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.
This forum has a search function based on keywords. That poster is more right than wrong if you care to search....
But the mind still seems pretty tightly closed and one sided. Kind of um... you know, brainwashed like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
There is no perfect system when humans are involved due to our nature. Yourself and other critics of the peer review system have no problem when it is producing benefits that you like and agree with me. Talk about "politics".
No, I am skeptical on all academics and journals, especially ones where the entrenched idea gets to vote on who gets published and reviewed. I live in the real world, not the cloisters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
And we have collected data that allows us to make inferences on events that have occurred over hundreds and thousands of years. Seems you don't have a grasp of how they are doing things.
Oh wow..... 100's and 1000's of years when climate moves in 10,000's, 100,000's and even 1,000,000's of years.
Tell me what the temperature was in Atlanta in the Karoo Ice Age? That was about 260,000,000 years ago and I think the period lasted around 100,000,000 years. Not sure 100's and 1000's of years are statistically significant in 100 million years.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Does it just work one way or did you simply ignore the attacks by the skeptics?
I dunno, it seems pretty one sided in this thread and pretty consistent without an ounce of reasonableness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Unfortunately, it seems many people aren't educated on trusting sources, like the OP who keeps using Mr. Booker as an authority.
I don't see where he put Mr. Booker forward as an authority. I believe Mr. Booker was mentioning that five other men were going to investigate and he said what they were investigating. I didn't see him claiming any authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Then take a course and figure out why it is. Seems you have a lot of premises that simply aren't true.
I am willing to bet that I've taken more courses from Nobel Laureates than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
The internet is full of good information, try using google scholar to find your answers. Educate yourself instead of having people do it for you.
The Internet is full of garbage too.
Physician, heal thyself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Until people learn to stop starting threads based on flawed premises.
No they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Yawn. You complain about politics and then engage in it......
Seems like you've already made up your mind on the issue. Is it because you dislike liberals and the government? Or can understand and educate yourself on statistical methods that are employed from astrophysicists to drug efficacy to genetics to robotics to climate change.
I don't know how old you are, but you don't address what I said. I've been watching the modern environmental movement for decades and is it coincidence that they have never been able to get traction on anything to accomplish their goals and now we have global warming/climate change. And lo' and behold the 'remedies' for global warming/climate change are the same goals that the modern environmental movement has seeking unsuccessfully over all those decades. I don't believe in coincidences.
Perhaps you can educate yourself on statistical modeling. My education was from the guy(s) who wrote the book.... literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
There it is. AGW is liberal/communism/socialist drivel in your eyes. Of course you don't mind it when skeptics do it.....
It might well be. I will keep an open mind on it and not throw a hissy fit when someone disagrees with me.
Follow the money. Carbon taxes, higher energy prices, Al Gore and others getting filthy rich off the AGW scam, and yes, even the energy companies will reap billions off of the AGW hoax.
Yea I just told you where the money is and it AINT on the side you disparage.
...More important, in 2003 Gore joined the board of directors at Apple (AAPL). The position came with $50,000 a year in fees and an accumulated tens of millions in Apple stock. Since 2001 Gore has also been a senior advisor to Google (GOOG), where he received significant pre-public stock options.
And then there was the co-founding of Current Media in 2002. Six years later, when the company registered to go public (never completing the planned IPO), it listed Gore's annual compensation for 2007 at $1.05 million. That was the same year that Gore became a partner at storied Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Gore's growing celebrity, especially since the 2006 release of the film "An Inconvenient Truth" (the proceeds of which he reportedly donated to charity), has made for a lucrative sideline business on the lecture circuit. He collects as much as $175,000 per speech.
By 2008, Gore was already able to invest $35 million in hedge funds and private partnerships. After the sale of Current, Forbes "conservatively estimates" that Gore is worth at least $300 million, or more than Mitt Romney.
But the mind still seems pretty tightly closed and one sided. Kind of um... you know, brainwashed like.
Yep, those "skeptics" can't confront what the science says.
Quote:
No, I am skeptical on all academics and journals, especially ones where the entrenched idea gets to vote on who gets published and reviewed. I live in the real world, not the cloisters.
In the real world, the process works.
Quote:
Oh wow..... 100's and 1000's of years when climate moves in 10,000's, 100,000's and even 1,000,000's of years.
Meant hundreds of thousands of years. Obviously we have dated things to billions of years and I'm not sure
Quote:
Tell me what the temperature was in Atlanta in the Karoo Ice Age? That was about 260,000,000 years ago and I think the period lasted around 100,000,000 years. Not sure 100's and 1000's of years are statistically significant in 100 million years.....
And if I did tell you.... What then? What does that prove or how is that information useful? I obviously could care less about even trying to find that and I would be surprised if that exact information for that time and location exists. It's amusing you'd just throw out some random time and location to make an irrelevant point that doesn't fit into the validity of AGW.
Quote:
I dunno, it seems pretty one sided in this thread and pretty consistent without an ounce of reasonableness.
Why, because you've already decided to not open you mind because of Saul Alinsky....? You've opened up yourself with that statement earlier.
Quote:
I don't see where he put Mr. Booker forward as an authority. I believe Mr. Booker was mentioning that five other men were going to investigate and he said what they were investigating. I didn't see him claiming any authority.
He has a blog which he uses to promote his "message" as scientifically based.
Quote:
I am willing to bet that I've taken more courses from Nobel Laureates than you.
I'll call that internet bluff.
Quote:
The Internet is full of garbage too.
Physician, heal thyself.
Sure is, that's why you should use resources like google scholar. But hey, whatever, can't trust that I bet.
Quote:
I don't know how old you are, but you don't address what I said. I've been watching the modern environmental movement for decades and is it coincidence that they have never been able to get traction on anything to accomplish their goals and now we have global warming/climate change. And lo' and behold the 'remedies' for global warming/climate change are the same goals that the modern environmental movement has seeking unsuccessfully over all those decades. I don't believe in coincidences.
Address what? You blamed the media, blasted politics, and the literally proceeded to insert your own politics.
As I was explaining a few posts above, there is a large, monied interest in the status quo. It's naive to think the "modern environmental movement" (is there a classic one?) hasn't scored any victories.
And what goals are those? God forbid we use our resources better.... especially non-renewable resources in the face of a global boom and modernization. But gubmit bad, taxes, grrr taxes, high energy prices, grrr, gubmit bad.
Quote:
Perhaps you can educate yourself on statistical modeling. My education was from the guy(s) who wrote the book.... literally.
Cool story.
Quote:
It might well be. I will keep an open mind on it and not throw a hissy fit when someone disagrees with me.
Do you know what a hissy fit is? Take your own advice when you encounter someone who disagrees with you.
This is when the sediment record indicates the Pacific once again flowed into the Arctic Ocean.
Today, the depth of the Bering straits is 50 meters, so we know we went from zero to 50 meters in 15,500 years.
CO2 had nothing to do with that.
Even if we accept without reservation that the present linear rate of sea level increase is a new phenomenon (150 years), it still predates large scale use of fossil fuels and is unchanged in more than a century, so the whole CO2 connection is bull ****.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
It didn't go from 0 to 50 meters in 15,500 years.
Most of it went from 0 to more or less 50 meters in about 5000 years.
Then it remained more or less in its present state for another 10,000 years.
The bulk of the sea level rise actually happened over about 3000 years, which is extremely fast.
My point is that it wasn't a consistent rate of sea level rise for all 15,500 years, and including deglaciation in your average is misleading.
Oh so you're one of those 'climate change can't have more than one cause' people.
I guess that matches can't start forest fires because we all know that forest fires start on their own. Ceist actually said this a few posts back-- I think it should become a running thing whenever someone brings out the whole 'it happens naturally therefore humans can't be the cause' fallacy.
"Most of it went from 0 to more or less 50 meters in about 5000 years. Then it remained more or less in its present state for another 10,000 years."
We know with a high degree of certainty that the Bering Land Bridge was open until 15,500 years BP when the Pacific began again flowing into the Arctic Ocean.
So yes, it did indeed go from zero to 50 meters in 15,500 years.
If you want to make the assertion that it went from zero to near 50 meters in a short period of time and then rose more slowly after that, there may be some truth to that and I would be interested in seeing evidence apart from wild speculation.
"Most of it went from 0 to more or less 50 meters in about 5000 years. Then it remained more or less in its present state for another 10,000 years."
We know with a high degree of certainty that the Bering Land Bridge was open until 15,500 years BP when the Pacific began again flowing into the Arctic Ocean.
So yes, it did indeed go from zero to 50 meters in 15,500 years.
If you want to make the assertion that it went from zero to near 50 meters in a short period of time and then rose more slowly after that, there may be some truth to that and I would be interested in seeing evidence apart from wild speculation.
It's not speculation and it definitely isn't wild. I looked all of this stuff up before I typed it here. If you had looked into it yourself, you would have seen this. Coming up with averages over large periods of time while disregarding all natural climate variations within those periods of time might help deniers with their narratives, but they're not accurate representations of how AGW has affected the climate.
There's a gif on this page that shows how deglaciation affected the land bridge:
The gif starts at the height of the glacial period, then follows it all the way through deglaciation into the stabilized interglacial climate that we have today.
Of course, there were still significant changes after 10,000 years ago, but the most dramatic changes happened before that. There is however no denying that there have been no significant changes for the past 3 or 4 thousand years. For that timeframe, the rate of a few tenths of a millimeter per year seems about right. AGW has changed that-- we're now around 3 mm/year. Of course, this has only been over maybe a few decades, not 1000 years.
All ice core graphs show rapid warming from glacial to interglacial climates, and they correspond with Milankovitch Cycles. All 4 of the past interglacials were brought on by very rapid warming, though not all of them were as stable as the current interglacial climate. Deglaciation isn't some gradual occurrence that proceeds at an even rate, and therefore neither is sea level rise.
Quote:
Why do glacial periods end abruptly?
Notice the asymmetric shape of the Dome Fuji temperature record, with abrupt warmings shown in yellow preceding more gradual coolings (Figure 3). Warming at the end of glacial periods tends to happen more abruptly than the increase in solar insolation. There are several positive feedbacks that are responsible for this. One is the ice-albedo feedback. A second feedback involves atmospheric CO2. Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in ice core bubbles show that the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreased during glacial periods (Figure 3), in part because more CO2 was stored in the deep ocean due to changes in either ocean mixing or biological activity. Lower CO2 levels weakened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and helped to maintain low temperatures. Warming at the end of the glacial periods liberated CO2 from the ocean, which strengthened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and contributed to further warming.
Increased solar radiance melts the ice, which both causes ice-albedo feedback and releases CO2, which contributes to the greenhouse effect that rapidly warms the Earth. Over relatively short periods of time (ie: not tens of millions of years), more CO2 means a warmer Earth. It doesn't matter how it gets in the atmosphere.
Last edited by Spatula City; 04-28-2015 at 07:12 AM..
"Most of it went from 0 to more or less 50 meters in about 5000 years. Then it remained more or less in its present state for another 10,000 years."
We know with a high degree of certainty that the Bering Land Bridge was open until 15,500 years BP when the Pacific began again flowing into the Arctic Ocean. ...
You made these same claims in the other thread, but you have not yet given any references for your information. I'm going to repost my response from that thread to see if you will answer it here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
It might help if you could reference the sources for your claims. I'm not saying your wrong, but estimates tend to vary over time based on different assumptions and improving technologies for measurement, etc.
For example, this archeological page (concerned more with the possibility of human's crossing the straight and/or living on the land, rather than climate change, as such) says:
Whether Beringia was habitable or not at a given time is determined by the sea level and presence of surrounding ice: specifically, whenever the sea level drops about 50 meters (~164 feet) below its present position, the land surfaces. The dates when this happened in the past have been difficult to establish....
Ice cores seem to indicate that most of the Bering Land Bridge was exposed during Oxygen Isotope Stage 3 (60,000 to 25,000 years ago), connecting Siberia and North America: and the land mass was above sea level but cut off from east and west land bridges during OIS 2 (25,000 to about 18,500 years BP).
So this agrees with your 50 meters, but if 18,500 is correct, then instead of 3.2 we get 2.7 mm/yr.
So what is the best estimate for the years since the land was exposed? I don't know, but I do know that if anyone is going to make a claim one way or another, they really ought to give a reference for their data. Otherwise someone could spew data that is decades old, or that is based on disproven assumptions, etc.
This is a perfect example of why I want people to give references when posting claims of fact or data in this thread.
And if I did tell you.... What then? What does that prove or how is that information useful? I obviously could care less about even trying to find that and I would be surprised if that exact information for that time and location exists. It's amusing you'd just throw out some random time and location to make an irrelevant point that doesn't fit into the validity of AGW.
What it proves is that where a temperature is taken is relevant, when it was taken is relevant and what has happened in area between readings is relevant. I find it amusing that when confronted on basic issues that call to question your understanding of the issues you sputter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
He has a blog which he uses to promote his "message" as scientifically based.
He may well have a blog, bully for him, but no where in the article posted at the start of this thread did he present him self as an authority he merely talked about an upcoming investigation.
That led to wailing, a gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from the high priests of conformity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I'll call that internet bluff.
My undergraduate degrees and one graduate degree are from Berkeley where I took classes from at least six Nobel Laureates in physics and chemistry, it might have been seven, because of subsequent awards and I am not even counting the two winners in economics I took classes from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Sure is, that's why you should use resources like google scholar. But hey, whatever, can't trust that I bet.
Your belief in Google Scholar is touching, but it gets into the same issues being in the echo chamber.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Address what? You blamed the media, blasted politics, and the literally proceeded to insert your own politics. As I was explaining a few posts above, there is a large, monied interest in the status quo. It's naive to think the "modern environmental movement" (is there a classic one?) hasn't scored any victories. And what goals are those? God forbid we use our resources better.... especially non-renewable resources in the face of a global boom and modernization. But gubmit bad, taxes, grrr taxes, high energy prices, grrr, gubmit bad.
So I am right, you are young. That is what we call being callow.
I didn't blame the media for anything, I was addressing what someone else was presenting, which was that since the media no longer did 'global warming' stories that therefore it was settled science, etc.
In case you have not noticed, there is also a huge monied interest in pushing climate change.
As further proof of your immaturity and lack of experience you go back to attack and mock mode because that works so well in your age set.
Yes, there is a classic environmental movement, it was called conservation and it has been around a lot longer and accomplished more good than the modern environmental movement.
Go to your Google Scholar and search "radical environmentalism" and you can see the goals.
Yea I just told you where the money is and it AINT on the side you disparage.
Al Gore didn't get rich off the green money.
Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million.
Gore charted this path by returning to his longtime passion — clean energy. He benefited from a powerful resume and a constellation of friends in the investment world and in Washington. And four years ago, his portfolio aligned smoothly with the agenda of an incoming administration and its plan to spend billions in stimulus funds on alternative energy.
The recovering politician was pushing the right cause at the perfect time.
Fourteen green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of President Obama’s historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money.
Over the course of his metamorphosis, Gore became an environmentalist hero with release of his award-winning film and book warning of carbon emissions dangerously overheating the planet. He founded an investment firm devoted in part to backing green-minded companies and later partnered with a leading venture capital firm to invest in clean energy start-ups.
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.
