PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama and Direk on same page on Climate Change-Job 1 in second term


HonestChieffan
06-11-2012, 05:59 PM
President Obama is quoted in a New Yorker column by hooked-in journalist Ryan Lizza as believing the most important issue to address in his second term would be climate change.

Iran, Jobs, Deficit.....naaaaaaaa

Its the stupid temperature!

Good God


President Obama is quoted in a New Yorker column by hooked-in journalist Ryan Lizza as believing the most important issue to address in his second term would be climate change

“Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda, which, at least in broad ways, his campaign is beginning to highlight. The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change (italics mine), one of the few issues that he thinks could fundamentally improve the world decades from now. He also is concerned with containing nuclear proliferation.”

. . .Tens of millions of people out of work or underemployed; pension funds at risk; the entitlement crisis is getting worse every day it is unaddressed; the oncoming “fiscal cliff” threatens to throw us into another recession (predicted by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office; Taxmaggedon begins on January 1st; our deficit is enormous and we have accumulated trillions of dollars of debt under his presidency with nothing to show for it other than high unemployment and high debt; and Barack Obama believes climate change trumps these concerns?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/obama_believes_the_most_important_issue_of_second_term_is_climate_change.html#ixzz1xV8haoRE

Iz Zat Chew
06-11-2012, 06:05 PM
Not sure why dickweed feels that something he can't control is more important than the financial state of the country ... OH, I forgot .. he can't do anything about that either!

Bewbies
06-11-2012, 06:31 PM
I'm glad, because he was unable to lower the sea levels in his first term.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oQNkVmdicvA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Direckshun
06-11-2012, 07:49 PM
Unfortunately, I don't know how much of anything can get done on climate change.

Three-party talks broke down. Lindsey Graham was a critical piece to getting it done, but he abandoned the talk when his constituents scared the ever loving shit out of him.

Nothing can get done until the country catches up with the scientific community on this. Sadly, it's not happening. It may even be regressing.

Iz Zat Chew
06-11-2012, 08:47 PM
Unfortunately, I don't know how much of anything can get done on climate change.

Three-party talks broke down. Lindsey Graham was a critical piece to getting it done, but he abandoned the talk when his constituents scared the ever loving shit out of him.

Nothing can get done until the country catches up with the scientific community on this. Sadly, it's not happening. It may even be regressing.

Are you really of the opinion that man can do anything that would impact the climate? I doubt that the technology exists to reverse what is happening now and I also doubt that the "Climate Change" is anything other than the normal gyrations of the earth.

Scientists say that mankind has been on the earth millions/billions of years. If man was going to destroy the earth in a short 300 years it would have happened sometime in the past billion years.

I believe the whole trip is nothing more than someone's found a way to get rich and sucker all of the population into the belief that something can be done. What is happening is nature and if it destroys the world that's just the way it happens.

What? You wanted to live forever?

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 12:41 AM
Are you really of the opinion that man can do anything that would impact the climate? I doubt that the technology exists to reverse what is happening now and I also doubt that the "Climate Change" is anything other than the normal gyrations of the earth.

If you look at the past few centuries vs. the past few decades, it is very clear that the advent of technology and industrialization has effected climate.

The past few centuries is what normal gyrations look like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The past few decades is what an unprecedented acceleration looks like.

Scientists say that mankind has been on the earth millions/billions of years. If man was going to destroy the earth in a short 300 years it would have happened sometime in the past billion years.

I'm pretty sure man hasn't been on earth for billions of years.

I don't even think it's argued that mankind has been on earth millions of years. Homo sapiens only date back 200,000 years.

Industrialization, however, has only existed a relatively scant few decades.

I believe the whole trip is nothing more than someone's found a way to get rich and sucker all of the population into the belief that something can be done. What is happening is nature and if it destroys the world that's just the way it happens.

What? You wanted to live forever?

It's not going to destroy the world, though. The world will persevere and outlast all of us. Easily. By billions of years.

It'd just be nice if we could avoid something like 1/6 to 1/3 of the world's land from getting submerged and all the pain and suffering that could potentially entail. Not to mention cost. I like Israel as much as the next guy. There's a chance we can kiss it goodbye in a couple hundred years.

Iz Zat Chew
06-12-2012, 01:10 AM
If you look at the past few centuries vs. the past few decades, it is very clear that the advent of technology and industrialization has effected climate.

The past few centuries is what normal gyrations look like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The past few decades is what an unprecedented acceleration looks like.



I'm pretty sure man hasn't been on earth for billions of years.

I don't even think it's argued that mankind has been on earth millions of years. Homo sapiens only date back 200,000 years.

Industrialization, however, has only existed a relatively scant few decades.



It's not going to destroy the world, though. The world will persevere and outlast all of us. Easily. By billions of years.

It'd just be nice if we could avoid something like 1/6 to 1/3 of the world's land from getting submerged and all the pain and suffering that could potentially entail. Not to mention cost. I like Israel as much as the next guy. There's a chance we can kiss it goodbye in a couple hundred years.

Your perception of the history of the world indicates you don't believe that mankind could have ever been industrialized. I'm not so arrogant to think the current populaton is the only set of humanity that could have been industrialized. We are by far not the smartest set of humans that have walked the earth.

If it makes you feel good to think that mankind has only developed to the point we are now one time then your base belief would be that of Christians that only feel mankind has only been here for 6000 years.

Man has always been creative, just because there hasn't been an archeological find of a pre-historic zippo lighter you think there hasn't been any advancement prior to the past 20-30 decades?

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 01:12 AM
Your perception of the history of the world indicates you don't believe that mankind could have ever been industrialized. I'm not so arrogant to think the current populaton is the only set of humanity that could have been industrialized. We are by far not the smartest set of humans that have walked the earth.

If it makes you feel good to think that mankind has only developed to the point we are now one time then your base belief would be that of Christians that only feel mankind has only been here for 6000 years.

Man has always been creative, just because there hasn't been an archeological find of a pre-historic zippo lighter you think there hasn't been any advancement prior to the past 20-30 decades?

What on earth are you talking about.

Uhhh...

Iz Zat Chew
06-12-2012, 01:24 AM
What on earth are you talking about.

Uhhh...

Apparently concepts that you are incapable of understanding. That's nothing new as far as I see.

Bewbies
06-12-2012, 07:34 AM
If you look at the past few centuries vs. the past few decades, it is very clear that the advent of technology and industrialization has effected climate.

The past few centuries is what normal gyrations look like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The past few decades is what an unprecedented acceleration looks like.




I'd love to see the research that shows what the global temperature was from say 1800. Charts like this are pure fiction, and hilarious to boot.

Look Charles, I found here in these Dead Sea Scrolls what the climate was like clear back in 400 AD. Not just here in the middle east, but over the whole planet--even the parts that haven't been discovered yet!!

Iz Zat Chew
06-12-2012, 08:14 AM
I'd love to see the research that shows what the global temperature was from say 1800. Charts like this are pure fiction, and hilarious to boot.

Look Charles, I found here in these Dead Sea Scrolls what the climate was like clear back in 400 AD. Not just here in the middle east, but over the whole planet--even the parts that haven't been discovered yet!!

Good point. It's been kicked around discussions since Global Warming was invented by Al Gore.

Garcia Bronco
06-12-2012, 08:59 AM
I don't know who I find to be the dumber person: The person that thinks we are destroying the climate, or the person that thinks we can do something about it.

Garcia Bronco
06-12-2012, 09:00 AM
I'd love to see the research that shows what the global temperature was from say 1800. Charts like this are pure fiction, and hilarious to boot.

Look Charles, I found here in these Dead Sea Scrolls what the climate was like clear back in 400 AD. Not just here in the middle east, but over the whole planet--even the parts that haven't been discovered yet!!

Exactly...it's a fucking guess. It's not even viable data, and while it might be an educated guess...it's still a guess.

Amnorix
06-12-2012, 09:08 AM
Your perception of the history of the world indicates you don't believe that mankind could have ever been industrialized. I'm not so arrogant to think the current populaton is the only set of humanity that could have been industrialized. We are by far not the smartest set of humans that have walked the earth.


:spock:

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

headsnap
06-12-2012, 09:09 AM
Cap and Trade will fix it all!!!

mikey23545
06-12-2012, 09:14 AM
Just remember when any liberal starts talking about climate change, it is simply a code phrase for "power grab".

Chiefshrink
06-12-2012, 09:33 AM
Not sure why dickweed feels that something he can't control is more important than the financial state of the country ... OH, I forgot .. he can't do anything about that either!

Oh he could but he is a sold out Marxist presently destroying America:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
06-12-2012, 09:35 AM
Just remember when any liberal starts talking about climate change, it is simply a code phrase for "power grab".

YEP !!:thumb:

ChiTown
06-12-2012, 09:57 AM
If you look at the past few centuries vs. the past few decades, it is very clear that the advent of technology and industrialization has effected climate.

The past few centuries is what normal gyrations look like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The past few decades is what an unprecedented acceleration looks like.



I'm pretty sure man hasn't been on earth for billions of years.

I don't even think it's argued that mankind has been on earth millions of years. Homo sapiens only date back 200,000 years.

Industrialization, however, has only existed a relatively scant few decades.



It's not going to destroy the world, though. The world will persevere and outlast all of us. Easily. By billions of years.

It'd just be nice if we could avoid something like 1/6 to 1/3 of the world's land from getting submerged and all the pain and suffering that could potentially entail. Not to mention cost. I like Israel as much as the next guy. There's a chance we can kiss it goodbye in a couple hundred years.

Seriously? We have accurate Temperature readings that go back that far? Yeah, I don't think so.

mikey23545
06-12-2012, 10:03 AM
Seriously? We have accurate Temperature readings that go back that far? Yeah, I don't think so.

You realize Al Gore invented time travel years ago, right?

ChiTown
06-12-2012, 10:10 AM
You realize Al Gore invented time travel years ago, right?

So, he invented both the World Wide Intertubes AND Time Travel? Crown the motherphucker already!

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:27 AM
I'd love to see the research that shows what the global temperature was from say 1800. Charts like this are pure fiction, and hilarious to boot.

If you can't accept academia on the subject, then you can't accept it.

Let's approach this from your angle:

What do you need to see to be convinced climate change is occurring, or if you already believe that, is at least significantly man made?

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:28 AM
I don't know who I find to be the dumber person: The person that thinks we are destroying the climate, or the person that thinks we can do something about it.

Little advice, from one layman to another:

There is no such thing as "destroying the climate." It's basically gibberish.

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:30 AM
Exactly...it's a ****ing guess. It's not even viable data, and while it might be an educated guess...it's still a guess.

It's an extremely educated guess with damn near unanimity (sp) from climatologists.

It just doesn't match your intuition.

Which is just rock solid counter-evidence. :p

Donger
06-12-2012, 10:31 AM
So, "the temperature" of Earth has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years? Is that within the margin of error of the data?

Donger
06-12-2012, 10:33 AM
It's an extremely educated guess with damn near unanimity (sp) from climatologists.

It just doesn't match your intuition.

Which is just rock solid counter-evidence. :p

Do you think it logical to assume that climatologists have a vested interest in promoting the belief that mankind is influencing global climate?

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:35 AM
Seriously? We have accurate Temperature readings that go back that far? Yeah, I don't think so.

Goes against the ol' intuition, right?

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:37 AM
So, "the temperature" of Earth has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years? Is that within the margin of error of the data?

I'm not sure what you're asking?

I think it's the nature of the increase that has people spooked.

Donger
06-12-2012, 10:39 AM
I'm not sure what you're asking?

I think it's the nature of the increase that has people spooked.

Those seem like two very specific and straight-forward questions.

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:39 AM
Do you think it logical to assume that climatologists have a vested interest in promoting the belief that mankind is influencing global climate?

I'm not entirely sure it is logical. Is it incontrovertibly true that climatologists make more money if climate change legislation is adopted? I don't know, but I'll hear you out if you've got a case.

Nor do I think that alters the data of the science.

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:39 AM
Those seem like two very specific and straight-forward questions.

Then it should be a piece of cake for you to elaborate.

Indulge me. I am a stupid, stupid man.

Donger
06-12-2012, 10:44 AM
I'm not entirely sure it is logical. Is it incontrovertibly true that climatologists make more money if climate change legislation is adopted? I don't know, but I'll hear you out if you've got a case.

Nor do I think that alters the data of the science.

Well, let's just say that global warming is proven to be either not occurring or not man-made. Do you think that the field which studies it would suddenly become rather less-funded? Yes, of course it would. Therefore, they have a vested interest in presenting data which arguably shows it is happening. Basic stuff.

As to the data, unless they are taking readings (either by direct measurement or by satellite) of every square inch of the planet (land and sea), then there must be a margin of error. I'd like to know what that margin of error is. Don't you?

Donger
06-12-2012, 10:46 AM
Then it should be a piece of cake for you to elaborate.

Indulge me. I am a stupid, stupid man.

1) So, "the temperature" of Earth has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years?

You posted the graph. The graph shows that temperature has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years, yes?

2) Is that within the margin of error of the data?

It's okay if you don't know, but I think that's rather important (if you actually care about the data).

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:46 AM
Well, let's just say that global warming is proven to be either not occurring or not man-made. Do you think that the field which studies it would suddenly become rather less-funded? Yes, of course it would. Therefore, they have a vested interest in presenting data which arguably shows it is happening. Basic stuff.

That knife cuts both ways.

Don't many of the corporate interests have skin in the game as well to keep climate change awareness at a minimum?

I paint my positions from the evidence outward, not the agenda inward.

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:49 AM
1) So, "the temperature" of Earth has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years?

You posted the graph. The graph shows that temperature has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years, yes?

Alright.

2) Is that within the margin of error of the data?

It's okay if you don't know, but I think that's rather important (if you actually care about the data).

I don't know. Shrug.

Donger
06-12-2012, 10:57 AM
That knife cuts both ways.

Don't many of the corporate interests have skin in the game as well to keep climate change awareness at a minimum?

I paint my positions from the evidence outward, not the agenda inward.

Not really. They just do what they do (generate energy and so forth).

Donger
06-12-2012, 10:58 AM
Alright.



I don't know. Shrug.

Well, you presented that graph as apparent evidence to support your doom and gloom. I would think that you'd want to understand it.

Perhaps not.

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 11:05 AM
Not really. They just do what they do (generate energy and so forth).

Ah. Got it.

Supporters of climate change = agenda driven.

Detractors of climate change = earnest.

Donger
06-12-2012, 11:33 AM
Ah. Got it.

Supporters of climate change = agenda driven.

Detractors of climate change = earnest.

Well, think about it. The proponents of man-made climate change WANT it to be happening. You realize that, right? That is their agenda.

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 11:40 AM
Well, think about it. The proponents of man-made climate change WANT it to be happening. You realize that, right? That is their agenda.

The detractors want it not to be happening.

That is their agenda.

I gotta be honest with you -- this conversation is boring the shit out of me.

vailpass
06-12-2012, 11:54 AM
Well, you presented that graph as apparent evidence to support your doom and gloom. I would think that you'd want to understand it.

Perhaps not.

LMAO

Fucking SLAM THAT DOOR

FD
06-12-2012, 01:26 PM
Your perception of the history of the world indicates you don't believe that mankind could have ever been industrialized. I'm not so arrogant to think the current populaton is the only set of humanity that could have been industrialized. We are by far not the smartest set of humans that have walked the earth.

If it makes you feel good to think that mankind has only developed to the point we are now one time then your base belief would be that of Christians that only feel mankind has only been here for 6000 years.

Man has always been creative, just because there hasn't been an archeological find of a pre-historic zippo lighter you think there hasn't been any advancement prior to the past 20-30 decades?

ROFL

This is seriously the funniest argument I've ever seen against climate change.

Iz Zat Chew
06-12-2012, 01:36 PM
ROFL

This is seriously the funniest argument I've ever seen against climate change.

Let me ask you a question: What would it take for everyone to realize that the man animal hasn't been intelligent in only the past 400 or so years?

I thought the zippo was a pretty good indicator. Should I have said a Sears Craftsman adjustable wrench?

FD
06-12-2012, 01:57 PM
Let me ask you a question: What would it take for everyone to realize that the man animal hasn't been intelligent in only the past 400 or so years?

I thought the zippo was a pretty good indicator. Should I have said a Sears Craftsman adjustable wrench?

Just out of perverse curiosity, where and when in human history do you think there was an industrial revolution prior to the one originating in the UK in the 1700's?

And why is there no evidence of it?

Iz Zat Chew
06-12-2012, 05:37 PM
Just out of perverse curiosity, where and when in human history do you think there was an industrial revolution prior to the one originating in the UK in the 1700's?

And why is there no evidence of it?

I don't think I said there was. You are saying there was no way there could have been prior to 1700? Why do you think mankind was so useless and helpless that they lived in mud huts from the beginning of time?

My comment was that nobody would believe there could have been an industrialized society prior to now because they have never found an artifact that could substantiate that society. I used a zippo lighter as an example.

With the advances made in a short time why do you think that mankind couldn't have repeated that cycle over and over in the millions of years everyone believes they have been around? (I dropped the billions as someone said man couldn't have been around that long.)

Bewbies
06-12-2012, 05:51 PM
If you can't accept academia on the subject, then you can't accept it.

Let's approach this from your angle:

What do you need to see to be convinced climate change is occurring, or if you already believe that, is at least significantly man made?

Are you buying that man knows what the climate was like 2000 years ago? Seriously?

Donger
06-12-2012, 07:53 PM
I gotta be honest with you -- this conversation is boring the shit out of me.

That's a shame. Maybe you could pass the time by actually understanding the data you posted?

Direckshun
06-12-2012, 10:46 PM
Are you buying that man knows what the climate was like 2000 years ago? Seriously?

I'm asking:

What do you need to see to be convinced climate change is occurring, or if you already believe that, is at least significantly man made?

Iz Zat Chew
06-12-2012, 10:59 PM
I'm asking:

What do you need to see to be convinced climate change is occurring, or if you already believe that, is at least significantly man made?

Climate change is happening, but it's a normal life cycle of the planet.

FD
06-13-2012, 09:55 AM
I don't think I said there was. You are saying there was no way there could have been prior to 1700? Why do you think mankind was so useless and helpless that they lived in mud huts from the beginning of time?

My comment was that nobody would believe there could have been an industrialized society prior to now because they have never found an artifact that could substantiate that society. I used a zippo lighter as an example.

With the advances made in a short time why do you think that mankind couldn't have repeated that cycle over and over in the millions of years everyone believes they have been around? (I dropped the billions as someone said man couldn't have been around that long.)

You really think humans have been around for millions of years?

patteeu
06-13-2012, 10:36 AM
You really think humans have been around for millions of years?

It's the less well-known other extreme of creationism called always-has-been-ism.

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 11:29 AM
You really think humans have been around for millions of years?

Who's to say they haven't been? Are you still expecting a revelation of an ancient zippo lighter?

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 11:35 AM
It's the less well-known other extreme of creationism called always-has-been-ism.

Where did you find that? Evolutionists preach that humans have been here for a lot longer than the Creationists would admit to. To me god did create man, but the time frame that is commonly connected to is I believe to be skewed.

How is 50,000 years of man being around? What is the trait of a human? Curiosity? The need to survive? The need to protect the family? To me, regardless of the amount of years man has been on earth he has been able to adapt to conditions and survive. Just surviving without any change seems to be naive. Why would mankind exist from whenever and only start getting smart in recent years, the last 300 or so to refer back to a time one of the posters her used as a reference?

patteeu
06-13-2012, 12:02 PM
Where did you find that? Evolutionists preach that humans have been here for a lot longer than the Creationists would admit to.

You can be quite dense.

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 12:26 PM
You can be quite dense.

I see some density on your part. You have no idea of the age of man but you want us all to think your way is the right way?

Not quite.

Bewbies
06-13-2012, 01:36 PM
I'm asking:

What do you need to see to be convinced climate change is occurring, or if you already believe that, is at least significantly man made?

Science would be a good place to start. Find me some actual research from say 1200 AD North America that proves you are posting true science...if you want to go back further feel free, I wanted to make it easy on you.

FD
06-13-2012, 04:23 PM
Who's to say they haven't been? Are you still expecting a revelation of an ancient zippo lighter?

Are you aware that there are scientists devoted to studying this very topic? There are quite a lot of them actually. Are you aware that the insights that scientists have gathered can be found in things called "books" and "schools"? Its not all just internet boards and 'my opinion' vs 'your opinion.'

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 05:11 PM
Are you aware that there are scientists devoted to studying this very topic? There are quite a lot of them actually. Are you aware that the insights that scientists have gathered can be found in things called "books" and "schools"? Its not all just internet boards and 'my opinion' vs 'your opinion.'

So you are telling me that the scientists are also balking at saying man has been industrialized because they can't find that very same zippo? Who'd of thunk it.

Try reading some of the reports regarding Mount St. Hellens when it blew in the early 80's. Seems like some of the things they unearthed around the world they claimed to be millions of years old were recreated in the big blowout in Washington from that volcano. That tells me that their calculated guesses were wrong in that respect and it throws some doubt as to the accuracy of the other "known" accounts of the history of the earth just might be so far off base that nobody knows how long the earth has been her nor can they determine how long man has been around.

But that's just little old me thinking out of the box.

BTW, your opinoin isn't looking so hot at the moment.

cdcox
06-13-2012, 07:59 PM
1) So, "the temperature" of Earth has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years?

You posted the graph. The graph shows that temperature has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years, yes?

No. Most all of the temperature increase has occurred in the last 40 years according to the data in the graph.


2) Is that within the margin of error of the data?

It's okay if you don't know, but I think that's rather important (if you actually care about the data).

No it well exceeds the margin of error. The estimated error is less than 1/3 of the measured change. Do you really think a change within the error bars could pass peer review?

cdcox
06-13-2012, 08:03 PM
Are you buying that man knows what the climate was like 2000 years ago? Seriously?

Do you think there were ice ages in the past? Seriously?

How do you think we know that?

Google paleoclimatology. Read a little bit and quit making a fool of yourself.

RedNeckRaider
06-13-2012, 08:05 PM
No. Most all of the temperature increase has occurred in the last 40 years according to the data in the graph.



No it well exceeds the margin of error. The estimated error is less than 1/3 of the measured change. Do you really think a change within the error bars could pass peer review?

Just wondering, how old do you think the earth is? Also, how long do you think mankind has been on earth? I really am just wondering~

mlyonsd
06-13-2012, 08:12 PM
Every year around here farmers feel the effects of global warming. They're out each spring cleaning up rocks that are coming to the surface from the last ice age. Rocks that were pushed down from the glacial lakes up north.

I still can't fathom anyone being too caught up in global warming now when they don't consider how much has gone on just in the last 30,000 years.

That being said, if you're looking for big rocks for your yard or rock garden stop up. They are piled up in field corners. Just ask the farmer and he'll probably let you have them. If you load them yourself of course.

cdcox
06-13-2012, 08:17 PM
Just wondering, how old do you think the earth is? Also, how long do you think mankind has been on earth? I really am just wondering~

4.5B years for earth

50 to 200K years for humans depending on definition.

Donger
06-13-2012, 08:20 PM
No. Most all of the temperature increase has occurred in the last 40 years according to the data in the graph.

That isn't what I asked.

No it well exceeds the margin of error. The estimated error is less than 1/3 of the measured change. Do you really think a change within the error bars could pass peer review?

Source?

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 08:20 PM
4.5B years for earth

50 to 200K years for humans depending on definition.

Who made that definition? Just wondering if you'd agree that if man was around anywhere between the number of years you posted would they have advanced more than mud huts or cave dwellers?

RedNeckRaider
06-13-2012, 08:26 PM
4.5B years for earth

50 to 200K years for humans depending on definition.

Then you would agree with me, that we know very little about the rock we live on?

cdcox
06-13-2012, 08:45 PM
That isn't what I asked.



Source?

It was exactly what you asked. You just don't like the answer.

What source would you find credible?

cdcox
06-13-2012, 08:54 PM
Who made that definition? Just wondering if you'd agree that if man was around anywhere between the number of years you posted would they have advanced more than mud huts or cave dwellers?

Not really. We advance technologically more in 1 year now than humans did in a century 1000 years ago. We could muck around in mud huts and caves for a long time without making major progress. But once the ball gets going progress can be very fast.

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 09:06 PM
Not really. We advance technologically more in 1 year now than humans did in a century 1000 years ago. We could muck around in mud huts and caves for a long time without making major progress. But once the ball gets going progress can be very fast.

I think man has been creative from day one. In 50,000 years there will be no signs of the current civilization here and people in that age will discuss how useless our time must have been because we lived in caves or mud huts mucking around.

I see creativity in 6 month old babies. When they want something they start developing a method to get what they want. It is my feeling that all mankind has a creativity to them. What you seem to be saying is that reasoning was not part of the human structure all those years ago.

Everyone has their perspective of the earth and I'm sure they are all along different lines of thought.

Donger
06-13-2012, 09:08 PM
It was exactly what you asked. You just don't like the answer.

No, it isn't. This is what I asked:

So, "the temperature" of Earth has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years?

If I look at the lowest temperature and the highest temperature on that graph, it's ~1.0 C. Tell me I'm wrong.

What source would you find credible?

Whichever one you used to state what you stated.

Donger
06-13-2012, 09:09 PM
Not really. We advance technologically more in 1 year now than humans did in a century 1000 years ago. We could muck around in mud huts and caves for a long time without making major progress. But once the ball gets going progress can be very fast.

I agree with that. Human advancement isn't linear.

RedNeckRaider
06-13-2012, 09:10 PM
I think man has been creative from day one. In 50,000 years there will be no signs of the current civilization here and people in that age will discuss how useless our time must have been because we lived in caves or mud huts mucking around.

I see creativity in 6 month old babies. When they want something they start developing a method to get what they want. It is my feeling that all mankind has a creativity to them. What you seem to be saying is that reasoning was not part of the human structure all those years ago.

Everyone has their perspective of the earth and I'm sure they are all along different lines of thought.

Once again, just wondering, how old do you think the earth is? And how long has mankind been on it?

cdcox
06-13-2012, 09:13 PM
Then you would agree with me, that we know very little about the rock we live on?

No, I would disagree. We know a lot. We don't know everything, but we know a lot. For example we can calculate the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere. It would average about 0 F. The basic physics to calculate that is over 150 years old. The reason the Earth is warmer than that is our atmosphere traps heat. These ideas are pretty simple, compared to everything considered in modern climate models, but the basic idea that the Earth's temperature would be affected by the composition of its atmosphere is quite old and well established.

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 09:15 PM
I agree with that. Human advancement isn't linear.

So you feel human development/advancement might be more of a parabolic curve?

I can't say I agree with your comment. I believe man is creative and always has been. The past is colored by the eyes of those looking back and determening what the past was like. It's mostly conceptual and none of us could have an actual view of what it was like. Religion, whichever you would like to subscribe to, did more to slow progress than anything.

How advanced was the Roman Empire? How advanced in engineering were those that built the Pymarids? I think there is much more to the human capability through time than most would admit.

RedNeckRaider
06-13-2012, 09:18 PM
No, I would disagree. We know a lot. We don't know everything, but we know a lot. For example we can calculate the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere. It would average about 0 F. The basic physics to calculate that is over 150 years old. The reason the Earth is warmer than that is our atmosphere traps heat. These ideas are pretty simple, compared to everything considered in modern climate models, but the basic idea that the Earth's temperature would be affected by the composition of its atmosphere is quite old and well established.

Well you must be sharper than I am. I have read so much contradicting evidence I am confused on the subject~

Donger
06-13-2012, 09:19 PM
So you feel human development/advancement might be more of a parabolic curve?

I can't say I agree with your comment. I believe man is creative and always has been. The past is colored by the eyes of those looking back and determening what the past was like. It's mostly conceptual and none of us could have an actual view of what it was like. Religion, whichever you would like to subscribe to, did more to slow progress than anything.

How advanced was the Roman Empire? How advanced in engineering were those that built the Pymarids? I think there is much more to the human capability through time than most would admit.

I would say that with each achievement, man has advanced a little more each time. Have you ever heard of the expression "standing on the shoulders of giants"?

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 09:19 PM
Once again, just wondering, how old do you think the earth is? And how long has mankind been on it?

I dont' know. I grew up in Church where they taught it would only be around 6000 years old by now. By listening to what data is out there much of the earth has to be older than that. Scientists say that some of the mountains are millions of years old. Some of that was kinda disproven with Mt. St. Helens in Washington in the early 80's. But there are many things that make me feel like it is much older. I don't discount God as the creator but I do query the time frame of how long it might have taken to create the earth and all that is in it. The manner of creation is also something I might see differently than your typical church go'er.

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 09:24 PM
I would say that with each achievement, man has advanced a little more each time. Have you ever heard of the expression "standing on the shoulders of giants"?

I've heard of it, mostly read it the wrong way I'm sure. Basically it's a chain reaction of progress. Adding to what is already there. But if I were to go back to my Sunday School days I would question how many times the earth has been destroyed due to the sinful nature of man, as in Noah and the first rain. The destruction Soddam and Gomorrah also tells me that there have been times when civiliations have been wiped for one reason or another, by God's hand or by a created havoc by the men that lived at the time. We may have been close to destruction during the Cold War. How many would have survived and been the seed to repopulate the earth if someone had of pulled the trigger between 1960 and 1990?

So many possibilities and so few answers, not to mention all of the differing opinions of what could have been.

cdcox
06-13-2012, 09:25 PM
I think man has been creative from day one. In 50,000 years there will be no signs of the current civilization here and people in that age will discuss how useless our time must have been because we lived in caves or mud huts mucking around.

I see creativity in 6 month old babies. When they want something they start developing a method to get what they want. It is my feeling that all mankind has a creativity to them. What you seem to be saying is that reasoning was not part of the human structure all those years ago.

Everyone has their perspective of the earth and I'm sure they are all along different lines of thought.

Yes humans have been creative the last 50,000 years, at least. The differences:

1. writing things down. We didn't do that for most of the 50,000 years. So even if we came up with something, it might die with that person. Or if a small tribe were wiped out, it might be lost.

2. Population. There were a lot less people thinking about stuff.

3. Communication. Ideas that came along in one part of the world took a long time to spread.

4. People weren't challenged in the right ways so their brains did not develop in the same way.

5. Education. Kind of a compilation of 1, 2, and 3, but lifting the overall level of knowledge in the population.

6. Scientific thinking. If you are only worried about stacking rocks, you are never going to build a super computer from sand. There is a reason that technology took off at the same time people started thinking scientifically and laggered for millenia before that.

RedNeckRaider
06-13-2012, 09:26 PM
I dont' know. I grew up in Church where they taught it would only be around 6000 years old by now. By listening to what data is out there much of the earth has to be older than that. Scientists say that some of the mountains are millions of years old. Some of that was kinda disproven with Mt. St. Helens in Washington in the early 80's. But there are many things that make me feel like it is much older. I don't discount God as the creator but I do query the time frame of how long it might have taken to create the earth and all that is in it. The manner of creation is also something I might see differently than your typical church go'er.

That is cool, I think you most likely have read my feelings on religion? I have studied that subject enough that I feel confident in my conclusion. I do however not feel the same on the subject of our impact on the temperature of the planet~

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 09:27 PM
Yes humans have been creative the last 50,000 years, at least. The differences:

1. writing things down. We didn't do that for most of the 50,000 years. So even if we came up with something, it might die with that person. Or if a small tribe were wiped out, it might be lost.

2. Population. There were a lot less people thinking about stuff.

3. Communication. Ideas that came along in one part of the world took a long time to spread.

4. People weren't challenged in the right ways so their brains did not develop in the same way.

5. Education. Kind of a compilation of 1, 2, and 3, but lifting the overall level of knowledge in the population.

6. Scientific thinking. If you are only worried about stacking rocks, you are never going to build a super computer from sand. There is a reason that technology took off at the same time people started thinking scientifically and laggered for millenia before that.

The communciation issue notwithstanding, I have a higher opinion of mankind that it seems you do.

Different strokes for differnt folks.

cdcox
06-13-2012, 09:39 PM
No, it isn't. This is what I asked:

So, "the temperature" of Earth has increased ~1.0 C over the last two thousand years?

If I look at the lowest temperature and the highest temperature on that graph, it's ~1.0 C. Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong even by your standard. The lowest temperature was -0.8 in about 1580. The highest temperature was about 0.4 in 2004. So by your standard (which I don't agree is the best way to interpret the data), the data says that the temperature changed 1.2 degrees in the last 415 years a factor of 6 different that what you claimed.


Whichever one you used to state what you stated.

Here is one of hundreds.

Global and hemispheric temperature reconstruction from glacier length fluctuations
Author(s): Leclercq, PW (Leclercq, Paul Willem)1; Oerlemans, J (Oerlemans, Johannes)1
Source: CLIMATE DYNAMICS Volume: 38 Issue: 5-6 Pages: 1065-1079 DOI: 10.1007/s00382-011-1145-7 Published: MAR 2012
Times Cited: 2 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 80 [ view related records ] Citation Map
Abstract: Temperature reconstructions for recent centuries provide a historical context for the warming over the twentieth century. We reconstruct annual averaged surface temperatures of the past 400 years on hemispherical and global scale from glacier length fluctuations. We use the glacier length records of 308 glaciers. The reconstruction is a temperature proxy with decadal resolution that is completely independent of other temperature records. Temperatures are derived from glacier length changes using a linear response equation and an analytical glacier model that is calibrated on numerical model results. The global and hemispherical temperatures reconstructed from glacier length fluctuations are in good agreement with the instrumental record of the last century. Furthermore our results agree with existing multi-proxy reconstructions of temperature in the pre-instrumental period. The temperature record obtained from glacier fluctuations confirms the pronounced warming of the twentieth century, giving a global cumulative warming of 0.94 +/- 0.31 K over the period 1830-2000 and a cumulative warming of 0.84 +/- 0.35 K over the period 1600-2000.

Donger
06-13-2012, 09:42 PM
You're wrong even by your standard. The lowest temperature was -0.8 in about 1580. The highest temperature was about 0.4 in 2004. So by your standard (which I don't agree is the best way to interpret the data), the data says that the temperature changed 1.2 degrees in the last 415 years a factor of 6 different that what you claimed.

Meh. I wrote ~1.0. Okay, so the variance is 1.2 C. You agree with that, right?

Here is one of hundreds.

Global and hemispheric temperature reconstruction from glacier length fluctuations
Author(s): Leclercq, PW (Leclercq, Paul Willem)1; Oerlemans, J (Oerlemans, Johannes)1
Source: CLIMATE DYNAMICS Volume: 38 Issue: 5-6 Pages: 1065-1079 DOI: 10.1007/s00382-011-1145-7 Published: MAR 2012
Times Cited: 2 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 80 [ view related records ] Citation Map
Abstract: Temperature reconstructions for recent centuries provide a historical context for the warming over the twentieth century. We reconstruct annual averaged surface temperatures of the past 400 years on hemispherical and global scale from glacier length fluctuations. We use the glacier length records of 308 glaciers. The reconstruction is a temperature proxy with decadal resolution that is completely independent of other temperature records. Temperatures are derived from glacier length changes using a linear response equation and an analytical glacier model that is calibrated on numerical model results. The global and hemispherical temperatures reconstructed from glacier length fluctuations are in good agreement with the instrumental record of the last century. Furthermore our results agree with existing multi-proxy reconstructions of temperature in the pre-instrumental period. The temperature record obtained from glacier fluctuations confirms the pronounced warming of the twentieth century, giving a global cumulative warming of 0.94 +/- 0.31 K over the period 1830-2000 and a cumulative warming of 0.84 +/- 0.35 K over the period 1600-2000.

Is that for the graph that Direckshun posted?

cdcox
06-13-2012, 09:45 PM
The communciation issue notwithstanding, I have a higher opinion of mankind that it seems you do.

Different strokes for differnt folks.

Opinions of humankind (girls can be creative too) aside, all empirical evidence is congruent with the fact that humans mucked around for a long time before they started making significant technological progress. Even recorded history going back to 4000 BC agrees with that. The vast majority of technological progress happened in less than 10% of recorded time. Because you are not thinking scientifically (allowing your hypothesis to be tested by available data) your opinions are not persuasive.

cdcox
06-13-2012, 09:47 PM
Meh. I wrote ~1.0. Okay, so there variance is 1.2 C. You agree with that, right?



Is that for the graph that Direckshun posted?

One of many independent methods that are be used from which the consensus scientific viewpoint is established. Don't know which specific methods were in his graph.

Donger
06-13-2012, 09:51 PM
One of many independent methods that are be used from which the consensus scientific viewpoint is established.

Okay, so again, over the last two thousand years, the difference between minimum and maximum temperature is 1.2 C. Yes or no?

Don't know which specific methods were in his graph.

Then how do you know that the 1.2 C isn't within the graph's margin of error?

cdcox
06-13-2012, 10:07 PM
Okay, so again, over the last two thousand years, the difference between minimum and maximum temperature is 1.2 C. Yes or no?

Now that you have changed your question, yes that i agree with. Not a very informative statement, but yes I agree with it.

Then how do you know that the 1.2 C isn't within the graph's margin of error?

I took the graph as a representation of the climate science without considering the specifics of that particular graph. In climate science the typical error of accepted estimation methods is about 0.3 C. If a method has a significantly larger error, it is not used since there are better methods available. I assumed that the graph was based on the state of the art.

Donger
06-13-2012, 10:17 PM
Now that you have changed your question, yes that i agree with. Not a very informative statement, but yes I agree with it.

There's not very much difference between the two questions. But, I'm glad that we agree. So, do you think that such a difference iver two thousand years is of any concern? If so, why?

I took the graph as a representation of the climate science without considering the specifics of that particular graph. In climate science the typical error of accepted estimation methods is about 0.3 C. If a method has a significantly larger error, it is not used since there are better methods available. I assumed that the graph was based on the state of the art.

The graph looks like a wiki graph to me. Then again, Direckshun didn't source it. So, I think it presumptive to assume that the graph that she posted has a MoE within the 1.2 C variance.

cdcox
06-13-2012, 10:33 PM
There's not very much difference between the two questions. But, I'm glad that we agree. So, do you think that such a difference iver two thousand years is of any concern? If so, why?

I would not be overly concerned with a temperature change of 1.2 C over 2000 years. However, I am concerned about a statistically significant change of 0.5C per 50 years, especially when best estimates say that the rate of change is accelerating.



The graph looks like a wiki graph to me. Then again, Direckshun didn't source it. So, I think it presumptive to assume that the graph that she posted has a MoE within the 1.2 C variance.

Here is the original figure from one of the lines in the Wiki graph, with error bars. I hunted it down, just for you.

Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records
Author(s): Oerlemans, J (Oerlemans, J)
Source: SCIENCE Volume: 308 Issue: 5722 Pages: 675-677
Year: 2005

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 10:42 PM
Opinions of humankind (girls can be creative too) aside, all empirical evidence is congruent with the fact that humans mucked around for a long time before they started making significant technological progress. Even recorded history going back to 4000 BC agrees with that. The vast majority of technological progress happened in less than 10% of recorded time. Because you are not thinking scientifically (allowing your hypothesis to be tested by available data) your opinions are not persuasive.

I'm not trying to pursuade you to believe the way I do. What recorded history goes back 4000 years?

Donger
06-13-2012, 10:45 PM
I would not be overly concerned with a temperature change of 1.2 C over 2000 years. However, I am concerned about a statistically significant change of 0.5C per 50 years, especially when best estimates say that the rate of change is accelerating.

What effects have you (or anyone) observed that have been caused by this alarming change/increase in temperature?

Here is the original figure from one of the lines in the Wiki graph, with error bars. I hunted it down, just for you.

Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records
Author(s): Oerlemans, J (Oerlemans, J)
Source: SCIENCE Volume: 308 Issue: 5722 Pages: 675-677
Year: 2005

It's been a while. What is .6 K in C?

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 10:50 PM
What effects have you (or anyone) observed that have been caused by this alarming change/increase in temperature?



It's been a while. What is .6 K in C?

1.08 F

cdcox
06-13-2012, 10:53 PM
What effects have you (or anyone) observed that have been caused by this alarming change/increase in temperature?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html


It's been a while. What is .6 K in C?

Same scale, different base line. So a change of 0.6 K = 0.6 C.

Donger
06-13-2012, 10:56 PM
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html

IPCC? Aren't those the chaps who falsified their data?

Same scale, different base line. So a change of 0.6 K = 0.6 C.

So, which is it? 1.2 or .6 C?

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 10:57 PM
Hey Donger, here is an easy tool for converting from one engineering term to another.

http://joshmadison.com/convert-for-windows/

Iz Zat Chew
06-13-2012, 10:59 PM
IPCC? Aren't those the chaps who falsified their data?



So, which is it? 1.2 or .6 C?

1.2 C change is = to 2.16 F

cdcox
06-13-2012, 11:15 PM
IPCC? Aren't those the chaps who falsified their data?

A small subset of IPCC researchers were involved in "climate gate". No one falsified any data.

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14] The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."[15][16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy


So, which is it? 1.2 or .6 C?

Depends on the question.

What is the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures on that graph? 1.2 C

How much warming occurred during the 20th century? 0.6 C

AustinChief
06-13-2012, 11:16 PM
cdcox, so you think there is solid science to show a drastic shift in temperatures over xxx amount of recent history. Fair enough. Do you think there is enough solid data to indicate that the change is substantially accelerated due to man made conditions and that all possible confounding factors have been accounted for?

Donger
06-13-2012, 11:24 PM
A small subset of IPCC researchers were involved in "climate gate". No one falsified any data.

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14] The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."[15][16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Bummer. Not exactly a group that I'd hang my hat upon.


Depends on the question.

What is the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures on that graph? 1.2 C

How much warming occurred during the 20th century? 0.6 C

So, mathematically, not really a huge increase? Right? It really wouldn't be as impressive if such a "large" increase happened before man got evil, right?

Donger
06-13-2012, 11:25 PM
Has anyone done a study of the amount of energy we receive from the Sun during the same time frame? Honest question, I don't know.

AustinChief
06-13-2012, 11:32 PM
Has anyone done a study of the amount of energy we receive from the Sun during the same time frame? Honest question, I don't know.

DAMNIT DONGER! I was leading up to that! :D

yeah there are conflicting studies on solar variations. In most climate research circles there are all sorts of funny little excuses as to why solar variation isn't really a factor... most of them complete bullshit. There are so many extraneous factors (like solar energy fluctuations) involved that a true predictive model has never been achieved... nothing even close.

Has anyone here ever studied Hamiltonian mechanics? If so, do YOU think we are even in the ballpark of understanding the global climate?

Even if we assume (huge and probably incorrect assumption) that we can list every single significant factor that influences the global climate... the mathematics involved is stupefying. Yet many climatologists continue to spew out over simplified models that just don't work.

AustinChief
06-13-2012, 11:37 PM
Oh and our ability to accurately measure solar variations is BRAND SPANKING NEW... everything in the past is complete guesswork.

cdcox
06-13-2012, 11:39 PM
cdcox, so you think there is solid science to show a drastic shift in temperatures over xxx amount of recent history. Fair enough. Do you think there is enough solid data to indicate that the change is substantially accelerated due to man made conditions and that all possible confounding factors have been accounted for?

Yes, if you change your last clause to "and known confounding factors cannot explain the observed change based on current knowledge." They are still making progress on understanding clouds and feedback with land systems, and probably a lot of other areas I'm less familiar with, but I think with a high level of certainty that the observed climate change is anthropogenic in nature. The rate of change is unprecedented in the record and it was predicted before the largest temperature changes of the last 20 years were observed. If the atmosphere provides 32.5 C of warming for Earth (an undisputed fact), one would expect to see some change if you radically change the concentration of some of the important gases that contribute to that warming.

That doesn't mean we should immediately tank our economy, but we shouldn't pretend it isn't happening. But we should be very aggressive in developing technologies that can economically replace fossil fuels. We should also pursue agreements with China, India and other developed nations to reduce GHG emissions, even if over all energy costs went up 20%. If everyone bought into that, it wouldn't cause our standard of living to collapse.

AustinChief
06-13-2012, 11:45 PM
That doesn't mean we should immediately tank our economy, but we shouldn't pretend it isn't happening. But we should be very aggressive in developing technologies that can economically replace fossil fuels. We should also pursue agreements with China, India and other developed nations to reduce GHG emissions, even if over all energy costs went up 20%. If everyone bought into that, it wouldn't cause our standard of living to collapse.

I am all for further research and replacing fossil fuels. I am just sick of the alarmists who make wild claims based on very immature, incomplete and often wildly inaccurate models. I can see why the alarmists feel the need to basically LIE about their research... if they don't, our short sighted society ignores the importance of further research in the field. I just hate that it is the reality we are faced with.

We won't see truly predictive modelling until we have far more computing power to be able to handle the equations necessary.

cdcox
06-13-2012, 11:47 PM
It would be a strong misrepresentation to say that variations in solar radiation are not considered in quantifying past warming or in global climate simulations. You don't have to understand why the sun's radiation changes to know that it does. That variability can be used as an input in the model.

Donger
06-13-2012, 11:48 PM
It would be a strong misrepresentation to say that variations in solar radiation are not considered in quantifying past warming or in global climate simulations. You don't have to understand why the sun's radiation changes to know that it does. That variability can be used as an input in the model.

And is it?

AustinChief
06-14-2012, 12:30 AM
It would be a strong misrepresentation to say that variations in solar radiation are not considered in quantifying past warming or in global climate simulations. You don't have to understand why the sun's radiation changes to know that it does. That variability can be used as an input in the model.

Yes it can be used but often is not or is misrepresented. The biggest reason being that until recently we were simply guessing at it. Even Nimbus-7 (launched in 1979 I think) didn't give us a complete and accurate picture. It wasn't until SOURCE in 2003 or PICARD launched 2 years ago that I would say we finally have enough data coming in. (You could argue that SOHO was getting the job done as far back as 1996.. but I'd argue that it was also primitive)

AustinChief
06-14-2012, 12:47 AM
Yes it can be used but often is not or is misrepresented. The biggest reason being that until recently we were simply guessing at it. Even Nimbus-7 (launched in 1979 I think) didn't give us a complete and accurate picture. It wasn't until SOURCE in 2003 or PICARD launched 2 years ago that I would say we finally have enough data coming in. (You could argue that SOHO was getting the job done as far back as 1996.. but I'd argue that it was also primitive)

Also.. you stated "past warming" how can we determine solar variance in the past besides complete and total guesswork? Sun spots? You get into some really sketchy territory very quickly.

AustinChief
06-14-2012, 01:01 AM
Let's look at some other factors that we simply don;t have enough data on.. or understanding of.. yet they we conveniently ignore this fact and plod on with junk climate models...

Geothermal effects?
Earth's magnetic field?
Milankovitch cycles?

Oh and another funny thing about the graph posted earlier.. it fails to show the plateau that we are currently in... and have been for the past decade. Please tell me which model predicted that? What??!?!? NONE of them!? Shocked!

cdcox
06-14-2012, 02:37 AM
Also.. you stated "past warming" how can we determine solar variance in the past besides complete and total guesswork? Sun spots? You get into some really sketchy territory very quickly.

Be-10 and C-14 are produced by cosmic radiation and are stored in ice cores and tree rings. Here is a 9400 year reconstruction of solar activity:



9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings
Author(s): Steinhilber, F (Steinhilber, Friedhelm)1; Abreu, JA (Abreu, Jose A.)1; Beer, J (Beer, Juerg)1; Brunner, I (Brunner, Irene)1; Christl, M (Christl, Marcus)2; Fischer, H (Fischer, Hubertus)3,4; Heikkila, U (Heikkilae, Ulla)5; Kubik, PW (Kubik, Peter W.)2; Mann, M (Mann, Mathias)1; McCracken, KG (McCracken, Ken G.)6; Miller, H (Miller, Heinrich)7; Miyahara, H (Miyahara, Hiroko)8; Oerter, H (Oerter, Hans)7; Wilhelms, F (Wilhelms, Frank)7

Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 109 Issue: 16 Pages: 5967-5971 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118965109 Published: APR 17 2012

cdcox
06-14-2012, 02:54 AM
Let's look at some other factors that we simply don;t have enough data on.. or understanding of.. yet they we conveniently ignore this fact and plod on with junk climate models...

Geothermal effects?
Earth's magnetic field?
Milankovitch cycles?

Oh and another funny thing about the graph posted earlier.. it fails to show the plateau that we are currently in... and have been for the past decade. Please tell me which model predicted that? What??!?!? NONE of them!? Shocked!

Past decade? In the top 12 warmest years on record, the following years were from the past decade:

2005 (1)
2010 (2)
2006 (6)
2009 (7)
2010 (8)
2004 (9)
2011 (11)
2008 (12)

No one said every year would set a new record. You need to look at 5 to 10 year running averages. 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record. I'd wager 2010 to 2019 will top it.

AustinChief
06-14-2012, 03:27 AM
Past decade? In the top 12 warmest years on record, the following years were from the past decade:

2005 (1)
2010 (2)
2006 (6)
2009 (7)
2010 (8)
2004 (9)
2011 (11)
2008 (12)

No one said every year would set a new record. You need to look at 5 to 10 year running averages. 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record. I'd wager 2010 to 2019 will top it.

You're ignoring what I said and instead using a different approach to skew the data. I said the last decade has been a plateau. The current temps have been stagnant.

Take a look at the trend from 1999-2009. yes they may be higher then the past but they aren't rising.

That certainly doesn't "disprove" climate change theory.. it just shows how unreliable the models are. They aren't just unreliable, they are mostly useless garbage.

One of my favorite quotes on the current situation...

While the authors concluded that there was a 1 in 8 chance of having a decade-long pause in warming like the current plateau, even with rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, the odds of a 15-year pause, they wrote, are only 5 in 100. As a result, the next few years of observations could tip the balance toward further concern or greater optimism.

This was 3 years ago and still no significant change... what will be the new prediction in 2 years if it stay the same?

AustinChief
06-14-2012, 03:36 AM
Be-10 and C-14 are produced by cosmic radiation and are stored in ice cores and tree rings. Here is a 9400 year reconstruction of solar activity:

I hope to God you aren't serious? Do you have any idea how completely unreliable that data is? Do you also realize that that data (even if it were 100% perfect) only tells a minuscule fraction of the story?

The study is great for what it is. BUT any attempt to use this data and claim we have an accurate past history of solar variance is ludicrous. In a few more decades, maybe (BIG MAYBE) we will have enough understating of solar variance to go back and use this data in a meaningful way. We simply are not even close to being there yet.

That being said... We definitely need to continue the research and I have no problem with government funding to push this further and further... it's definitely something we sure as hell better get a handle on.

FD
06-14-2012, 01:45 PM
So you are telling me that the scientists are also balking at saying man has been industrialized because they can't find that very same zippo? Who'd of thunk it.

Try reading some of the reports regarding Mount St. Hellens when it blew in the early 80's. Seems like some of the things they unearthed around the world they claimed to be millions of years old were recreated in the big blowout in Washington from that volcano. That tells me that their calculated guesses were wrong in that respect and it throws some doubt as to the accuracy of the other "known" accounts of the history of the earth just might be so far off base that nobody knows how long the earth has been her nor can they determine how long man has been around.

But that's just little old me thinking out of the box.

BTW, your opinoin isn't looking so hot at the moment.

Someone should tell all those paleoantropologists out there about your Mount St Helens discovery. It is going to rock their world!

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 01:51 PM
Someone should tell all those paleoantropologists out there about your Mount St Helens discovery. It is going to rock their world!

I'd say that you are somewhat out of touch. Maybe you should contact all of the paleoantropologists you know and let them know their timeline has been invalidated.

[Don't waste your time, they are still trying to find the missing link. They don't care about facts, just theories.]

FD
06-14-2012, 02:18 PM
I'd say that you are somewhat out of touch. Maybe you should contact all of the paleoantropologists you know and let them know their timeline has been invalidated.

[Don't waste your time, they are still trying to find the missing link. They don't care about facts, just theories.]

Professional scientists dont care about facts?

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 02:25 PM
I'd say that you are somewhat out of touch. Maybe you should contact all of the paleoantropologists you know and let them know their timeline has been invalidated.

[Don't waste your time, they are still trying to find the missing link. They don't care about facts, just theories.]

A birther and evolution denier. Doesn't get more ignorant than that.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 02:35 PM
Professional scientists dont care about facts?

When you are talking about a group that is searching for the missing link I'd say there is some question about their "facts".

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 02:36 PM
A birther and evolution denier. Doesn't get more ignorant than that.

You are a fucking idiot.

How do you get that I'm trying to deny evolution? Oh that's right, there is no common link that has been found to prove the theory. You don't accept my description of the development of man, so I'd say that you are more of a denier of man than anyone here.

patteeu
06-14-2012, 03:00 PM
You are a ****ing idiot.

How do you get that I'm trying to deny evolution? Oh that's right, there is no common link that has been found to prove the theory. You don't accept my description of the development of man, so I'd say that you are more of a denier of man than anyone here.

There are links all over the place in the fossil record. Your objections are a few decades out of date.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 03:08 PM
There are links all over the place in the fossil record. Your objections are a few decades out of date.

To date there has been no link between the prehistoric apes and mankind. If they found a link it would no longer be called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Sorry, but I don't, and won't accept your word on the discussion. I see no proof. I see "Missing Link found! Humans and Lemurs?" The question mark kind of misses the markj.

patteeu
06-14-2012, 03:16 PM
To date there has been no link between the prehistoric apes and mankind. If they found a link it would no longer be called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Sorry, but I don't, and won't accept your word on the discussion. I see no proof. I see "Missing Link found! Humans and Lemurs?" The question mark kind of misses the markj.

Why not? You've been wrong about almost everything in this thread. Might as well maintain a spotless record. Carry on.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 03:30 PM
Why not? You've been wrong about almost everything in this thread. Might as well maintain a spotless record. Carry on.
You are most likely full of shit, but don't let that stop you.

Still waiting to see the many links out there that prove your point.

mikey23545
06-14-2012, 03:44 PM
You are most likely full of shit, but don't let that stop you.

Still waiting to see the many links out there that prove your point.


You know, a signed letter by your imaginary God stating "Evolution happened!" wouldn't convince you.

It's bullheaded morons like you that make it so difficult for mankind to advance.

mikey23545
06-14-2012, 03:48 PM
To date there has been no link between the prehistoric apes and mankind. If they found a link it would no longer be called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Sorry, but I don't, and won't accept your word on the discussion. I see no proof. I see "Missing Link found! Humans and Lemurs?" The question mark kind of misses the markj.


A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 03:54 PM
A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

The Theory of Evolution is still unproven. Every link I find always seems to end with a question mark. You can believe what you want and take the almost proof as factual if you wish.

For me, I need substantial proof not speculation and not almost proof.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 03:56 PM
You know, a signed letter by your imaginary God stating "Evolution happened!" wouldn't convince you.

It's bullheaded morons like you that make it so difficult for mankind to advance.

Mikey, you obviously have not read my position on the development of man.

If you advance on a falsehood how is it advancement and development?

Imaginary God? I believe that you are misinformed, but that's not surprising considering your stance. When you get that letter please copy me.

Brainiac
06-17-2012, 04:24 PM
The Theory of Evolution is still unproven. Every link I find always seems to end with a question mark. You can believe what you want and take the almost proof as factual if you wish.

For me, I need substantial proof not speculation and not almost proof.
You are not helping the conservative cause when you show this much ignorance regarding evolution and what constitutes a scientific theory. This has already been said about a billion times all over the internet and probably a million times in this forum: calling evolution a theory doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

Stephen Jay Gould summed it up a lot better than I can:


Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 05:29 PM
You are not helping the conservative cause when you show this much ignorance regarding evolution and what constitutes a scientific theory. This has already been said about a billion times all over the internet and probably a million times in this forum: calling evolution a theory doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

Stephen Jay Gould summed it up a lot better than I can:

If you want to believe in evlolution then it's your perogative, it is a theory until there has been accepted proof, none of the garbage you are throwing out does not prove the theroy has been proven.

You seem to put a lot of stock in the internet commentary, the internet has far too many hacks proclaiming things that aren't necessarily true.

As I said, if you want to believe it to be true that's your bag of worms. I do not agree.

La literatura
06-17-2012, 05:30 PM
the internet has far too many hacks proclaiming things that aren't necessarily true.

Lovely.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 05:55 PM
Lovely.

From what I've read about you that's your favorite source of informaiton. Someday sonny the world is going to smack you in the face and you will be left reeling because you will have found that your sole source of information is tainted.

Brainiac
06-17-2012, 06:40 PM
If you want to believe in evlolution then it's your perogative, it is a theory until there has been accepted proof, none of the garbage you are throwing out does not prove the theroy has been proven.

You seem to put a lot of stock in the internet commentary, the internet has far too many hacks proclaiming things that aren't necessarily true.

As I said, if you want to believe it to be true that's your bag of worms. I do not agree.
It's not a question of "want". I don't have a desire to either believe or disbelieve in evolution. The fact is that I've read a lot of arguments for evolution and a lot of arguments against it, and I find the arguments for evolution to be MUCH more credible, MUCH more logical, and MUCH more convincing.

However, for creationists, it is indeed a question of WANTING to believe that evolution doesn't happen. Creationists have a vested interest in believing what they believe. The very crux of Christian teaching these days is that your FAITH is what saves you from eternal damnation in the non-consuming flames of hell. If you lose faith and believe in "godless" evolution, you run the risk of being tortured forever. That's a pretty strong incentive to stubbornly cling to a belief system.

So you tell me, which side believes what it WANTS to believe? The side that looks at what is happening in the world and attempts to explain the mechanism by which it occurs, or the side that simply repeats religious dogma and claims that evolution is an impossibility because it wasn't mentioned in a book written by shepherds 2000 years ago?

La literatura
06-17-2012, 07:15 PM
or the side that simply repeats religious dogma and claims that evolution is an impossibility because it wasn't mentioned in a book written by shepherds 2000 years ago?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I can't imagine ranchers today sitting down and writing scriptural books, but we're led to believe that shepherds 2000 years ago did so? I think we'd be hard pressed to find a literate shepherd 200 years ago, much less 2000.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 08:28 PM
It's not a question of "want". I don't have a desire to either believe or disbelieve in evolution. The fact is that I've read a lot of arguments for evolution and a lot of arguments against it, and I find the arguments for evolution to be MUCH more credible, MUCH more logical, and MUCH more convincing.

However, for creationists, it is indeed a question of WANTING to believe that evolution doesn't happen. Creationists have a vested interest in believing what they believe. The very crux of Christian teaching these days is that your FAITH is what saves you from eternal damnation in the non-consuming flames of hell. If you lose faith and believe in "godless" evolution, you run the risk of being tortured forever. That's a pretty strong incentive to stubbornly cling to a belief system.

So you tell me, which side believes what it WANTS to believe? The side that looks at what is happening in the world and attempts to explain the mechanism by which it occurs, or the side that simply repeats religious dogma and claims that evolution is an impossibility because it wasn't mentioned in a book written by shepherds 2000 years ago?

First, there is no substantiated proof of evolution. Also, the supposed truth about creation being only 6000 years old is also questionable if you really want to figure out what may have been the path to mankind. Time is the issue as I see it. Some are hardened to the time of 6000 years. I am not bound by that time frame in my belief.

Based on your comment I suppose you reject any religious type connection, if that the case the discussion is over. If you are open to discusson there could be more.

Brainiac
06-17-2012, 10:19 PM
First, there is no substantiated proof of evolution. Also, the supposed truth about creation being only 6000 years old is also questionable if you really want to figure out what may have been the path to mankind. Time is the issue as I see it. Some are hardened to the time of 6000 years. I am not bound by that time frame in my belief.

Based on your comment I suppose you reject any religious type connection, if that the case the discussion is over. If you are open to discusson there could be more.
I think religion is a great way to try to answer questions regarding why we are here, what happens to us after we die, and how we should live our lives.

I find religion to be a poor substitute for curiosity, observation, and using the minds that God gave us to analyze and and explain the world we live in.

Brainiac
06-17-2012, 10:37 PM
Based on your comment I suppose you reject any religious type connection, if that the case the discussion is over. If you are open to discusson there could be more.
Do you deny that creationists have a vested interest in rejecting the idea of evolution?

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 10:38 PM
I think religion is a great way to try to answer questions regarding why we are here, what happens to us after we die, and how we should live our lives.

I find religion to be a poor substitute for curiosity, observation, and using the minds that God gave us to analyze and and explain the world we live in.

I suggest that your attitude towards religion might be wrong. There is an ability for mankind to think, I would consider what you feel is defined by science and attempt to justify some of the differences by looking into the possibility that science and religion can coexist.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 10:39 PM
Do you deny that creationists have a vested interest in rejecting the idea of evolution?

What would that vested interest be? My point is that all of the arguments are standing on the principle of time and I don't think either side understands how time plays a role in creation as well as science.

Brainiac
06-18-2012, 08:05 AM
What would that vested interest be?

As previously stated in post #132:

The very crux of Christian teaching these days is that your FAITH is what saves you from eternal torture and damnation in the non-consuming flames of hell. If you lose faith and believe in "godless" evolution, you run the risk of being tortured forever. That's a pretty strong incentive to stubbornly cling to a belief system.

There is no such incentive to accept the premise that life forms change over time as a result of natural selection.

stevieray
06-18-2012, 11:44 AM
As previously stated in post #132:

The very crux of Christian teaching these days is that your FAITH is what saves you from eternal torture and damnation in the non-consuming flames of hell. If you lose faith and believe in "godless" evolution, you run the risk of being tortured forever.

...this is incorrect.

Brainiac
06-18-2012, 12:46 PM
...this is incorrect.
Perhaps "very crux" was too strong a term. I recognize that people often say John 3:16 is the very crux of the Christian faith, and that is probably more accurate.

However, I think it is accurate to say that most Christian denominations teach that having faith is an absolute requirement for salvation, and those same denominations teach Biblical creationism.

That's the vested interest I was referring to.

stevieray
06-18-2012, 12:51 PM
Perhaps "very crux" was too strong a term. I recognize that people often say John 3:16 is the very crux of the Christian faith, and that is probably more accurate.

However, I think it is accurate to say that most Christian denominations teach that having faith is an absolute requirement for salvation, and those same denominations teach Biblical creationism.

That's the vested interest I was referring to.

God's grace is at the crux of salvation. There are plenty of people who believe in Jesus that won't receive it....