variation30
Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
- Let me throw in a few facts to confuse you then. As noted in the post I referenced, there has been some question concerning solar output which is on an 11 year cycle. Data previously correlating global temperature to this cycle only went for 2.5 cycles, so there was still a possibility that the temperature increase was due to increased solar activity- however, further monitoring has shown no correlation between the sun cycle activity (three full cycles now- hence the experiment's been run in triplicate) and the temperature increase that monitoring stations have shown. So no- you wouldn't be equated to a creationist because you're unaware of the state of the science that you criticize- you'd just be ill informed and wallowing in your ignorance.
mhm. the 11 year polarity shift is not something you can set your watch to. if one were to look at tree rings samples (or take a gander at the little ice age) one would see that this 11 year cycle is not something that would make timex proud. when these cycles are longer or shorter than they need to be, you get wonderful little climactic events. and this 11 year sun cycle is based off of the observation of sunspots...which does not encompass all solar activity. maybe this is just me being unscientific, but I prefer to look at changes in the carbon record to gauge solar activity. if one were to do that, one would see that the solar activity we're experiencing now is right about what we were experiencing 800-900 years ago.
quote:
The question is does the generation of anthropogenic CO2 affect the climate and the answer is yes.
mhm. yes, anthropogenic co2 affects climate. so does the natural synthesis of co2. so does the synthesis of o2 (take a look at the great oxygen catastrophe). the question is this: is anthropogenic co2 generation going to destroy the world. the answer is 'lolno'. as I've said earlier, while it is painfully obvious that everything we or any other animal or plant does has an effect on the planet, what we are doing is not enough to make a ball of mud that is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg uninhabitable. it may not even be potent enough to raise the temperature up high enough to make michigan winters shorter.
quote:
And science doesn't work on belief- science works on verifiable hypothesis and data.
mhm. and we can't verify this hypothesis as we can't duplicate it and retest it.
quote:
The IPCC studies were meta studies- which means that they collected NO data - they merely analyzed the data already in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Anybody else is welcome to look at the data as well- however, each study used several thousand scientists. It's a lot of work. Furthermore, roughly 3/4 of the scientists which did the latest report were not involved with the earlier report. Thus, there would have to be upwards of three- four thousand scientists agreeing to be bribed and falsify conclusions. I don't know about holocaust denier- how about a believer in UFO coverups?
I have no doubts that there are a lot of people doing this work. there were a lot of people crying about global cooling a while ago. there were a lot of people telling us how acid rain was going to destroy america in the 90's. there were a lot of people telling us about the spheres or humorism. unfortunately for these people, truth is not a democracy. truth is not a popularity contest.
quote:
If a human jumps off a roof and lands on their head, thereby dropping dead- we're also unable to recreate the event exactly, but I'm pretty sure the theory of gravity is robust enough to apply. The idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a relatively straightforward experiment. If you turn the question around, you may be able to see what you're asking, i.e. we know that increased CO2 levels should raise the temperature of the planet- what would stop this from happening? This stuff isn't that hard or complex-there's just an awful lot of data to wade through.
I think einstein, newton, and ptolemy could each put forward a set of ideas to explain what would happen if you drop a human off of a roof. some theories are more robust than others. the awkward attempts to show that we can get the earth up to 60000C (an actual study I've seen) by cranking up our co2 output is akin to galileo using his theories on motion to tell us how to get to the moon. yes, he may understand some starightforward observation, but there are quite a few variables beyond him that accounts for anomolies in his hypothesis. the anomolies that climatologists stumble accross are due to variables beyond their recognition or beyond their ability to compute. the efficacy of co2 production is not what these....scientists are making it out to be. there are too many anomolies and missed predictions.
quote:
You know what they say about the word ASS- U- ME? Well, you just made a big one. I have a doctorate in bioinorganic chemistry and I've taken exams on this topic back in grad school over 20 years ago. You may not be able to distinguish pop science from real science- but I make a living doing so.
when the predictions climatologists produce are as reliable as what physics produces...or when they give us as much knowledge as something like the periodic table gives us...then I'll call it real science.
until then,
Jackson
_____________________________
all the good ones are collared or lesbians.
or old.
|
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 
Profile
.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread