chroot said:Oh, I don't know... perhaps some empirical evidence.
- Warren
Pythagorean said:Even before learning the scientific method, when I lived a more "transcendentally recreationally" lifestyle, this was always apparent to me whenever I visited the city after being raised in rural town thick with trees and wildlife. I've wondered around for hours in Eugene, OR and Vancouver, BC wondering what the place was like before we began a parasiitic relationship with our planet.
Ivan Seeking said:We have empirical evidence. What sort do you require?
Are you saying that all the world's climate scientists who argue this is real don't actually have any evidence?
... The oceans have warmed significantly over the past four decades, providing new evidence that the Earth may be undergoing long-term climate change. ..
...The largest warming has occurred in the upper 300 meters of the world ocean on average by 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit. The water in the upper 3000 meters of the world ocean warmed on average by 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit. These findings represent the first time scientists have quantified temperature changes in all of the world's oceans from the surface to 3000 meters depth...
chroot said:And, I should note: linking to pages written by the Sierra Club automatically puts you in my crackpot corral.
- Warren
Pythagorean said:I don't know anything about the Sierra Club, I was more interested in the IPCC results they included. Where does your elitist attitude towards the Sierra Club come from?
Andre said:Let's have a look http://www.solcomhouse.com/hotwater.htm .
What does this prove? Whodunnit?
chroot said:I don't trust a privately-funded environmentalist organization to tell me about the scientific veracity of climate change.
In the same vein, I don't trust insurance adjusters to tell me what kind of medical care I should get.
- Warren
Pythagorean said:If this data is accurate, I find it interesting that the average temperature increase seems to fit nicely with the industrial age.
To my knowledge, no such empirical evidence exists, and, in my scientific opinion, indicates that the entire phenomenon of global warming is being perceived where it does not exist.
Like many pioneer fields of research, the current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet. This is the basis for concern about global warming .
chroot said:Ah, you fell for the Hockey Stick too, did you? This is precisely the reason why I don't trust the Sierra Club, or indeed any other environmentalist organization with an agenda.
Quite simply, the hockey stick was made up by Mann, by using inaccurate indicators, and analyzing those inaccurate indicators with inappropriate statistical methods. The bottom line is that Mann spent a whole bunch of time trying to find the right parameters to make exactly such a plot "pop" from his data. He decided on the conclusion he wanted to present, then adjusted his method until he made a plot that supported it.
And people think this kind of crap constitutes scientific investigation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Stick_graph
- Warren
Andre said:All about the battle of the hockeystick here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
which lead the Wegman report here:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Andre said:All about the battle of the hockeystick here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
which lead the Wegman report here:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
chroot said:I don't trust a privately-funded environmentalist organization to tell me about the scientific veracity of climate change.
In the same vein, I don't trust insurance adjusters to tell me what kind of medical care I should get.
- Warren
Andre said:Let's have a look http://www.solcomhouse.com/hotwater.htm .
...The largest warming has occurred in the upper 300 meters of the world ocean on average by 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit. The water in the upper 3000 meters of the world ocean warmed on average by 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit...
What does this prove? Whodunnit?
CO2 levels are nowhere near as high now as they have been in the past, long before human civilization existed. There have been many periods of high CO2 concentration that did not correspond to high temperatures, and all of those high CO2 periods had nothing to do with human civilization.
jimmie said:Please provide the source of the CO2 information you have cited above.
Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.
Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.
"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."
Hey, no problem. 175 million years ago, CO2 reached a peak of 17 times the current concentration (6500 ppmv vs. 381 ppmv). Humans didn't exist.
jimmie said:Is that the only empirical evidence on CO2 you used to formulate your conclusion on global warming, chroot?
Who is the skeptic? You must be. Who is the person you trust most? Yourself. Now go out and learn so you can rightfully trust yourself.Pythagorean said:Once skepticism starts, where does it end? Who do I trust?
I must disclaim that these are not rhetorical arguments, but inquiries.
It's just a piece of the evidence that I use to support my opinion that today's CO2 levels are insignificant in comparison to CO2 levels, created by non-human processes, that persisted for tens of millions of years in the past.
jimmie said:Whether or not the CO2 levels of "today" are insignificant in comparison to that of tens of millions of years ago is a moot point.
The CO2 levels of "today" are relevant to "today", and you and I are living "today", not "tens of millions" of years in the past.
For any individual to express that a particular phenomenon that they themselves have observed does not exist due to their own lack of knowledge of that particular observed phenomenon is naive, and certainly not scientific.