Average temperatures also fluctuate within spans of 100years or less.Spark wrote:
Gee, what a great response. Fantastic way to argue that a source is bad, they're 'full of shit'. Well done.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
1. yes natural variations can happen inside a hundred years. In fact every day teh tempurature fluctualtes around 20FSpark wrote:
Are you going to try and actually debunk Scorpion's soruces?
And be realistic here. How would you graph CO2 vs. 400 000 years using hte same scale, without making it ridiculously small or ridiculously long?
Also: NATURAL VARIATIONS CANNOT AND DO NOT HAPPEN INSIDE A HUNDRED YEARS.
Once again:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … lation.jpg
Source: US Govt.
2. U.S. goverment has, and always will be, full of shit
Natural variations - don't be a complete idiot. You know perfectly well that I mean (and everybody else means) AVERAGES.
Eh it's the truth. You shouldn't trust a source who puts gag orders on their scientists (under penalty of jail time). Government scientist actually cannot, by law, say anything about global climate change, unless it is "approved".Spark wrote:
Gee, what a great response. Fantastic way to argue that a source is bad, they're 'full of shit'. Well done.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
1. yes natural variations can happen inside a hundred years. In fact every day teh tempurature fluctualtes around 20FSpark wrote:
Are you going to try and actually debunk Scorpion's soruces?
And be realistic here. How would you graph CO2 vs. 400 000 years using hte same scale, without making it ridiculously small or ridiculously long?
Also: NATURAL VARIATIONS CANNOT AND DO NOT HAPPEN INSIDE A HUNDRED YEARS.
Once again:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … lation.jpg
Source: US Govt.
2. U.S. goverment has, and always will be, full of shit
Natural variations - don't be a complete idiot. You know perfectly well that I mean (and everybody else means) AVERAGES.
So I think that "full of shit" is a perfect way of stating it.
I find it odd that some play off weather patterns as bullshit yet we do not understand weather to the point where we can say that it is not the cause of this.
True - but if they go up they invariably go down again (and vice versa) - thereby keeping the average temp flat. Now - they're going up. And up. And up. And up.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Average temperatures also fluctuate within spans of 100years or less.Spark wrote:
Gee, what a great response. Fantastic way to argue that a source is bad, they're 'full of shit'. Well done.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
1. yes natural variations can happen inside a hundred years. In fact every day teh tempurature fluctualtes around 20F
2. U.S. goverment has, and always will be, full of shit
Natural variations - don't be a complete idiot. You know perfectly well that I mean (and everybody else means) AVERAGES.
I agree that temperature drives CO2 - partly. I think that OUR CO2 release, compounded with truly mind-boggling deforestation and burning of forests, is driving temperature up, which releases more CO2, compounding the problem. This is by no means a phenomena entirely caused by humans - simply the carbon cycle. It has happened before - but never this fast.
Also: if the oceans around the poles are warmer, they are less likely to absorb CO2 (again, carbon cycle). Problem.
I would say that small increases in temperature caused by increases by CO2, causes more increases in CO2, and so on. Therefore, this is a kind of feedback effect, and can quickly spiral out of control.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
For all this pointless debate, I blame Exxon-Mobil.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
But if the increase in temperature is locked to the increase in CO2 then that too should "spiral out of control" - but it isn't. Yeah, it's going up, a bit. But nothing like as fast as it should be if temperature was so closely locked to CO2 release.Spark wrote:
True - but if they go up they invariably go down again (and vice versa) - thereby keeping the average temp flat. Now - they're going up. And up. And up. And up.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Average temperatures also fluctuate within spans of 100years or less.Spark wrote:
Gee, what a great response. Fantastic way to argue that a source is bad, they're 'full of shit'. Well done.
Natural variations - don't be a complete idiot. You know perfectly well that I mean (and everybody else means) AVERAGES.
I agree that temperature drives CO2 - partly. I think that OUR CO2 release, compounded with truly mind-boggling deforestation and burning of forests, is driving temperature up, which releases more CO2, compounding the problem. This is by no means a phenomena entirely caused by humans - simply the carbon cycle. It has happened before - but never this fast.
Also: if the oceans around the poles are warmer, they are less likely to absorb CO2 (again, carbon cycle). Problem.
I would say that small increases in temperature caused by increases by CO2, causes more increases in CO2, and so on. Therefore, this is a kind of feedback effect, and can quickly spiral out of control.
If you look at the ice age cycle we're lucky that world isn't cooling. In fact in the seventies they were worried that we were entering the next ice age already...
True - but invariably if you have a hot day, you will also later have a cold day. It then follows that you should have 50 hot years, you should also have, dispersed among the hot years, 50 cold years.usmarine2007 wrote:
I find it odd that some play off weather patterns as bullshit yet we do not understand weather to the point where we can say that it is not the cause of this.
We've had 50 hot years, and I doubt we've had 50 cold ones.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
How can you say that without totally understanding weather?Spark wrote:
True - but invariably if you have a hot day, you will also later have a cold day. It then follows that you should have 50 hot years, you should also have, dispersed among the hot years, 50 cold years.usmarine2007 wrote:
I find it odd that some play off weather patterns as bullshit yet we do not understand weather to the point where we can say that it is not the cause of this.
We've had 50 hot years, and I doubt we've had 50 cold ones.
That's because humans are, by nature, short-sighted. We don't understand that in geologic and climatic time, our life is a flash in the pan - there one minute, gone the next.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But if the increase in temperature is locked to the increase in CO2 then that too should "spiral out of control" - but it isn't. Yeah, it's going up, a bit. But nothing like as fast as it should be if temperature was so closely locked to CO2 release.Spark wrote:
True - but if they go up they invariably go down again (and vice versa) - thereby keeping the average temp flat. Now - they're going up. And up. And up. And up.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Average temperatures also fluctuate within spans of 100years or less.
I agree that temperature drives CO2 - partly. I think that OUR CO2 release, compounded with truly mind-boggling deforestation and burning of forests, is driving temperature up, which releases more CO2, compounding the problem. This is by no means a phenomena entirely caused by humans - simply the carbon cycle. It has happened before - but never this fast.
Also: if the oceans around the poles are warmer, they are less likely to absorb CO2 (again, carbon cycle). Problem.
I would say that small increases in temperature caused by increases by CO2, causes more increases in CO2, and so on. Therefore, this is a kind of feedback effect, and can quickly spiral out of control.
If you look at the ice age cycle we're lucky that world isn't cooling. In fact in the seventies they were worried that we were entering the next ice age already...
Right now, I would say that the oceans are thankfully acting as a brake to CO2/temp. When that stops acting as a brake and starts acting as an accelerator, we're in big trouble.
Global warming isn't a new theory, btw, it's almost 150 years old. Though back then it was seen as a catalyst for an ice age. (also: ice ages are tied into milankovitch cycles - e.g. solar variation. If we're entering the end of the interglacial, solar 'output' (output is a misnomer) should be going DOWN. More importantly, we should be having COOL SUMMERS - and we sure as hell aren't having those.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Solar output was going up, it is now going down and the temperature change, that is the cause of ice ages, lags behind the change in solar output.Spark wrote:
That's because humans are, by nature, short-sighted. We don't understand that in geologic and climatic time, our life is a flash in the pan - there one minute, gone the next.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But if the increase in temperature is locked to the increase in CO2 then that too should "spiral out of control" - but it isn't. Yeah, it's going up, a bit. But nothing like as fast as it should be if temperature was so closely locked to CO2 release.Spark wrote:
True - but if they go up they invariably go down again (and vice versa) - thereby keeping the average temp flat. Now - they're going up. And up. And up. And up.
I agree that temperature drives CO2 - partly. I think that OUR CO2 release, compounded with truly mind-boggling deforestation and burning of forests, is driving temperature up, which releases more CO2, compounding the problem. This is by no means a phenomena entirely caused by humans - simply the carbon cycle. It has happened before - but never this fast.
Also: if the oceans around the poles are warmer, they are less likely to absorb CO2 (again, carbon cycle). Problem.
I would say that small increases in temperature caused by increases by CO2, causes more increases in CO2, and so on. Therefore, this is a kind of feedback effect, and can quickly spiral out of control.
If you look at the ice age cycle we're lucky that world isn't cooling. In fact in the seventies they were worried that we were entering the next ice age already...
Right now, I would say that the oceans are thankfully acting as a brake to CO2/temp. When that stops acting as a brake and starts acting as an accelerator, we're in big trouble.
Global warming isn't a new theory, btw, it's almost 150 years old. Though back then it was seen as a catalyst for an ice age. (also: ice ages are tied into milankovitch cycles - e.g. solar variation. If we're entering the end of the interglacial, solar 'output' (output is a misnomer) should be going DOWN. More importantly, we should be having COOL SUMMERS - and we sure as hell aren't having those.
How is 'output' a misnomer? The sun puts out a massive amount of energy - some of which drives the ice age cycle.
And to quote you "humans are, by nature, short-sighted. We don't understand that in geologic and climatic time, our life is a flash in the pan - there one minute, gone the next" - so your statement of "we should be having COOL SUMMERS - and we sure as hell aren't having those" is meaningless because you're talking in terms of a human life span.
I know, but the milankovitch cycles rely on the amount of energy absorbed by the earth - not the amount released by the sun. There's a difference.
Well... according to Koppen, just one cool summer is enough for an ice age.
My statement on short-sightedness refers to those who think that natural variations occur very fast.
Well... according to Koppen, just one cool summer is enough for an ice age.
My statement on short-sightedness refers to those who think that natural variations occur very fast.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Define what you mean by "natural variations".
Ice ages - milankovitch cycles. Overall solar output (which has actually increased a fair bit since 6 billion years ago).Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Define what you mean by "natural variations".
In paticular, variations in the long-term carbon cycle.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
when did the solar system get 1.5 billion years older?Spark wrote:
Ice ages - milankovitch cycles. Overall solar output (which has actually increased a fair bit since 6 billion years ago).Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Define what you mean by "natural variations".
In paticular, variations in the long-term carbon cycle.
In that case, you are correct 'natural variations' (in your terms) do not happen in the space of 100years or less (quite obviously). However that is not what everybody means by 'natural variations'.
What?HeimdalX wrote:
when did the solar system get 1.5 billion years older?Spark wrote:
Ice ages - milankovitch cycles. Overall solar output (which has actually increased a fair bit since 6 billion years ago).Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Define what you mean by "natural variations".
In paticular, variations in the long-term carbon cycle.
The sun formed about 6 billion years ago...
Surely you aren't going to question that too?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Mostly, I and everyone else means changes to the carbon cycle.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
In that case, you are correct 'natural variations' (in your terms) do not happen in the space of 100years or less (quite obviously). However that is not what everybody means by 'natural variations'.
Note: I will no longer be calling global warming 'global warming'. I'll be calling it 'changes to the carbon cycle', as this encompasses CO2 increases, deforestation, burning, Global dimming, the whole package.
If you see me using the old term, alert me.
Last edited by Spark (2007-03-24 23:11:17)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
When they measure the global temperature, it isn't one bloke walking outside with a thermometer and deciding that todays global temperature is 'a bit cold'. Weather makes pretty well no difference to global temperature measuring asusmarine2007 wrote:
How can you say that without totally understanding weather?Spark wrote:
True - but invariably if you have a hot day, you will also later have a cold day. It then follows that you should have 50 hot years, you should also have, dispersed among the hot years, 50 cold years.usmarine2007 wrote:
I find it odd that some play off weather patterns as bullshit yet we do not understand weather to the point where we can say that it is not the cause of this.
We've had 50 hot years, and I doubt we've had 50 cold ones.
a) Global temperature is occuring on a completely different timescale to weather. Take readings every day at loads of different points around the globe and you'll find that local weather variations will even themselves out of the equation.
b) Readings tend to be taken above there the weather is occuring anyway.
Apologies, seems that I overlooked this post.usmarine2007 wrote:
How can you say that without totally understanding weather?Spark wrote:
True - but invariably if you have a hot day, you will also later have a cold day. It then follows that you should have 50 hot years, you should also have, dispersed among the hot years, 50 cold years.usmarine2007 wrote:
I find it odd that some play off weather patterns as bullshit yet we do not understand weather to the point where we can say that it is not the cause of this.
We've had 50 hot years, and I doubt we've had 50 cold ones.
Well, if we notice global changes in weather patterns, we're in big, big trouble whether it's man-made or not.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
What a lovely topic.. just been reading up on this. Ive decided to stopped debating this with people because they are unwilling to read up on it themselves, PEOPLE LEARN TO READ BOOKS. Get off the internet for once in your lives.
Global Warming is more than likely caused by an increase carbon output by humans.
Scorpion0x17 go read Global Warming A Very Short Introduction. Then come back to me on the topic.
Global Warming is more than likely caused by an increase carbon output by humans.
Scorpion0x17 go read Global Warming A Very Short Introduction. Then come back to me on the topic.
'The Weather Makers' is good too, but for a balanced view I also suggest 'State of Fear' - a very good warning not be be overpolitical or oversensationalist.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman