Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Northern Europe is not the world...Globally at that time the temperatures were cooler than they are today.
It's just amazing, I'm beginning to think it is a cult. How can you so callously disregard that graph? You have the climate of a region plotted over 2000 years, it means nothing? Doesn't fit you're predetermined conclusion? You're trying to suggest it's a weather pattern?
FYI if you are going to throw out that graph you can throw the rest of them out as well that do not contain observed data.
If you can still say with a straight face that anthropogenic climate change is a scam / hoax / whatever, let's hear the explanation.
AGW is unproven theory. You can graph all the GIGO all you want. It is still unproven theory. When you have FACTS, not theory, come back to the table. And don't bring that garbage that the science is settled. That doesn't even pass the smell test.
You still cannot show me evidence that confirms that excess CO2 has nothing to do with rising temperatures?
Basic physics shows CO2 level rises and falls when temps rise and fall. What controls global temp, is water vapor in the atmosphere. A lot of that has fallen due to precipitation. CO2 levels may have risen but the global temp has remained static for 17 years.
AGW is unproven theory. You can graph all the GIGO all you want. It is still unproven theory. When you have FACTS, not theory, come back to the table. And don't bring that garbage that the science is settled. That doesn't even pass the smell test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
Basic physics shows CO2 level rises and falls when temps rise and fall. What controls global temp, is water vapor in the atmosphere. A lot of that has fallen due to precipitation. CO2 levels may have risen but the global temp has remained static for 17 years.
The AGW theory falls flat on its face.
How do you have the audacity to ask for facts, then make a ludicrous claim that global temp has remained static for 17 years, with no evidence of your own?
How do you have the audacity to ask for facts, then make a ludicrous claim that global temp has remained static for 17 years, with no evidence of your own?
Perhaps if the clowns like Gore and liberals who hold no credibility harped this and wanted to tax emissions, you'd have a case. That in itself convinces me it is a money grab by government and the elite knowing they are bull****ing me constantly anyhow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
What I accept:
the Earth's atmosphere, including the two variables of global mean temperature and CO2 as % of the greenhouse gas volume, is an infinitely complex system with infinite interactions happening at nanosecond intervals that chaos theory shows being so sensitive to changes in any of the infinite input variables that predictions about the value of any variable have less than 50% chance of one-sigma accuracy inside of 36 hours.
that, like all the other infinite number of variables in the atmospheric equation, global mean temperature can and does fluctuate. Sometimes wildly, sometimes not at all.
chaos theory.
What I do not accept:
The "equation" of the Earth's atmosphere can be reduced to a single linear function T = Ck, where T = global mean temperature, C = man made carbon dioxide just from burning fossil fuels and k = some constant.
That anyone has determined the "equation" for the atmosphere, or has come within infinity of doing so.
That one of the two most important gas compounds for sustaining life on this planet is harmful.
The notion that any science is settled based on consensus about the past rather than repeated experiments that prove a hypothesis concerning the present and future.
Questions that remain unanswered in the graphs:
Are all the temperature data collection locations the same as they were in 1880?
Are all the temperature collection devices the exact same, and annually calibrated by the same certifying authority, since 1880?
has the proximity of any of the temperature data collecting devices to an urban heat bloom changed since 1880?
What was the data collection method for the CO2 concentration 400,000 years ago and how does it differ from 300k, 200k, etc years ago and today?
I am not a "denier", I am just going to need a lot of questions answered before I find panic about catastrophic events, or suggestions of global economic upheaval at the hands of the UN General assembly, to have any merit.
Why should we explain the ins and outs of science for you?
Data collection uses radioactive dating. Earth's history is cyclical and predictable. They are caused by Milankovitch cycles. That is how the Earth-Sun energy relationship is plotted on the graph I provided.
The Earth is a wobbling spinning top, that revolves and rotates imperfectly. The imperfections cause the climatic variations.
Now, I asked for explanations, not questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
whipping out "people who dont think like me are holocost deniars" are we? LOL.
Well, it is not in fact a lie to say that the Earth has not warmed since 1998. the link I provided above (to a warmist site) shows clearly that the earth temperature has stabalized over the last 17ish years.
dont panic, it will get hot this summer and you can blame it on me.
"It hasn't warmed" is a flat out lie. Re-examine the evidence provided.
Feel free to provide an explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
Arguments are not evidence. And questions are not evidence.
Three things need to be done to establish proof of global warming. First, you or others need to establish an agreed to standard of proof for whatever it is that you are alleging (think criminal trial standards). Second, you or others need to get public buy-in to that standard of proof. Third, you or others need to isolate the effect of changes due to nature from any alleged man-made effect on trends or statistical variances.
As best I know, there is no standard of proof such as our standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal trials and our standard of preponderance of the evidence (51/49) in civil trials.
Moreover, as best I know, there is no dispositive evidence that proves global warming exists against any standard of proof.
For the moment, let's forget the ongoing argument about what is causing climate change.
Let's instead, cut to the nitty-gritty of it all:
1. What EXACTLY, can we expect to happen if the "warming" continues?
2. What proof is there that what is expected will actually happen?
3. What is being done, AT THE PRESENT TIME, to allow mankind to adapt to the inevitable changes?
4. If nothing is being done to adapt to the inevitable, WHY NOT?
5. Nature is, and has always been, "The survival of the Fittest!" and "ADAPT OR DIE!" IS mankind the fittest, and will we adapt or die?
IMO, if nothing is being done to adapt, it means that there is no reason to adapt, which means that it is all much ado about nothing, and all the dire doom and gloom predictions of decreased crop lands and rising sea levels are simply scare tactics. If they were REAL threats, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, would be doing something to adapt to the threat.
Is any coastal country building seawalls and dikes to hold back the rising sea? NO? WHY NOT!!!
I've done enough homework for you. I am sure you will like the last link; full of the types of graphs you love so much.
They will just shoot down the sources and remain obtuse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
