Reply With Quote
Is that because you know more than Ph.Ds like Sec24?
You're awesome!
Link to the source please.
Is that because you know more than Ph.Ds like Sec24?
You're awesome!
x 30 million
Out of 8 years, the Dems controlled for 2.
And, there was already an economic mess by the time they took control.
So, the Republicans ed this country over for the better part of a decade.
It's simple math, but Bushies like you would never understand something that simple.
You are nothing like Mark Twain.
Nothing.
You're a loser who posts bombastic opinions on an internet forum.
That's all you are.
And, you show your idiocy so well most of the time.
If you were anything like Twain, anything at all, you would be leading a more productive life and providing solutions.
You do neither.
All this is completely laughable.
One of you bags likens himself to Einstein and the other to Mark Twain.
Jesus Christ, you're a ing idiot.
I should say that you are "obtuse" so I can make myself sound smart.
Pot meet kettle.
Typical liberal hate-speech when the facts become illusive:
Well, that's apparent.
Looks like Cobra's not kidding about not liking the classroom.
I wonder what Mark Twain has to say about little Cobra's grammar.
Oh snap! Grammar smack!
I've never denied I'm a loser with way too much time on my hands.
I've also never claimed that I'm equal to Einstein and Twain.
That's right, !!!
That's how I roll.
All I know is that someone who claims to be Twain's equal should at the very least have good grammar.
indeed. it's like talking to a wall.
This just proves how re ed you two are.
I think I've posted once since the election.
Nobody had told me anything about McCain and what not.
No, it's not. Your ignorance is pathetic.I love all you dumbass liberals who think you are smart, yet can't even see this scam owning all of you morons. 99% on this forum will shrug off this comment, but maybe one will finally question The Goracle.
THE GOVERNMENT IS USING YOUR GOOD INTENTIONS TO GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS & CITIZENS. YOU GET NOTHING OUT OF IT. THEY ARE LINING THEIR POCKETS OFF THE SCAM. Yet many of you will support THEM to the end. Why.
So ing easy to see from the start. Some will never get it. I'd throw up a laughter smiley, but the isn't really funny anymore.
Can you please stop conflating science and politics - the politics of climate change have absolutely NOTHING to do with the science.
Once again, your argument makes no sense - oil and coal are worth trillions of dollars annually, CO2 reduction measures are in the billions ie. 1000+ times less money. Also, the easiest way to cut your ecological footprint (the damage we do to the environment extends far beyond CO2) is to consume smarter and consume less, which will SAVE YOU MONEY.
(1) Isn't any proof huh? What about disappearing glaciers, record artic and antartic ice melts, changing temperature and rainfall regimes measured in hundreds of locations across the globe, a higher frequency of extreme weather events, changes to the behaviour of the great conveyor belt, changing plant flowering and species migration time... all of these occurances have been do ented multiple times in published science and are clear evidence of the changing climate. And don't give me the old "natural variation" bugbear - of course climate varies naturally, but major changes such as glacial-interglacial take 3-5000 years, which is about 30-50 times SLOWER than the rate of change we are currently observing.
(2) From realclimate, which is staffed by PhD climatologists from all over the globe and allows unmoderated debate of all topics:
"This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/
(3) Oh, and why you are looking at 600 million years I wouldn't know. The geology and biology of the planet has changed massively over 600 million years - Pangaea, the supercontinent, only started to seperate 200 million years ago - so of course the atmosphere and climate system has been radically different to what we see today. Let's confine ourselves to the last 600,000 years for the moment:
That comes from a new scientist article that explains the same thing as the real climate article above:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
Hmmmmm. Looks like a pretty strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature to me.
Finally, please explain this to me:
(1) the global carbon cycle has X quan y of carbon in it, exchanging between atmosphere, oceans, terrestrial plants and soils in an equilibrium system (undisputed);
(2) humans are dumping Y quan y of carbon (eqivalent to 2-3ppm/yr of atmospheric carbon) that has been out of the carbon cycle (stored underground as coal/oil for hundreds of millions of years) into the modern carbon cycle, and in total have changed the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (and dissolved oceanic CO2) by about 35% in a century (undisputed);
(3) atmospheric CO2 absorbs radiation and re-radiates it at wavelengths that cannot escape the atmosphere (undisputed);
(4) according to you, 1/3 more CO2 in the atmophere will not lead to an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere!?!? How is that possible? Basic physics makes a mockery of what you are saying. WHERE IS THE EXCESS HEAT GOING??????????
You want to debate the science, you'd better understand it, because I do.
You naysayers, you deniers, most of whom have NOT read the science and clearly do not understand it, are akin the Church in the Middle Ages: "no, no the earth is flat and your astronomy is witchcraft". Stop conflating politicians and political parties you don't like with science that is solid as a rock, and stop mixing up the idea that this is all a way to get money out of your pocket with the reality that, as with the credit crisis, humanity is living far beyond its means in environmental terms. In short, WAKE THE UP.
PS It is a ing embarrassment that you guys are more worried about a few dollars in your pocket than the pollution you cause (of all kinds, not just CO2). Consumption has consequences, especially when there are 7 billion humans on the planet DOUBLING their consumption of energy every 20 years (not to mention water, oil, coal, metals, etc.), but you're more concerned that someone is trying to bilk you. In taking that stand, you are essentially calling hundreds of thousands of scientists who are working on this phenomon frauds who are only interested in giving evidence to people who want to rob you, and you should be ing ashamed of yourselves. You are the frauds, not the climate scientists.
Ruff why was there 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere in the ordovician when we were in an ice age?
You can try to push off an 800 year lag as inconsequential (and let me just say.. .that before you had to admit one existed CO2 was your "driver" the whole way through) but you can't get around 4.5% CO2 in the atmosphere and it being as cool or cooler than it is now.
You are talking semantics with your "35%" increase... 35% increase to what? .4%!!! less than 10 times what it was in the ordovician.
i think what myself and Cobra were referring to is liberals in general.
Because the Ordovician period was roughly 450 MILLION years ago and the planet was completely different - its albedo was different, its biology was different, its paleogeography was different, its geology was different, its orbit was (subtely) different, its climatic cycles were different. Ordovician earth bore little resemblance to modern earth, so why use it for comparison when you can use far more reliable records from the last 1 million years? Also, the temperature and CO2 estimates you refer to have huge error components (the light yellow shading is the error margin inherent in the models):
Comparing the earth in the Ordovician period to today is like comparing apples to beach balls - there is very little resemblance aside from the fact that they are both round - so basing your argument on that shows just how little you have considered the subject, or just how willing you are to twist the facts to meet your beliefs. Meanwhile, you are discussing something based on computer modelling, whereas I'm discussing the actual physical realities being observed by ecologists, climatologists, geologists, etc in the real world. I am less certain about any kind of modelling than I am about observed physical data, so lets stick to that.
How about you explain to me the correlation over the last 600,000 years (ie. a relevant geological timeframe), which clearly shows CO2 as an amplifier and a key component in climate change between glacial and interglacial periods? And to answer your assertion, yes, in geological time 800 years is a drop in the ocean, but the broader point there is that scientists acknowledge that natural climate oscillations are generally initiated by other events, which lead to an increase in CO2/CH4 conc. (probably due to deep ocean cycling and clathrate melting respectively), which then takes over and changes the climate markedly. We humans are bypassing the initiating phase of that cycle by artificially pump-priming the atmosphere with CO2 from fossil fuels, so we don't need to refer to the initiating phase. Also, the natural glacial-interglacial transition occurs at rates 10-100x slower (depending on whether you measure at the poles or the equator) than what we are currently observing... why would that be? Because this is NOT a natural cycle event.
My point about the 35% increase in a century was not semantic at all, it was that if you change any component in a system by 35% you are going to get changes to that system, and usually drastic changes. The fact that CO2 makes up about 0.0385% of the atmosphere is as irrelevant as nitrogen making up 78.08%. Before the marked rise in CO2 concentration, let's say that Y quan y of heat was being trapped by the approximately 0.0250% of CO2 in the air - is that suddenly irrelevant? No. So now we have Yx1.35 heat being trapped by the 0.0385% atmospheric CO2 - that is simple physics and arithmatic. Where is that extra heat disappearing to??? You still haven't explained to me where all of the extra heat that is being trapped by the elevated CO2 concentration is mysteriously disappearing to. The fact is it's not disappearing - it's being trapped within the system and very quickly (in geological time) heating the earth.
Ocean temperatures are rising, as is oceanic acidity (once again, scientifically do ented facts), which shows that the oceans are absorbing lots of CO2 and heat right now. However their ability to buffer the tremendous quan es of CO2 artificially entering the carbon cycle, and the extra heat generated by that CO2, will reach a threshold, and then atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase even more quickly. The most salient example of this is in my part of the world is at the Great Barrier Reef, which is disappearing so fast due to the warming ocean that it will be gone in 25 years.
Why are you under the impression that we can dump massive quan ies of into the planet's atmosphere, water and earth without any consequences? Head in the sand much?
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 02-02-2009 at 12:39 AM.
I still haven't gotten a link to that pretty little graph.
Fixed.
You know what I really hate - people who, when proven wrong by the weight of evidence, stick to their beliefs. Prove me wrong using well-founded factual evidence and I will change my opinion because I have an open mind and base my opinions on reason. I have changed my mind on many things when shown solid evidence that contradicts what I had previously thought. More people should be like that.
I hate when people claim to be equal to Einstein or Twain.
But, yea, these guys are just republican hacks spewing right wing bull , even when common sense dictates the opposite.
How do you know you didn't miss something?
I hope you aren't trying your hand at surgery. "Don't worry I read a book on this..." eek.
There is a value to higher education and being taught a subject by someone who has studied the topic for 8+ years.
Einstein was a genius who entered a field that was essentially in its infancy.
It is a bit harder to break into the field of physics today by publishing something new.
Not that there is anything wrong with Einstein learning by himself, but there is a great deal more to the human knowledge base in 2009 than in 1909.
Typical conservative fact dodging when someone points out the holes in your logic.
If all else fails argue that minor semantics are far more important than common sense meaning.
That kind of occurred to me as well. From what I am given to understand our present climate is affected in no small part due to ocean currents that are strongly affected by the placement of the continents.
Move the continents, and you change those patterns. That makes comparing climate periods a bit more problematic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
