Reply With Quote
Isn't anyone brave enough to play my game?
I would really like some predictions before I take this farther.
I’ve been working on something I will finish in a day or so and post. It has to do with CO2 warming. If you check wiki on Greenhouse Gasses, they have CO2 being responsible for 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is stated to be, depending on source, by either 32C or 33C. Sources agree the Earth would be -18C (-0.4 F, 31.6 below freezing) with no greenhouse gasses. They vary also on the average temperature. It is still a small range of 14C or 15C (57.2F to 59F.)
Before I post my data, I would like to ask people to tell me just how much CO2 has increased the Earths average temperature. The data points I am using is from pre industrial earth to recent time. I’m using 280ppm of CO2 to 380ppm. I will humor any reasonable ranges, say +/- 20 of the above levels. Scientists are now saying the greenhouse effect has increased by various figures too. Generally, its about 0.6C to 0.8 C (1.08F to 1.44F.) Here too, I will humor any acceptable numbers.
I have not yet decided where I believe the effects of CO2 to be. Only that they are far lower than the Alarmists claim. I tend to believe they have no more than a 0.2C (0.36F) effect. I am trying to solidify my belief, and in the process, expose what other peoples numbers really mean.
Be back on this topic in a day or so.
Isn't anyone brave enough to play my game?
I would really like some predictions before I take this farther.
I think the climate will change daily and that even the flap of a single butterfly's wings will contribute to it, even if only slightly.
These liberals here are so certain of antropogenic warming, yet they have no facts. Only dogma. Their silence is deafening, isn't it?
What kind of butterfly are we talking about here?
"they have no facts"
Yes, 1000s and 1000s of scientists have no facts, from Hansen on down, but WC has his ideological cherry-picking science that overwhelms them all.
Do you know that it is impossible to predict what will happen in the future? All you can do is create computer models and see if your predictions come to fruition. So far, a lot of IPCC model predictions have been wrong. We're currently in a very long period of negligible solar activity, global temperatures have all but flatlined in the last decade, and polar ice is growing very rapidly.
I i you are looking for data, mine Science News. Just a quick glance that doesn't directly address temperture but does reference historical CO2 levels:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...e_clues_in_ice
Even if scientists never find ice more than 800,000 years old, the new findings confirm that Earth’s atmosphere today is unusual, Brook says. “Modern levels of greenhouse gases have no natural analogue in the ice record,” he notes.
By the way, this is a must read for anyone who believes in "consensus" science.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...nal_9-5-07.pdf
Isn't it just simpler to remind people the scientific consensus was that the Earth was flat?
When did it become round I wonder, if consensus is correct, what turned the earth from flat to round?
2008 is on track to be the coldest year of the Century...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_EarthIsn't it just simpler to remind people the scientific consensus was that the Earth was flat?
...I really don't think so...2008 is on track to be the coldest year of the Century...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...oct/oct08.html
Your link only moves the consensus back a couple of hundred years or so, it doesn't say it never existed or wasn't a commonly held belief.
Hey, argue with the Brits.
2008 will be coolest year of the decade
Philip Scott -- Global Warming is Not a Crisis (debate)
Random thought: I remember seeing that famous graph with the CO2 levels and the temperature changes in "An Inconvenient Truth." If you look closely at the graph, it actuallys appears that changes in CO2 levels lag behind and follow the corresponding changes in temperature, and not the other way around. Maybe it was a bad graph, but it made me laugh when I was watching that movie. I'm no scientist, but neither is Al Gore.
There's actually something very jacked up with that graph.
Look at this little peak that is pointing toward Gore's mouth. This is data plotted vs. time. There shouldn't be any point on the line that moves backward in time like that.
I'll start believing global warming is a crisis when those who say global warming is a crisis start acting like global warming is a crisis.
Hey, argue with the Brits.
2008 will be coolest year of the decadeAlas!, coolest year of the 21st century...all rigth then2008 is on track to be the coldest year of the Century...
Isn't that what I said?Alas!, coolest year of the 21st century...all rigth then
And, aren't we supposed to be warming?
Yes you did, I (wrongly) took "century" as the last 100 years when it is actually only the last 8.
Yes we are warming, but that doesn't mean that every year has to beat the previous year record. Here is where we stand:
Smart.
So what's your hard argument that it isn't flat?
Most foreingers are blaming us for this problem. Our SUVs and cars have long been giving off tons of co2 into the atmosphere so it's rational that they blame us. I'm not sure if their blamings are alittle bit jealous of our wealth, but the fact of the matter is that we are really contributing the most part of the air pollution and the co2 our SUVs generate are really damaging the world. However, we don't need to be the scopegoat in the near future because we'll not able to afford another SUV whose prize will be sky high. With GM collapsing, our auto industry is gonna face a huge challenge and the very chance is that it'll entirely collapes. Even GM is not able to survive, how the should the smaller ones come through the finacial crisis? The only hope for them is the goverment's rescue package. So please, Mr Bush and Mr president-elect, do something as soon as possible. for the nation's sake, or even for the sake of God.
Bush: please don't hit my balls, dear barack, it's time for both of us to stand on the same side.
Obama: I agree, dear George.W. I won't reject the rescue package that is specialic for the auto industry. We are not enermies but friends.
My graph can beat up your graph!Yes you did, I (wrongly) took "century" as the last 100 years when it is actually only the last 8.
Yes we are warming, but that doesn't mean that every year has to beat the previous year record. Here is where we stand:
So, my source says temps have been dropping for 15 million years...
Your graph can be explained by variances caused in the solar cycle.
Also, data shows CO2 levels follow temperature. Thus the whole cruxt of global warmers argument is undermined to the point they had to make up a new theory about how something jumpstarts something or other.
Answer me this seba. What is the ideal temperature for this planet? Why?
And, one other thing. How do you propose we control the non-anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases? They completely eclipse anthropogenic sources...completely.
Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is man's arrogance at it's finest.
My point is that scientific consensus is not fact.
Just that simple.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
