Massive study concludes: 'Global warming is real

[greyforest]

By the way,

Only rooting for your team I see and will not acknowledge a truth that makes your side look bad.

Who's indoctrinated? Maybe you should look in a mirror.

You're the one that's indoctrinated, not I. Observe:

You could still be right, but its very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely. But you just choose to hang on to that conclusion, despite very very very very very very very very very very very very very nearly conclusive evidence that humans are ing up the atmosphere and planet.

As a scientist, I have to account for the 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance that you are right. As the indoctrinated person, you don't account for the 99.99999999999999999999999999% chance you are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's assume that you are correct. Let us assume that for a 50 year period the atmospheric CO2 ed to 380ppmv.

That reading is such an unbelievable statistical anomaly, having never been seen at any other point other than the last 50 years, that it would nearly have to be correlated with a catastrophe - a volcano erupting, etc. It's like a rogue wave. Statistically unlikely to the point of warranting SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

I agree it is very unlikely. Still, in science, you don't use statistics to ignore possibilities.

This argument originated as a response to those who claim that CO2 has never been higher. Does a possible 4 sigma outlier classify as "never?"

Now what about those four temperature es in the past on the graph I linked? Aren't they higher than today's temperature, and with less CO2?

What about the CO2 rising and temperature maintaining an almost predictable (Bond event?) pattern?

[Borat Sagyidev]

Let's assume that you are correct. Let us assume that for a 50 year period the atmospheric CO2 ed to 380ppmv.

That reading is such an unbelievable statistical anomaly, having never been seen at any other point other than the last 50 years, that it would nearly have to be correlated with a catastrophe - a volcano erupting, etc. It's like a rogue wave. Statistically unlikely to the point of warranting SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

Even if there was an anomaly with a high Co2 period, what then? If it's correlated to a natural disaster, should we correlate our Co2 levels to a natural disaster? Pretty significant even if that's the case.

This guy asks straw-mans all over the place. It's a ing joke.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree it is very unlikely. Still, in science, you don't use statistics to ignore possibilities.

Actually with statistical analysis that is exactly what you do. God you are an ignorant .

[greyforest]

I am only concerned about climate change, specifically CO2. You should be as well. Global temperature trends aren't in any 4-sigma outlier territory.

[greyforest]

Gonna peace out of this thread. My work here is done.

As a scientist, I have to account for the 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance that you are right. As the indoctrinated person, you don't account for the 99.99999999999999999999999999% chance you are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

I am only concerned about climate change, specifically CO2. You should be as well. Global temperature trends aren't in any 4-sigma outlier territory.

I see...

Only concerned about making CO2 the culprit. What about the solar and soot effects? I recall Manny saying something similar.

All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.

I see you are both agenda driven.

[greyforest]

Only concerned about making CO2 the culprit.

I didn't make my position clear enough.

I am not terribly concerned about global warming/global temperature trends. Global temperature is determined by an unfathomable amount of variables.

My concern is with the experimentally high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, numbers which have never been recorded at any time in the history of earth. Scientists have recorded a of a lot of CO2 readings, so that should concern you and everybody.

The fact that it doesn't further proves my point:

As a scientist, I have to account for the 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance that you are right. As the indoctrinated person, you don't account for the 99.99999999999999999999999999% chance you are wrong.

[greyforest]

sorry double post, leaving now, i promise!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see...

Only concerned about making CO2 the culprit. What about the solar and soot effects? I recall Manny saying something similar.


I see you are both agenda driven.

Agenda driven? you.

You are making up a mythical number that is not substantiated by any past event that also just so happens to fit the world view as you want it and then try and pass it off as a probability that you just cannot dismiss.

You are a blight upon the intellectual landscape.

[MannyIsGod]

Lol @ using that post to say I'm "agenda driven". The only thing you fail at more than reading comprehension is basic science.

[Wild Cobra]

Lol @ using that post to say I'm "agenda driven". The only thing you fail at more than reading comprehension is basic science.

Then what do you mean by this?

All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's the data (your link is broken btw):

Works just fine for my browsers.

[MannyIsGod]

Why don't you show off your awesome reading comprehension and tell us all what I meant?

[Wild Cobra]

Why don't you show off your awesome reading comprehension and tell us all what I meant?

If I have to consider the words you used, like "all that matters" and "is to prove that CO2 is responsible," it really does appear to me that your at ude is "truth be dammed, no matter what, CO2 is the villain."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I have to consider the words you used, like "all that matters" and "is to prove that CO2 is responsible," it really does appear to my that your at ude is "truth be dammed, no matter what, CO2 is the villain."

context
[kon-tekst]   Origin
con·text
   [kon-tekst]
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

[Wild Cobra]

context
[kon-tekst]   Origin
con·text
   [kon-tekst]
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

LOL...

This, coming from an internet jerk who will twist context whenever he can...

LOL...

You are really hilarious!

[MannyIsGod]

Lololololol like I said, your reading comprehension.....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

This, coming from an internet jerk who will twist context whenever he can...

LOL...

You are really hilarious!

I will help you. The context is the mechanism by which radiation was not escaping in the CO2 spectrum versus other bands. He was talking about what was important regarding that specific data

The Pee Wee routine is pretty lame. I actually know how to pay attention to points of contention and where trains of logic end etc. You are just trying to pull the bait and switch with fragments of what was only a few sentence post.

His point is actually a good one. With satellites you can measure the incoming and outgoing bandwidth with a very high order of data points. Its much better science than guessing about heat exchange with the ocean and deep-water ocean currents or making up a data outlier and trying assign it a significant probability.

I'm just trying to help out. You are being dumb arguing these points and for your own self respect you should stop. Its sad.

[Wild Cobra]

I will help you. The context is the mechanism by which radiation was not escaping in the CO2 spectrum versus other bands. He was talking about what was important regarding that specific data

The Pee Wee routine is pretty lame. I actually know how to pay attention to points of contention and where trains of logic end etc. You are just trying to pull the bait and switch with fragments of what was only a few sentence post.

His point is actually a good one. With satellites you can measure the incoming and outgoing bandwidth with a very high order of data points. Its much better science than guessing about heat exchange with the ocean and deep-water ocean currents or making up a data outlier and trying assign it a significant probability.

I'm just trying to help out. You are being dumb arguing these points and for your own self respect you should stop. Its sad.

No, you don't understand the varying changes through the depths of the atmosphere. It's not that simple. Did you read this?

[MannyIsGod]

I will help you. The context is the mechanism by which radiation was not escaping in the CO2 spectrum versus other bands. He was talking about what was important regarding that specific data

Winner!

[ElNono]

You guys don't get it... if the tiristor burns out, you just change the part and you're done

[Wild Cobra]

You guys don't get it... if the tiristor burns out, you just change the part and you're done

We spell it thyristor in English, unless there is a component I didn't learn, or is newer than the 70's.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We spell it thyristor in English, unless there is a component I didn't learn, or is newer than the 70's.

Well you certainly knew the part he was talking about. Thats ing hilarious. You're like a robot.

[DarrinS]

Interglacial