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.
12 years is hardly a blip in the time scales we are talking about. Drawing conclusions from it exposes your very weak knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
That's the problem - TWELVE YEARS IS A "BLIP" ON THE SCALE OF CLIMATE AND EARTH'S HISTORY.
If you think that twelve years is enough time to evaluate climate and CO2, then you already had your definitive answers which DISPROVE man made global warming.
1. CO2 production has fallen 10% over the last ten years, yet there has not been the expected "cooling" and lower temps- they have remained the same. So the global warming crowd achieved the CO2 reduction they wanted and there was not the anticipated effect. So why in the world do you think trying this again would yield a different result?
2. In the Great Depression, global industrial output fell 60% and man-made generated CO2 fell markedly. What happened to temps? They increased! So you had 12 years of lower CO2 production and the opposite of the expected result (if we assume that the man-made CO2-warming theory is correct) occurred.
3. WW-2: Massive increases in CO2 occurred, yet temperatures fell.
4. In the fossil record, there are periods in which CO2 levels were several fold what they are today, yet temps were cooler and vice versa.
It would be fantastic if the "global warming" crowd actually looked at the historical temps over the last century compared to man-made CO2 levels and actually looked at the fossil record. However, because this information disproves their hypothesis, they choose to ignore it.
That's the problem - TWELVE YEARS IS A "BLIP" ON THE SCALE OF CLIMATE AND EARTH'S HISTORY.
If you think that twelve years is enough time to evaluate climate and CO2, then you already had your definitive answers which DISPROVE man made global warming.
1. CO2 production has fallen 10% over the last ten years, yet there has not been the expected "cooling" and lower temps- they have remained the same. So the global warming crowd achieved the CO2 reduction they wanted and there was not the anticipated effect. So why in the world do you think trying this again would yield a different result?
2. In the Great Depression, global industrial output fell 60% and man-made generated CO2 fell markedly. What happened to temps? They increased! So you had 12 years of lower CO2 production and the opposite of the expected result (if we assume that the man-made CO2-warming theory is correct) occurred.
3. WW-2: Massive increases in CO2 occurred, yet temperatures fell.
4. In the fossil record, there are periods in which CO2 levels were several fold what they are today, yet temps were cooler and vice versa.
It would be fantastic if the "global warming" crowd actually looked at the historical temps over the last century compared to man-made CO2 levels and actually looked at the fossil record. However, because this information disproves their hypothesis, they choose to ignore it.
Don't bother the global warming folks with actual facts. It annoys them.
That's the problem - TWELVE YEARS IS A "BLIP" ON THE SCALE OF CLIMATE AND EARTH'S HISTORY.
Did you think I meant otherwise? I'm sorry, I should have worded my statement more carefully:
12 years is BARELY a blip in the time scales being discussed.
This is one of those rare points that we actually agree on.
It is rapidly becoming apparent that most posters in this thread cannot grasp the meaning of the words they are reading, because they cannot see clearly at all through their emotion.
That's the problem - TWELVE YEARS IS A "BLIP" ON THE SCALE OF CLIMATE AND EARTH'S HISTORY.
If you think that twelve years is enough time to evaluate climate and CO2, then you already had your definitive answers which DISPROVE man made global warming.
Good grief! where on earth do you get this stuff?
Quote:
1. CO2 production has fallen 10% over the last ten years, yet there has not been the expected "cooling" and lower temps- they have remained the same. So the global warming crowd achieved the CO2 reduction they wanted and there was not the anticipated effect. So why in the world do you think trying this again would yield a different result?
2. In the Great Depression, global industrial output fell 60% and man-made generated CO2 fell markedly. What happened to temps? They increased! So you had 12 years of lower CO2 production and the opposite of the expected result (if we assume that the man-made CO2-warming theory is correct) occurred.
There was no drop in CO2 levels globally during the depression...CO2 had been rising steadily since 1750 with the rate of rise increasing rapidly around 1960.
Quote:
3. WW-2: Massive increases in CO2 occurred, yet temperatures fell.
No massive increase in CO2 during the war.
Quote:
4. In the fossil record, there are periods in which CO2 levels were several fold what they are today, yet temps were cooler and vice versa.
This is true, but you are not taking into account that CO2 is not the only driver of climate change, both warmer and cooler.
Quote:
It would be fantastic if the "global warming" crowd actually looked at the historical temps over the last century compared to man-made CO2 levels and actually looked at the fossil record. However, because this information disproves their hypothesis, they choose to ignore it.
You can be sure that climate scientists are fully aware of historical and fossil records of CO2 and temperatures since they are the ones who compiled them. They are also aware of the various climate forcings and which forcing caused many of the climate shifts in earths history.
You need to remember that the USA is not the entire globe.
He get's it from pseudoscience global warming denier/ anti-science sites. One thing great about the internet is that it's open...however when scientifically illiterate folks find these sites they lap it up like a starved dog and cling to it as tightly as a fundamentalist clings to the bible.
Those sites would not exist if the world was full of scientifically literate people. It folks who are not too bright in science that keep those sites alive.
One simply needs to read the statements of global warming enthusiasts on this site, most of which have no advanced degrees in science, have never published an academic paper in a scientific journal, and have had no training in what constitutes valid science.
You fail to realize that global warming deniers are equally, if not more, lacking in earning a science degree. Or holding an advanced scientific degree or be a research scientist publishing peer reviewed research papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Despite no formal training in science,
How much formal scientific training have you had?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
It is astounding- simply claiming that the "science" 100% supports the concept of man-made global warming is completely false and underlies the problem with people with no training (or any background with which they can understand the science) attempting to espouse a topic that takes some understanding of physics, thermodynamics, and the fossil record.
What are your qualifications? Do you understand Physics or thermodynamics? Do you know how to accurately interpret fossil records?
I always enjoy how people that are not experts on climate science think they know more than the climate scientists. Talk about arrogance.
That cuts both ways. Even climate scientists themselves do not agree that the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is valid, with those who dissent doing so due to various scientific evidence factors such as the fact that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate (as measured by temperature) in earth's billions of years of existence.
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.
