Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-03-2015, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,057,177 times
Reputation: 13985

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanR View Post
OK, I'm looking at this chart and seeing that over the last 450,000 years, we have a 12°C (53°F) temp swing every 100,000 years or so and I doubt this is man made.

I also see CO2 peaking at about 300ppm.

If we're at 400ppm now, why aren't we off the top of the temperature chart if CO2 links directly to temperature?
Uh, 12C difference does not equal 53F difference, it equals a 21.6F difference.(1 degree C equals 1.8 degrees F)....Of course past climate change was not man made, but the reasons are understood......

Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession). http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/surv...t-causes-them/


Give it a bit more time....We will get there and beyond....I don't know why some people think climate change is an instant process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2015, 07:12 PM
 
30,024 posts, read 18,596,563 times
Reputation: 20808
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Right....You say is no link between CO2 and temperature....What does it it take to ignore evidence like this?
Are you too obtuse to understand ordinate vs abscissa?

CO2 levels rise BEFORE an increase in temo, rather than the other way around. Further, CO2 levels rise AFTER methane levels.

Your "data" shows an ignorance of science and graphic trends.

Perhaps you neglected to look at the post in which I showed geological CO2 levels and temps over time. Are you just too lazy, or afraid to face facts which refute your cult?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2015, 07:16 PM
 
30,024 posts, read 18,596,563 times
Reputation: 20808
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanR View Post
OK, I'm looking at this chart and seeing that over the last 450,000 years, we have a 12°C (53°F) temp swing every 100,000 years or so and I doubt this is man made.

I also see CO2 peaking at about 300ppm.

If we're at 400ppm now, why aren't we off the top of the temperature chart if CO2 links directly to temperature?
A Winner!

Yes- these changes are regular and cyclical and predate man! The AGW group conveniently ignores CO2 ice core data, as it refutes the core premise of their cult.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2015, 08:16 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,645,759 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
So....................... it appears you cannot think for yourself, as expected. I posted a publication link for NATURE for Christ's sake (one of the best scientific journals in the world) that showed CO2 levels in the past were 4-5X higher than they are today. You just won't read it, as it refutes the beliefs of your cult. I can't help you if you are that lazy. Further, I posted links showing the temp and CO2 data over time- you are just too lazy (or frightened) to read it.

PS- I posted the link earlier that showed the CO2 temps in the 2000 + range with temps even lower (and sometimes higher) than they are now. The fact is that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over earth's history- that is the point.

You cannot explain any of the inconsistencies with AGW as they cannot be explained if one clings to a flawed hypothesis.

You have science backwards. It is incumbent upon those promoting the hypothesis and disprove the "null hypothesis" to "prove" the contention, not the other way around. AGW is analagous to saying that Elvis is alive and well, selling Gelato on Pluto. Because you cannot PROVE otherwise, it is true.

WAKE UP.
Could please tell me what post # the Nature link is located in, or re-post the link (I was unable to find the link.)

Thank you,
Chad.

Note to self: Reply to post #54 with link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2015, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,057,177 times
Reputation: 13985
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Are you too obtuse to understand ordinate vs abscissa?

CO2 levels rise BEFORE an increase in temo, rather than the other way around. Further, CO2 levels rise AFTER methane levels.

Your "data" shows an ignorance of science and graphic trends.

Perhaps you neglected to look at the post in which I showed geological CO2 levels and temps over time. Are you just too lazy, or afraid to face facts which refute your cult?
It is not my data, or graph...It is from the science journal Nature......It's not me who is ignorant of climate science...Just the fact that you do not know why CO2 spikes AFTER the temperature rises tells me that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2015, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,057,177 times
Reputation: 13985
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
A Winner!

Yes- these changes are regular and cyclical and predate man! The AGW group conveniently ignores CO2 ice core data, as it refutes the core premise of their cult.
A winner? The poster cannot even convert Celsius to Fahrenheit.....Who exactly do you think is gathering ice core data if not climate science? It is certainly not being ignored.... 800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2015, 10:19 PM
 
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,620 posts, read 12,707,557 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamies View Post
Yeah, because third world countries are so environmentally considerate. Ever tried to breathe in Mexico City, or Bejing?

or in india..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_HXEHf6IPg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
30,119 posts, read 18,921,258 times
Reputation: 26021
The UN is the most corrupt organization on the planet. This is all about obtaining money they can put in their corrupt pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 05:42 AM
 
1,344 posts, read 3,395,210 times
Reputation: 2487
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
A winner? The poster cannot even convert Celsius to Fahrenheit...
My bad. Used the wrong calculator.
Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion (ºC to ºF)
It gave me the thermometer value for 12°C.
Thought 53° was way to high but had to get back to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2015, 06:47 AM
 
30,024 posts, read 18,596,563 times
Reputation: 20808
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Could please tell me what post # the Nature link is located in, or re-post the link (I was unable to find the link.)

Thank you,
Chad.

Note to self: Reply to post #54 with link.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years : Abstract : Nature

The planet did not boil then, despite CO2 levels 4-5X those of today.

The problem with AGW is that there are SO MANY inconsistencies and contradictions in the theory that cannot be explained if one clings to the hypothesis. In actual science, one begins to question the hypothesis with the accumulation of data that refutes the hypothesis.

Again, we had the "GRAND GLOBAL WARMING EXPERIMENT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION" in which man made CO2 levels fell dramtically (to a degree that could never be achieved again) due to a decline in industrial output (gee............. this is what the AGW crowd wants, right?). Despite the decline in CO2 production, TEMPS INCREASED. Now how can you explain that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top