/edit)
Get on with it, and don't prove it to me, I'm not a scientist.
Prove it to the point where it will pass muster in a peer-reviewed journal.
If your case is that good, you should be able to collect data that supports your theory.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-16-2012 at 12:26 PM.
Ah, you just have "questions". The milder version of most conspiracy theories that attempts to cloak/couch dogma in reasonable sounding language.
"The science and data doesn't support the conclusions to any great certainty."
Yet you have no contravening science, other than PoopDeck's flimsy list, and are unqualified to evaluate the data, even so.
Is that better?
It "may be" beneficial.
By all means, lets see where that logic gets us.
"It may be more beneficial than harmful to take massive amounts of this untested dietary supplement, so I don't see any reason not to".
"It may be more beneficial than harmful to invest in this awesome sounding penny stock, so I don't see any reason not to"
"It may be more beneficial than harmful to let my buddy kick me in the nuts as hard as he can, so I don't see any reason not to"
Your argument is rejected as spurious.
(edit)
Simply because something "might be" beneficial, but could quite possibly be harmful, does not mean that one should rush out and do it anyway.
Your arguments against green energy use this exact reasoning.
"Just because we "might" create green jobs, but could quite possibly damage our economy, does not mean we should rush out and do it.
twisty, isn't it?
How do you resolve this? If you are right about CO2, then you are wrong about green jobs and oil energy, by the same logic.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-16-2012 at 12:37 PM.
Quit being a dishonest .
Seems like a fair restatement.
Or are you referring to my commentary? (edit)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-16-2012 at 12:57 PM. Reason: backspace is your friend. Darrin is probably a nice guy.
But, by all means, let's get back to your real statements.
The scientists involved seem to think they have enough data to draw some reasonable conclusions.
They think they are getting all of these nailed down with increasing certainty.
Certainly as time passes and more valid science is done, they will start filling in the holes, and there are some uncertainties that remain, and a lot of holes to file, to be sure.
From what I understand, there are a lot of lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusions.
If there appears to be a harmful outcome to one of your actions, do you wait until you are 100% certain to stop?
Funny how I have to point this out so many times. Please keep in mind, that there was a severe temperature change coming out of the ice age that caused CO2 to increase by about 50%. Since then, we have seen another approximate 50% increase in CO2, yet no notable temperature change like the previous 50% did... I mean, wouldn't we expect to see a similar temperature increase if CO2 is the cause?
It takes decades to see changes in ocean outgassing from increased warming. The last solar increase ended about 1950.
As for the fossil fuel, of course out emissions will ac ulate in the atmosphere when the oceans are still warming and desire a different balance. Let me clarify to state that i don;t believe our CO2 would ac ulate more than an extra 10 ppm if there was no increased solar activity. I say the ocean would have absorbed nearly all of it.
yeah let's not forget your views have been so consistent. You still waffle over whether or not the warming even occurs depending on what mailer you get that day
Yay! The 'its not really warming' argument!
What warming there has been is on the same order as noise -- kinda like your posts.
um, okay.
Let's add an extra word or two.
... so far.
What are your alternate sources of CO2 causing the recent run up in concentration, by the way?
What is the alternate theory, and what proof do you have to support this theory?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges whose carbonate s s reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***
Remember, this alternate theory must explain the observed changes in isotope ratios as well.
I want a theory to test.
If it can't be tested, then you have no theory.
If you have no theory, get in the same corner as the twoofers.
This doesn't matter. So what? The percentage of CO2 type in the air doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the extra sourced CO2 is not being sinked as much as it would be if there were not other changes besides Co2.
So you don't have a theory to explain the changing ratio?
The changing ratio is because we are burning fossil fuels. Not a difficult concept.
I'm saying the ratios don't matter.
...or maybe the scientists are all wrong in their work that the ratio is changing?
Please clarify. There seems to be evidence that the ratio of Carbon isotopes is changing.
Either it is right, and there should be a theory that explains why, or it is wrong, and an explanation as to how the science/data was incorrect.
But, I thought your theory is that we weren't emitting enough CO2 to change the concentration.
How can the ratio be changing to match our emissions?
So you disagree with the BEST correlation analysis and conclusion?
They are an observed phenomenon that should be understood and studied, just like every other aspect of our complex climate should be.
Are you saying they don't matter, becuase you don't like the implications of the changing ratios?
That doesn't seem to be an unbiased approach to the science.
Should we not study them, or find out why they are changing? It would seem to be important, if one is studying increases in CO2 concentrations, as it would provide important clues as to where that extra Co2 is coming from.
Haven't you been paying attention? Its not CO2; its all attributable to soot and deep ocean currents. He bets if you look at Asian industrialization that it will prove it.
I don't have all the answers, but it should move towards the balance between our emission and natural emission.
Are you saying it went past a point of balance?
My theory is that well over 90% of the CO2 we emit should be sinked. I believe this number should be around 98%.
Now to specify, I mean quan y. Not the specific molecules involved. Put both natural and anthropic CO2 in the same bucket, and when you pour some into the sink, it's all mixed up. I can't believe anyone will want to twist my words into meaning 90%+ specific molecules of anthropogenic CO2 is sinked. When you add our 9 GtC to the 800 GtC already in the bucket, along with the 210 GtC of natural sourcing, when you poor 215 GtC back out, in a well mixed bucket, just less than 2 GtC of the man made will be poured out, with 7 remaining. Over the years, there will be balance ac mulation until there is balance.
This current model shows us as ac ulating 4 GtC of carbon annually. My contention is that the oceans should be sinking far more than they do.
Really? From YOU? You post like your favorite CO2 video talking about how little of the atmosphere it makes up. You post that says there is no warming. You cannot be seriously trying to say that someone is misrepresenting your views when you yourself cannot get your damn views straight. You're all over the place then you love to try to come back to the "I am all about the science" but do you honestly think anyone is buying that given your posting history?
Remeber when you were shocked that people who even agreed with you thought you were a shill, Darrin? WHY is that? You're not the poster you think you are.
You're completely wrong about this but I'd rather if you just make up your god damn mind on whether or not there is warming so that when we point out when you're wrong we don't get called dishonest s by your dishonest ass.
You're either incredibly stupid, delusional, or a liar.
Which is it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
