- This topic has 192 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Stu,
The historical data shows that temperature can radically reverse course while CO2 levels continue to rise for hundreds of years. If CO2 drove global temperatures that would not be possible. Certainly, CO2 absorption of infrared energy has a warming effect, but as a gas that constitutes only 0.03 percent of the total atmosphere, its total effect on the planet's temperatures are clearly limited.
Again, how do you explain global cooling (circa 1945 to 1977) in the face of such “unprecedented” CO2 levels if the effects of CO2 are not being overwhelmed by other factors?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ May 05 2010,02:04) Stu, The historical data shows that temperature can radically reverse course while CO2 levels continue to rise for hundreds of years. If CO2 drove global temperatures that would not be possible. Certainly, CO2 absorption of infrared energy has a warming effect, but as a gas that constitutes only 0.03 percent of the total atmosphere, its total effect on the planet's temperatures are clearly limited.
Again, how do you explain global cooling (circa 1945 to 1977) in the face of such “unprecedented” CO2 levels if the effects of CO2 are not being overwhelmed by other factors?
Regarding the percentage CO2 in the atmosphere, it is refreshing to see a denier claiming that carbon dioxide is present in such tiny amounts that it makes little difference. Many of them claim that CO2 is already absorbing nearly all of the radiation in its absorption bands, and adding more will make little difference. I took some figures from a deniers' website and my back-of-envelope calculation suggests that 380ppm of CO2 will be absorbing about half of the radiation available in its absorption bands. Of course they could be wrong about their figures!I though mid-C20th global cooling was down to aerosols from our pollution.
Stuart
What is all this about “deniers”? Aside from the unfortunate reference to the Long Range Weather Forecast website, I don't recall making any reference to the work of any “deniers”. I am simply a skeptic asking questions based on the facts.
Quote I though mid-C20th global cooling was down to aerosols from our pollution. Is there any data to suggest that? Also, does this account for the last decade where global temperatures have been rather stable?
More importantly, does the sun have no role in all of this? If you go back and watch the video, you will notice that the further we go back, the clearer it is that there is a fairly consistent pattern: long ice ages punctuated by relatively short interglacial periods. According to that pattern, we are due for an ice age in the not too distant future. Is it the contention of global warming theory that this cycle is driven by CO2 levels, or is it more likely connected with solar activity and the ever-changing orbit of the earth around the sun?
WIT
Quote What is all this about “deniers”? Aside from the unfortunate reference to the Long Range Weather Forecast website, I don't recall making any reference to the work of any “deniers”. I am simply a skeptic asking questions based on the facts.
Was this statement somehow meant to indicate that you were asking whether 0.03% CO2 could have an effect, or were you telling it the way you see it?:Quote a gas that constitutes only 0.03 percent of the total atmosphere, its total effect on the planet's temperatures are clearly limited.
If you are genuinely seeking information and have not rushed to any conclusions, then that is to be commended, but time is running out! Can you get there before it is too late?I though mid-C20th global cooling was down to aerosols from our pollution.
Quote Is there any data to suggest that?
Yes.Quote Also, does this account for the last decade where global temperatures have been rather stable?
Yes, there has been a changeover from the aerosol effect causing a tiny cooling effect, to the warming effect of CO2 which is now dominating.Quote More importantly, does the sun have no role in all of this?
No, not the current changes that are happening. The sun’s climatic warming effects are pretty well known and there is no sign of any of those happening currently.Quote If you go back and watch the video, you will notice that the further we go back, the clearer it is that there is a fairly consistent pattern: long ice ages punctuated by relatively short interglacial periods. According to that pattern, we are due for an ice age in the not too distant future. Is it the contention of global warming theory that this cycle is driven by CO2 levels, or is it more likely connected with solar activity and the ever-changing orbit of the earth around the sun? From the Holy Wikipedia:
Causes of ice ages
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.
Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).
Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 “scrubbers” with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 “scrubbing” capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years.
Stuart
Quote Quote
What is all this about “deniers”? Aside from the unfortunate reference to the Long Range Weather Forecast website, I don't recall making any reference to the work of any “deniers”. I am simply a skeptic asking questions based on the facts.Was this statement somehow meant to indicate that you were asking whether 0.03% CO2 could have an effect, or were you telling it the way you see it?:
I was telling it the way that I see it.
Quote If you are genuinely seeking information and have not rushed to any conclusions, then that is to be commended, but time is running out! Can you get there before it is too late? It is rare for someone to have a truly open mind, and I am not claiming to be an exception to the rule here. Clearly, I am leaning towards the dissenting opinion on global warming, but I am also not going to close my eyes to the evidence. I am educable.
Fortunately for you, it doesn't really matter what I think. Global governments have already decided that it's time to act based on “consensus”. I am just concerned that they are overreacting, and will cause the developing world to remain underdeveloped and first world countries to stagnate and decline. I think that there is a greater likelihood of disaster originating from the proposed global warming policies than a hotter planet.
Quote Yes, there has been a changeover from the aerosol effect causing a tiny cooling effect, to the warming effect of CO2 which is now dominating. This ignores the last decade where the 'warming effect' is clearly not dominating. 1998 is still the warmest year in recent history. At best current global temperatures are stagnant. Some see it as a slight cooling trend.
Quote The sun’s climatic warming effects are pretty well known and there is no sign of any of those happening currently. I did a google search of “sun’s climatic warming effects” and I didn't find any definitive answers. There appears to still be some controversy around this issue.
Quote From the Holy Wikipedia: Causes of ice ages
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood … .
This, to me, is an indictment of all those who presume to predict/model the direction of the earth's climate. I read this as a problem of reconciling the current climate theories with historical data.
Here's a question for you:
Is global warming theory a scientific theory, (i.e. is it falsifiable)?
If so, did climate scientists predict that 1998 would be the warmest year for over a decade?
Also, what is the prediction for the next ten years? Rapid warming? Continued temperature stability? A cooling trend?
Will you abandon the theory five years from now if we don't have a significant return to warming before then?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ May 07 2010,09:28) Quote Quote
What is all this about “deniers”? Aside from the unfortunate reference to the Long Range Weather Forecast website, I don't recall making any reference to the work of any “deniers”. I am simply a skeptic asking questions based on the facts.Was this statement somehow meant to indicate that you were asking whether 0.03% CO2 could have an effect, or were you telling it the way you see it?:
I was telling it the way that I see it.
Quote If you are genuinely seeking information and have not rushed to any conclusions, then that is to be commended, but time is running out! Can you get there before it is too late? It is rare for someone to have a truly open mind, and I am not claiming to be an exception to the rule here. Clearly, I am leaning towards the dissenting opinion on global warming, but I am also not going to close my eyes to the evidence. I am educable.
Fortunately for you, it doesn't really matter what I think. Global governments have already decided that it's time to act based on “consensus”. I am just concerned that they are overreacting, and will cause the developing world to remain underdeveloped and first world countries to stagnate and decline. I think that there is a greater likelihood of disaster originating from the proposed global warming policies than a hotter planet.
Quote Yes, there has been a changeover from the aerosol effect causing a tiny cooling effect, to the warming effect of CO2 which is now dominating. This ignores the last decade where the 'warming effect' is clearly not dominating. 1998 is still the warmest year in recent history. At best current global temperatures are stagnant. Some see it as a slight cooling trend.
Quote The sun’s climatic warming effects are pretty well known and there is no sign of any of those happening currently. I did a google search of “sun’s climatic warming effects” and I didn't find any definitive answers. There appears to still be some controversy around this issue.
Quote From the Holy Wikipedia: Causes of ice ages
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood … .
This, to me, is an indictment of all those who presume to predict/model the direction of the earth's climate. I read this as a problem of reconciling the current climate theories with historical data.
Here's a question for you:
Is global warming theory a scientific theory, (i.e. is it falsifiable)?
If so, did climate scientists predict that 1998 would be the warmest year for over a decade?
Also, what is the prediction for the next ten years? Rapid warming? Continued temperature stability? A cooling trend?
Will you abandon the theory five years from now if we don't have a significant return to warming before then?
Isn't your theory that Global warming must occur in one of the alternate universes? If so, why couldn't this one be the one?WIT
Quote It is rare for someone to have a truly open mind, and I am not claiming to be an exception to the rule here. Clearly, I am leaning towards the dissenting opinion on global warming, but I am also not going to close my eyes to the evidence. I am educable.
I think you have shown an open mind on a range of topics here.Quote Fortunately for you, it doesn't really matter what I think. Global governments have already decided that it's time to act based on “consensus”. I am just concerned that they are overreacting, and will cause the developing world to remain underdeveloped and first world countries to stagnate and decline. I think that there is a greater likelihood of disaster originating from the proposed global warming policies than a hotter planet.
I don’t think just giving in to a hotter planet is an option. That is not going to help anyone. However I think you are otherwise right: the developing countries are the major polluters now, but they have a point that whatever capacity for CO2 that the atmosphere had was used up by emissions from developed countries in their development process, so who would they be to tell the developing countries what they can and can’t do? Those who develop the technology to fix the problem will have to be willing to share it internationally at prices that can be afforded by China and India.Quote This ignores the last decade where the 'warming effect' is clearly not dominating. 1998 is still the warmest year in recent history. At best current global temperatures are stagnant. Some see it as a slight cooling trend.
Not 1998 according to NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.htmlQuote I did a google search of “sun’s climatic warming effects” and I didn't find any definitive answers. There appears to still be some controversy around this issue.
The two of which I am aware are:Sun burns off clouds leaving earth more exposed to sun:
http://news.softpedia.com/news….4.shtmlSunspot activity:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots_2.htmlThere is no clear evidence for either.
Quote Here's a question for you: Is global warming theory a scientific theory, (i.e. is it falsifiable)?
If so, did climate scientists predict that 1998 would be the warmest year for over a decade?
Also, what is the prediction for the next ten years? Rapid warming? Continued temperature stability? A cooling trend? Will you abandon the theory five years from now if we don't have a significant return to warming before then?
The data says that the global climate is warming, so whether it is one theory, or a mixture of theories, if it has predicted continued warming of the average global temperature then it has been shown to be right.Stuart
Stu,
Fair enough. I will only pick a bone with this:
Quote The data says that the global climate is warming, so whether it is one theory, or a mixture of theories, if it has predicted continued warming of the average global temperature then it has been shown to be right. That seems like a pretty low standard for a scientific theory. I could come up with a theory for why the planet warmed in the 20th century, but it wouldn't necessarily be accurate or even physically possible. I guess that I am looking for for the kind of specificity that I am accustom to from other physical science theories.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ May 08 2010,06:39) Stu, Fair enough. I will only pick a bone with this:
Quote The data says that the global climate is warming, so whether it is one theory, or a mixture of theories, if it has predicted continued warming of the average global temperature then it has been shown to be right. That seems like a pretty low standard for a scientific theory. I could come up with a theory for why the planet warmed in the 20th century, but it wouldn't necessarily be accurate or even physically possible. I guess that I am looking for for the kind of specificity that I am accustom to from other physical science theories.
You mean like alternate universes? Where's the hard evidence for that?Quote (Stu @ May 02 2010,09:55) I don't know if there is life on other planets. What does that have to do with believing in Imaginary Friends?
Very simple.In the same way you do not know if there is life on other planets, you also do not know if God exists or not. Therefore saying that God doesn't exist is like saying that life on other planets doesn't exist. I want to see proof, but you make the convenient excuse that you do not have to prove a negative.
But if you say that there is no life on other planets, I want proof. It doesn't make any difference whether the statement is negative, you still have to back it up. Similarly if you say that God doesn't exist, then either give the proof or admit that you don't have a clue, (which we all know is the case anyway).
Quote (Stu @ May 02 2010,09:55)
I am an agnostic, just as you must be: we cannot know for sure whether Jupiter, uh I mean Jehovah, or whatever, exists.I am an atheist because of all the data we have ever collected on any subject, none of it suggests any truth to the claims made by believers in Zeus…there I go again, I mean YHWH or HWEH, or Baal.
It is reasonable to say that there is no evidence for any god, and therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that no such thing exists. That is a scientific position, but it is only a restatement of the location of the burden of proof, which is on the god-believer, not the skeptic.
I don't know if there is life on other planets. What does that have to do with believing in Imaginary Friends?
Stuart
I have said this before, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you never read it. So I will put it another way in the hope that you might comprehend a bit of logic.Saying that there is no God because men have differing views on who that God is, is like denying that there is no “unknown soldier” because people disagree over who he is and what country he came from.
Simply put, your omission of the existence of God is not based on rationality, logic, or clear thinking. Your thinking is skewed by your bias causing you to become illogical. You need to fix your thinking.
Also, the fact that men argue over who God is, lines up with the bible which teaches that God exists and men naturally do not know him because of their sin.
The vast majority of the planet acknowledge a God, but they do not know who he is.
This Greek inscription sums it up: “To an unknown God”.
Acts 17:23
For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.Quote (t8 @ May 11 2010,23:21) Quote (Stu @ May 02 2010,09:55) I don't know if there is life on other planets. What does that have to do with believing in Imaginary Friends?
Very simple.In the same way you do not know if there is life on other planets, you also do not know if God exists or not. Therefore saying that God doesn't exist is like saying that life on other planets doesn't exist. I want to see proof, but you make the convenient excuse that you do not have to prove a negative.
But if you say that there is no life on other planets, I want proof. It doesn't make any difference whether the statement is negative, you still have to back it up. Similarly if you say that God doesn't exist, then either give the proof or admit that you don't have a clue, (which we all know is the case anyway).
How many posts ago was it that I claimed we are all agnostic? Glad to see you admit it yourself, but it is tedious that you appear not to know what it means.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 11 2010,23:22) Quote (Stu @ May 02 2010,09:55)
I am an agnostic, just as you must be: we cannot know for sure whether Jupiter, uh I mean Jehovah, or whatever, exists.I am an atheist because of all the data we have ever collected on any subject, none of it suggests any truth to the claims made by believers in Zeus…there I go again, I mean YHWH or HWEH, or Baal.
It is reasonable to say that there is no evidence for any god, and therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that no such thing exists. That is a scientific position, but it is only a restatement of the location of the burden of proof, which is on the god-believer, not the skeptic.
I don't know if there is life on other planets. What does that have to do with believing in Imaginary Friends?
Stuart
I have said this before, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you never read it. So I will put it another way in the hope that you might comprehend a bit of logic.Saying that there is no God because men have differing views on who that God is, is like denying that there is no “unknown soldier” because people disagree over who he is and what country he came from.
Simply put, your omission of the existence of God is not based on rationality, logic, or clear thinking. Your thinking is skewed by your bias causing you to become illogical. You need to fix your thinking.
Also, the fact that men argue over who God is, lines up with the bible which teaches that God exists and men naturally do not know him because of their sin.
The vast majority of the planet acknowledge a God, but they do not know who he is.
This Greek inscription sums it up: “To an unknown God”.
Acts 17:23
For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
What god?Stuart
You first have to acknowledge the existence of a God before you ask that.
You are trying to run before you can walk.
Slow down and start at first base. Then progress from there.
I know it is tempting to try and do bigger things, but when you have the basics you can progress from there. I mean if you never skied before, would you start at the top of an Olympic run or would it be better to progress to there in smaller steps.You need to be wise Stu and not run headlong into trouble. You could hurt yourself.
Quote (Stu @ May 12 2010,19:48) How many posts ago was it that I claimed we are all agnostic?
And you are agnostic now. Maybe that argument rubbed off on you in the end.
https://heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htmAnd your belief that there was about a 0.05% or 0.5% chance of their being a God is now retracted?
Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,22:06) You first have to acknowledge the existence of a God before you ask that.
You are trying to run before you can walk.
Slow down and start at first base. Then progress from there.
I know it is tempting to try and do bigger things, but when you have the basics you can progress from there. I mean if you never skied before, would you start at the top of an Olympic run or would it be better to progress to there in smaller steps.You need to be wise Stu and not run headlong into trouble. You could hurt yourself.
You are using the word tempting in a sense that is unfamiliar to me.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,22:10) Quote (Stu @ May 12 2010,19:48) How many posts ago was it that I claimed we are all agnostic?
And you are agnostic now. Maybe that argument rubbed off on you in the end.
https://heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htmAnd your belief that there was about a 0.05% or 0.5% chance of their being a God is now retracted?
I never said it was as drastically large as 0.05%, so no retractions here, only consistency.Does it not occur to you that reserving a tiny sliver of a chance that your Imaginary Friend is actually not imaginary is exactly what agnosticism involves?
I think my figure was “less than 0.000000000000001%”, from memory.
Much less.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
