The Information Age

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Well what is it about the evidence that climate change is occuring that you do not agree with. I totally believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I can not accept is people spreading their opinion like it is the word of god, but havnt bothered to study any of the bountiful information available on the subject and fall back on "it just is". To me the denial side seems more dogmatic in their inability to front an argument against. I am not saying that you are doing that but I will say I have encountered it more times on the internet than I care to see. So maybe you know something that I do not? Would you please share.


Climate change is occurring. It has over millennia. What's in question is man's contribution to it. No one from any side has been able to show that with any accuracy. So what we have are models and theories and guesses and faith.

What we don't have thus far is any proof.

You're welcome to think I've not looked at these issues and made my mind up in a vacuum. It means nothing to me. But what I won't get into is the usual form these arguments take. Where the premise is that anthropogenetic climate change is real and to "win" the argument I have to proof that assumption wrong.

The anthropogenetic climate change assertion has been made by any number of people not just on this board but worldwide. They've just yet to prove it.

And trying to re-frame the argument to make me and people like me prove them wrong changes that not at all.


Well there is proof, the correlation between PPM of CO2 and global temperature are very established. There is no debate as to CO2 being a greenhouse gas. If you do not accept these then the base of your argument against has no foundation.

Hydrocarbons + O2 => CO2 + H2O is a chemical equation that every entry level chemistry class use. The burning of carbon based fuel does increase the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is man’s contribution to the problem.

I or the GW argument are not trying to reframe anything. The GW model was established a long time ago, you can not say that it is a flawed model without engaging the model. You are following the classic model against of deny deny deny, or using rhetoric claims to evade the science. You are right it is not the against sides job to disprove GW, but you cannot dismiss the GW model until you disprove the GW model as it has become the accepted model of the scientific community.

So again, what specifically about the GW model is problematic for you?
 
Al, check this out:

Petition qualifications

You and I and my cats veterinarian are qualified to sign that petition.
shocked2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Lets see a list of the tens of thousands, then.
And you can't really say the melting icecaps are the result of faulty measurements.



Here's one to 30,000 +

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

Yes, I know some of the AGW "scientists" tried to muck up the works by putting their names on then claiming they were forged or that they don't agree thus bringing the whole petition into question.

But even if we subtract 2/3 of them we're still above 10K


That is more of a political petition than anything of scientific merit. Anyone with a scientific degree was able to sign on to that.

I am not qualified to dispute what Bruce, Molakule or Terry Dyson say wrt to properties of lubricants even though many Mech Engs work with lubrication issues and I have a degree in Mech Eng. The reason being that although some Mech Engs know tribology, I have no formal training in that particular sub-discipline, so my credentials are insufficient to dispute any detailed claims wrt to tribology.
 
Originally Posted By: MarkC
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php

You're making an unscientific assumption that these stations are the ones, and/or the only ones used for gathering temperature data.


I did no such thing. I stated what is shown at the site, that some of these stations are in fact adding their questionable data to the official climate record.

The stations are listed and are a matter of public record. Any number of photos and descriptions are shown and problems have been pointed out.

Any explanations as to how that might effect the dataset? Any links showing that the stations shown on that site and denoted as official climate measurement stations are indeed not?

Any links at all or anything else other than to ask me for more links while providing nothing to disprove mine?
 
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Well what is it about the evidence that climate change is occuring that you do not agree with. I totally believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I can not accept is people spreading their opinion like it is the word of god, but havnt bothered to study any of the bountiful information available on the subject and fall back on "it just is". To me the denial side seems more dogmatic in their inability to front an argument against. I am not saying that you are doing that but I will say I have encountered it more times on the internet than I care to see. So maybe you know something that I do not? Would you please share.


Climate change is occurring. It has over millennia. What's in question is man's contribution to it. No one from any side has been able to show that with any accuracy. So what we have are models and theories and guesses and faith.

What we don't have thus far is any proof.

You're welcome to think I've not looked at these issues and made my mind up in a vacuum. It means nothing to me. But what I won't get into is the usual form these arguments take. Where the premise is that anthropogenetic climate change is real and to "win" the argument I have to proof that assumption wrong.

The anthropogenetic climate change assertion has been made by any number of people not just on this board but worldwide. They've just yet to prove it.

And trying to re-frame the argument to make me and people like me prove them wrong changes that not at all.


Well there is proof, the correlation between PPM of CO2 and global temperature are very established. There is no debate as to CO2 being a greenhouse gas. If you do not accept these then the base of your argument against has no foundation.

Hydrocarbons + O2 => CO2 + H2O is a chemical equation that every entry level chemistry class use. The burning of carbon based fuel does increase the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is man’s contribution to the problem.

I or the GW argument are not trying to reframe anything. The GW model was established a long time ago, you can not say that it is a flawed model without engaging the model. You are following the classic model against of deny deny deny, or using rhetoric claims to evade the science. You are right it is not the against sides job to disprove GW, but you cannot dismiss the GW model until you disprove the GW model as it has become the accepted model of the scientific community.

So again, what specifically about the GW model is problematic for you?


Amazing this proof that can't be linked to. Especially when it's been shown by any number of people that CO2 is actually a lagging indicator of periods of warming.

Can you find any links that explain how CO2 drives temperature when it doesn't increase until after the temperatures have already increased?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Lets see a list of the tens of thousands, then.
And you can't really say the melting icecaps are the result of faulty measurements.



Here's one to 30,000 +

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

Yes, I know some of the AGW "scientists" tried to muck up the works by putting their names on then claiming they were forged or that they don't agree thus bringing the whole petition into question.

But even if we subtract 2/3 of them we're still above 10K


That is more of a political petition than anything of scientific merit. Anyone with a scientific degree was able to sign on to that.

I am not qualified to dispute what Bruce, Molakule or Terry Dyson say wrt to properties of lubricants even though many Mech Engs work with lubrication issues and I have a degree in Mech Eng. The reason being that although some Mech Engs know tribology, I have no formal training in that particular sub-discipline, so my credentials are insufficient to dispute any detailed claims wrt to tribology.


I agree it is in fact a political petition. As if this debate isn't overrun by that very thing. That's been one of my points all along.

But any number of people that should be knowledgeable in these matters have indeed signed that petition. Are they to be discounted because we all agree that some of the other signers are questionable?

I don't think cherry picking data that way is valid do you?
 
Originally Posted By: jsharp

Can you find any links that explain how CO2 drives temperature when it doesn't increase until after the temperatures have already increased?


And where again did you drag this information up?
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: jsharp

The anthropogenetic climate change assertion has been made by any number of people not just on this board but worldwide. They've just yet to prove it.


How about this:

NOAA/NCDC
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used.

Do you believe this information?


In a word no. But should I?

Here's a links or 3 to some of the problems with the IPCC model and it's conclusions -

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?page_id=11

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-continue-to-falsify/

It seems somewhat easy to find links to problems associated with what our friends at the UN are telling us. What's more, what they are telling us seems to keep changing.

Sorry, it's not looking like settled science to me...
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: jsharp

Can you find any links that explain how CO2 drives temperature when it doesn't increase until after the temperatures have already increased?


And where again did you drag this information up?


Try google Al. I think maybe you haven't read nearly as much on this subject as I thought. It's a commonly known bit of information.

Even the AGW true believers know this. They spend much of their time either ignoring it or trying to explain it away. If you google "co2 lags temperature increase" you'll find 646,000 pages in English.

Here's one -

"The main evidence proving that CO2 does not control the climate, but at most can play a second fiddle by just amplifying the variations already present, is that of lags. In all cases where there is a good enough resolution, one finds that the CO2 lags behind the temperature by typically several hundred to a thousand years. Namely, the basic climate driver which controls the temperature cannot be that of CO2. That driver, whatever it is, affects the climate equilibrium, and the temperature changes accordingly. Once the oceans adjust (on time scale of decades to centuries), the CO2 equilibrium changes as well."

They even talk about our friends at the UN -

"It is interesting to note that the IPCC scientific report (e.g., the AR4) avoids this question of lag. Instead of pointing it out, they write that in some cases (e.g., when comparing Antarctic CO2 to temperature data) it is hard to say anything definitive since the data sets come from different cores. This is of course chaff to cover the fact that when CO2 and temperature are measured with the same cores, or when carefully comparing different cores, a lag of typically several hundred years is found to be present, if the quality and resolution permit. Such an example is found in the figure below.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

And more good discussion of this fact here -

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Only 645,998 to go...
 
Last edited:
Quote:
As if this debate isn't overrun by that very thing.


I don't think it is. In this regard I'm a nothingarian. Really. It's far more evident to me that there's a political resistance that far outweighs the political endorsement. The spin is really blatant. Now this could surely be just like many yahoo Amsoil dealers spreading propaganda ..but that's how much of a neo-Crusade it's turned into.

It really sets off major alarms for me. I have no trust in anyone who tells me not to believe something with such blind conviction.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
As if this debate isn't overrun by that very thing.


I don't think it is. In this regard I'm a nothingarian. Really. It's far more evident to me that there's a political resistance that far outweighs the political endorsement. The spin is really blatant. Now this could surely be just like many yahoo Amsoil dealers spreading propaganda ..but that's how much of a neo-Crusade it's turned into.

It really sets off major alarms for me. I have no trust in anyone who tells me not to believe something with such blind conviction.



We're on same fence here Gary though maybe on opposite sides.

I have no trust in people who tell me to believe something and then offer a solution that conveniently benefits them and their political objectives.

But, I suppose the same could be said of both sides couldn't it? No argument for me on that point most certainly.
wink.gif


One other comment - I know this is whole subject is touchy on this board but I think we've shown that we can all remain adult and civil about it while having a useful discussion.

So it looks to this old guy anyway...
 
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Well what is it about the evidence that climate change is occuring that you do not agree with. I totally believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I can not accept is people spreading their opinion like it is the word of god, but havnt bothered to study any of the bountiful information available on the subject and fall back on "it just is". To me the denial side seems more dogmatic in their inability to front an argument against. I am not saying that you are doing that but I will say I have encountered it more times on the internet than I care to see. So maybe you know something that I do not? Would you please share.


Climate change is occurring. It has over millennia. What's in question is man's contribution to it. No one from any side has been able to show that with any accuracy. So what we have are models and theories and guesses and faith.

What we don't have thus far is any proof.

You're welcome to think I've not looked at these issues and made my mind up in a vacuum. It means nothing to me. But what I won't get into is the usual form these arguments take. Where the premise is that anthropogenetic climate change is real and to "win" the argument I have to proof that assumption wrong.

The anthropogenetic climate change assertion has been made by any number of people not just on this board but worldwide. They've just yet to prove it.

And trying to re-frame the argument to make me and people like me prove them wrong changes that not at all.


Well there is proof, the correlation between PPM of CO2 and global temperature are very established. There is no debate as to CO2 being a greenhouse gas. If you do not accept these then the base of your argument against has no foundation.

Hydrocarbons + O2 => CO2 + H2O is a chemical equation that every entry level chemistry class use. The burning of carbon based fuel does increase the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is man’s contribution to the problem.

I or the GW argument are not trying to reframe anything. The GW model was established a long time ago, you can not say that it is a flawed model without engaging the model. You are following the classic model against of deny deny deny, or using rhetoric claims to evade the science. You are right it is not the against sides job to disprove GW, but you cannot dismiss the GW model until you disprove the GW model as it has become the accepted model of the scientific community.

So again, what specifically about the GW model is problematic for you?


Amazing this proof that can't be linked to. Especially when it's been shown by any number of people that CO2 is actually a lagging indicator of periods of warming.

Can you find any links that explain how CO2 drives temperature when it doesn't increase until after the temperatures have already increased?


Good explanation here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
Basically it says that CO2 is not responsible for kicking the earth out of the ice age but takes over after.

But we are not in an ice age, so saying that CO2 cant kickstart the warming period does not really matter today as we are well out of the iceage period.
 
Last edited:
"...there 's no solid connection between man and the increased temps we think we're seeing on Mars... "

So, you'll doubt measurements here on Earth, but beleive ones from millions of miles away, and infer that Mars is warmig based on what timeframe>
Does that sound logical?
 
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Well what is it about the evidence that climate change is occuring that you do not agree with. I totally believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I can not accept is people spreading their opinion like it is the word of god, but havnt bothered to study any of the bountiful information available on the subject and fall back on "it just is". To me the denial side seems more dogmatic in their inability to front an argument against. I am not saying that you are doing that but I will say I have encountered it more times on the internet than I care to see. So maybe you know something that I do not? Would you please share.


Climate change is occurring. It has over millennia. What's in question is man's contribution to it. No one from any side has been able to show that with any accuracy. So what we have are models and theories and guesses and faith.

What we don't have thus far is any proof.

You're welcome to think I've not looked at these issues and made my mind up in a vacuum. It means nothing to me. But what I won't get into is the usual form these arguments take. Where the premise is that anthropogenetic climate change is real and to "win" the argument I have to proof that assumption wrong.

The anthropogenetic climate change assertion has been made by any number of people not just on this board but worldwide. They've just yet to prove it.

And trying to re-frame the argument to make me and people like me prove them wrong changes that not at all.


Well there is proof, the correlation between PPM of CO2 and global temperature are very established. There is no debate as to CO2 being a greenhouse gas. If you do not accept these then the base of your argument against has no foundation.

Hydrocarbons + O2 => CO2 + H2O is a chemical equation that every entry level chemistry class use. The burning of carbon based fuel does increase the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is man’s contribution to the problem.

I or the GW argument are not trying to reframe anything. The GW model was established a long time ago, you can not say that it is a flawed model without engaging the model. You are following the classic model against of deny deny deny, or using rhetoric claims to evade the science. You are right it is not the against sides job to disprove GW, but you cannot dismiss the GW model until you disprove the GW model as it has become the accepted model of the scientific community.

So again, what specifically about the GW model is problematic for you?


Amazing this proof that can't be linked to. Especially when it's been shown by any number of people that CO2 is actually a lagging indicator of periods of warming.

Can you find any links that explain how CO2 drives temperature when it doesn't increase until after the temperatures have already increased?


Good explanation here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
Basically it says that CO2 is not responsible for kicking the earth out of the ice age but takes over after.

But we are not in an ice age, so saying that CO2 cant kickstart the warming period does not really matter today as we are well out of the iceage period.


Well, depends on which definition of Ice Age you're using.
we are in an ice age in the sense that there are still sheets of glacial ice to be found, but in the usual sense, the last ice age ended 10000-11000 years ago.
 
jsharp
do you have car insurance, home insurance, and health insuranca ?

Who on Earth proved to you that you were going to crash, get sick and have your house burn down all in the same year ?
 
I tend to see the whole thing being wrapped up in economics ..and very short term (as in short sighted) economics. There's a party going on and no one wants the music to stop ..even if it's really a game of musical chairs.

I find the worship of money a loathsome attribute. Although it does surely influence my life, I will do nothing for the love of it nor stop doing something for its benefit alone.
 
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Well what is it about the evidence that climate change is occuring that you do not agree with. I totally believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I can not accept is people spreading their opinion like it is the word of god, but havnt bothered to study any of the bountiful information available on the subject and fall back on "it just is". To me the denial side seems more dogmatic in their inability to front an argument against. I am not saying that you are doing that but I will say I have encountered it more times on the internet than I care to see. So maybe you know something that I do not? Would you please share.


Climate change is occurring. It has over millennia. What's in question is man's contribution to it. No one from any side has been able to show that with any accuracy. So what we have are models and theories and guesses and faith.

What we don't have thus far is any proof.

You're welcome to think I've not looked at these issues and made my mind up in a vacuum. It means nothing to me. But what I won't get into is the usual form these arguments take. Where the premise is that anthropogenetic climate change is real and to "win" the argument I have to proof that assumption wrong.

The anthropogenetic climate change assertion has been made by any number of people not just on this board but worldwide. They've just yet to prove it.

And trying to re-frame the argument to make me and people like me prove them wrong changes that not at all.


Well there is proof, the correlation between PPM of CO2 and global temperature are very established. There is no debate as to CO2 being a greenhouse gas. If you do not accept these then the base of your argument against has no foundation.

Hydrocarbons + O2 => CO2 + H2O is a chemical equation that every entry level chemistry class use. The burning of carbon based fuel does increase the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is man’s contribution to the problem.

I or the GW argument are not trying to reframe anything. The GW model was established a long time ago, you can not say that it is a flawed model without engaging the model. You are following the classic model against of deny deny deny, or using rhetoric claims to evade the science. You are right it is not the against sides job to disprove GW, but you cannot dismiss the GW model until you disprove the GW model as it has become the accepted model of the scientific community.

So again, what specifically about the GW model is problematic for you?


Amazing this proof that can't be linked to. Especially when it's been shown by any number of people that CO2 is actually a lagging indicator of periods of warming.

Can you find any links that explain how CO2 drives temperature when it doesn't increase until after the temperatures have already increased?


Good explanation here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
Basically it says that CO2 is not responsible for kicking the earth out of the ice age but takes over after.

But we are not in an ice age, so saying that CO2 cant kickstart the warming period does not really matter today as we are well out of the iceage period.


That's basically what the link says. I've seen the source and others with the same explanation.

To expound -

The planet gets warmer. We're not sure why. Orbital changes perhaps.
Sometime later, about 800+- years, CO2 levels rise.
The CO2 levels then for some reason drive even further heating for about 4000+- years.
At that point some other process takes over, radiation perhaps. And in spite of the still very high CO2 levels the plant cools.
CO2 levels fall.
The cycle of about 5000 years ends.

So we don't know for sure what causes the initial increase or the termination of this cycle. Yet somehow we know with certainly that in the middle part of the cycle CO2 levels are responsible.

Ok, but you might see why I'm somewhat skeptical given that at both ends of the temperature step CO2 is not a factor. Just in the middle. And no mention of water vapor or anything else that might be a much larger factor in this cycle. It's conveniently all about CO2, a trace element in the atmosphere.

In any case they're just stating the same thing yet again. CO2 casues a temperature rise. Not a word as to why, and why only when it's already warm.

It's progress though. At least we've now all acknowledged the CO2 lag I spoke of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Tax Propoasal Raises Tax on Domestic Companies
Replies
0
Views
32
Trvlr500
buster
  • Locked
ExxonMobil CEO defends high profits
Replies
11
Views
4K
ekpolk
T
  • Locked
Cuba to drill five new oil wells
2
Replies
27
Views
14K
Silverado12
T
  • Locked
Oil will dominate for decades and why
Replies
13
Views
4K
MarkC
P
  • Locked
U.S. Energy Independence Soars To Highest Level In Over 70 Years
Replies
10
Views
3K
Astro14
Back
Top Bottom