Hard Reality Approaches...

[konradv]

Moron!!!

Aw, did I see through your little con game?

I doubt you could see anything with a magnifying glass. You'd have to take off your blinders first.

 

[westwall]

Knowing what the atmosphere was 800,000 years ago is a guess at best.

Scientific research is quite a bit better than a guess. Space is a vacuum. We "guessed" that when we went, because we'd never been there. Would you have have insisted we save a few bucks on space suits?

You are assuming "scientific research" is one big thing. It isnt. When it comes to certain aspects of science it is one big guess. What climate was like 800k years ago falls into that category.

What climate was like 800,000 years ago is a matter of scientific research, NOT a guess. That's just deialist BS meant to cloud the issue.

How can you accurately research the air 800,000 years ago?

It's a guess. Hell scientist still aren't sure what killed off the dinosaurs along with at least 50 percent of all species living on earth 65 million years ago and they have solid evidence to study.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methods
At the Bern laboratory, four to six samples of approximately 8 grams from each depth level (0.55m intervals) in the ice core are crushed under vacuum conditions. The sample container is connected to a cold trap for several minutes to release air from the clathrates and the air is then expanded to a measuring cell where a laser measures absorption in a vibration–rotation transition line of the CO2 molecule..........

And wouldn't you know it CO2 levels increase AFTER the warming comes. Hundreds of years later. Who woulda thunk it...

 

[westwall]

Global Warming Natural Cycle — OSS Foundation

.

Temps seem to follow CO2 closely. So what happens in the future, if CO2 continues to rise?

It's the other way around. CO2 FOLLOWS warming. By hundreds of years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not even factual, but that aside, a warmer world is a better world.

Before man had even invented the wheel, early humans looked to the smoking volcano and were filled with fear. The Shaman stepped forward and said that he knew what was going on, he had created cave wall models that proved that it was the SIN of the villagers that had awoken the volcano god. He was ANGRY that they had strayed from the old ways of sleeping in trees and eating bugs. That ONLY by sacrificing most of their harvest to him and the other Shamans, could the volcano god be appeased. Once month a virgin girl would need to be sacrificed. Many assistant Shamans rose, and there was consensus that the models were real. It was the carbon sins of the people that caused the anger in the volcano gods, only through lives of luxury for the priest caste with virgins to rape and throw to their deaths could the village be save.

I'll give the AGW cult this, they are good at recycling.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No we didn't guess about space. We sent satellites and probes into space long before we sent man into space. It is quite a difference in researching what is and researching what was.

Since science is just a guess, weren't we just "guessing" that they were providing us with the correct information? When you're studying existence, everything is "was". Where do you make the cut off between your conception of "is" and "was"? IMO, you have to trust your instruments and your brain or you can't trust anything.

Did I say all science was a guess? No, I did not. I said knowing what the atmosphere was 800,000 years ago is a guess.

If you want to have an honest discussion, you first have to be honest.

Might help if you have an understanding of where science is on the subject. And you obviously do not.

Might help if you minded your own damn business. Which you obviously do not.

BTW moron, you have no idea what I do or do not understand. But I do know that you're an old fart that likes to troll.

I have taken courses on biology, geology, physics, chemistry, and math past calculus. From your posts it is obvious you have almost no education in the sciences. And have no desire to gain any education in science. Otherwise you would do a bit of research before you posted nonsense. After all, you have the greatest instrument for research ever invented sitting right in front of you.

All that education and you still haven't learned anything. You should demand your money back.

Fact is numbnuts, scientific study is based on sets of assumptions, i.e. the laws of nature are fixed, matter and energy is always a constant...etc. Scientific theory is rejected and/or modified if it does not fit the desired findings.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[I doubt you could see anything with a magnifying glass. You'd have to take off your blinders first.

ROFL

Says the adherent to oldest and most stupid religion in history.

Better appease the volcano god or she will DESTROY THE EARTH

You fucking moron...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How can you accurately research the air 800,000 years ago?

It's a guess. Hell scientist still aren't sure what killed off the dinosaurs along with at least 50 percent of all species living on earth 65 million years ago and they have solid evidence to study.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methods
At the Bern laboratory, four to six samples of approximately 8 grams from each depth level (0.55m intervals) in the ice core are crushed under vacuum conditions. The sample container is connected to a cold trap for several minutes to release air from the clathrates and the air is then expanded to a measuring cell where a laser measures absorption in a vibration–rotation transition line of the CO2 molecule..........

More pseudo-science.

Yeah here's some more mumbo jumbo for ya.

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

The wide margin of error in the EPICA core data is due to the way air gets trapped in layers of ice. Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.

Parrenin’s team addresses these concerns with a new method that establishes the different ages of the gas and ice. They measured the concentration of an isotope, nitrogen 15, which is greater the deeper the snowpack is. Once they were able to determine snowpack depth from the nitrogen 15 data, a simple model can determine the offset in depth between gas and ice and the amount of time the difference represents. The researchers then compared results from multiple locations to reduce the margin of error.

The problem with this kind of scientific research is the assumptions that are made. It is assumed the accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past. It is assumed that the same amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere has remained constant for thousands if not millions of years. This research is an educated guess at best.

The % of nitrogen in the atmosphere doesn't matter. It is the % of the isotope within the sample that matters.

Huh?

Where did this N2 isotope originate? In the ice? Or the atmosphere?

The fact is, we do not have a true control group from 800,000 years ago to accurately compare. What kind of grinding and crushing does ice undergo over thousands of years?
When bubbles are analyzed and you get your values, what exactly do those values represent? What about temperature, for instance? What is the margin for error?

 

[BlindBoo]

Scientific research is quite a bit better than a guess. Space is a vacuum. We "guessed" that when we went, because we'd never been there. Would you have have insisted we save a few bucks on space suits?

You are assuming "scientific research" is one big thing. It isnt. When it comes to certain aspects of science it is one big guess. What climate was like 800k years ago falls into that category.

What climate was like 800,000 years ago is a matter of scientific research, NOT a guess. That's just deialist BS meant to cloud the issue.

How can you accurately research the air 800,000 years ago?

It's a guess. Hell scientist still aren't sure what killed off the dinosaurs along with at least 50 percent of all species living on earth 65 million years ago and they have solid evidence to study.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methods
At the Bern laboratory, four to six samples of approximately 8 grams from each depth level (0.55m intervals) in the ice core are crushed under vacuum conditions. The sample container is connected to a cold trap for several minutes to release air from the clathrates and the air is then expanded to a measuring cell where a laser measures absorption in a vibration–rotation transition line of the CO2 molecule..........

And wouldn't you know it CO2 levels increase AFTER the warming comes. Hundreds of years later. Who woulda thunk it...

Exactly why many scientist think it is a problem.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are assuming "scientific research" is one big thing. It isnt. When it comes to certain aspects of science it is one big guess. What climate was like 800k years ago falls into that category.

What climate was like 800,000 years ago is a matter of scientific research, NOT a guess. That's just deialist BS meant to cloud the issue.

How can you accurately research the air 800,000 years ago?

It's a guess. Hell scientist still aren't sure what killed off the dinosaurs along with at least 50 percent of all species living on earth 65 million years ago and they have solid evidence to study.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methods
At the Bern laboratory, four to six samples of approximately 8 grams from each depth level (0.55m intervals) in the ice core are crushed under vacuum conditions. The sample container is connected to a cold trap for several minutes to release air from the clathrates and the air is then expanded to a measuring cell where a laser measures absorption in a vibration–rotation transition line of the CO2 molecule..........

And wouldn't you know it CO2 levels increase AFTER the warming comes. Hundreds of years later. Who woulda thunk it...

Exactly why many scientist think it is a problem.

Scientist thought we were heading into an ice age back in the 70's, they thought that was a real problem too.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You have to ignore the unwashed masses. And I know that sounds 'elitist' but truth is what it is. These people who barely have a high school education but think they have reasoned it out and they 'know' ten thousand PH.D's are wrong.

No reason to argue with these people, they are scared peasants who think witches are real. Leave them to their ignorance.

The conversation now is between the most intelligent people on Earth that have studied this for a lifetime and those who have read enough and observed with calm and rational thought what is happening. Our task is to talk to and reach those in between, the ones who instinctively 'feel' something is wrong but don't have enough information to understand completely. Those people just need to be educated and moved far enough away from the 'they're witches' crowd so they can think clearly.

The day is soon approaching when the reality of a future the human race has never seen is real. Leave those too scared to face it behind. They are like the people on the shore yelling at Columbus he is going to fall off the edge of the world. They, as always, will be dragged kicking and screaming into reality because there won't be a choice.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lonestar, how many times have you told that lie?

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

 

[BlindBoo]

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methods
At the Bern laboratory, four to six samples of approximately 8 grams from each depth level (0.55m intervals) in the ice core are crushed under vacuum conditions. The sample container is connected to a cold trap for several minutes to release air from the clathrates and the air is then expanded to a measuring cell where a laser measures absorption in a vibration–rotation transition line of the CO2 molecule..........

More pseudo-science.

Yeah here's some more mumbo jumbo for ya.

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

The wide margin of error in the EPICA core data is due to the way air gets trapped in layers of ice. Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.

Parrenin’s team addresses these concerns with a new method that establishes the different ages of the gas and ice. They measured the concentration of an isotope, nitrogen 15, which is greater the deeper the snowpack is. Once they were able to determine snowpack depth from the nitrogen 15 data, a simple model can determine the offset in depth between gas and ice and the amount of time the difference represents. The researchers then compared results from multiple locations to reduce the margin of error.

The problem with this kind of scientific research is the assumptions that are made. It is assumed the accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past. It is assumed that the same amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere has remained constant for thousands if not millions of years. This research is an educated guess at best.

The % of nitrogen in the atmosphere doesn't matter. It is the % of the isotope within the sample that matters.

Huh?

Where did this N2 isotope originate? In the ice? Or the atmosphere?

The fact is, we do not have a true control group from 800,000 years ago to accurately compare. What kind of grinding and crushing does ice undergo over thousands of years?
When bubbles are analyzed and you get your values, what exactly do those values represent? What about temperature, for instance? What is the margin for error?

Do you understand carbon dating techniques? Same principle.

Plenty of stuff for you to research........

 

[BlindBoo]

What climate was like 800,000 years ago is a matter of scientific research, NOT a guess. That's just deialist BS meant to cloud the issue.

How can you accurately research the air 800,000 years ago?

It's a guess. Hell scientist still aren't sure what killed off the dinosaurs along with at least 50 percent of all species living on earth 65 million years ago and they have solid evidence to study.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methods
At the Bern laboratory, four to six samples of approximately 8 grams from each depth level (0.55m intervals) in the ice core are crushed under vacuum conditions. The sample container is connected to a cold trap for several minutes to release air from the clathrates and the air is then expanded to a measuring cell where a laser measures absorption in a vibration–rotation transition line of the CO2 molecule..........

And wouldn't you know it CO2 levels increase AFTER the warming comes. Hundreds of years later. Who woulda thunk it...

Exactly why many scientist think it is a problem.

Scientist thought we were heading into an ice age back in the 70's, they thought that was a real problem too.

Some scientist today think we are heading back into an ice age. It was a small number then and it is a small number now. The real issue then was that it made the cover of Newsweek and/or Time. It sold a lot of magazines.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

More pseudo-science.

Yeah here's some more mumbo jumbo for ya.

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

The wide margin of error in the EPICA core data is due to the way air gets trapped in layers of ice. Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.

Parrenin’s team addresses these concerns with a new method that establishes the different ages of the gas and ice. They measured the concentration of an isotope, nitrogen 15, which is greater the deeper the snowpack is. Once they were able to determine snowpack depth from the nitrogen 15 data, a simple model can determine the offset in depth between gas and ice and the amount of time the difference represents. The researchers then compared results from multiple locations to reduce the margin of error.

The problem with this kind of scientific research is the assumptions that are made. It is assumed the accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past. It is assumed that the same amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere has remained constant for thousands if not millions of years. This research is an educated guess at best.

The % of nitrogen in the atmosphere doesn't matter. It is the % of the isotope within the sample that matters.

Huh?

Where did this N2 isotope originate? In the ice? Or the atmosphere?

The fact is, we do not have a true control group from 800,000 years ago to accurately compare. What kind of grinding and crushing does ice undergo over thousands of years?
When bubbles are analyzed and you get your values, what exactly do those values represent? What about temperature, for instance? What is the margin for error?

Do you understand carbon dating techniques? Same principle.

Plenty of stuff for you to research........

Yes and carbon dating has been shown not to be reliable. It assumes that the rate of decay has been constant for thousands if not millions of years. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

 

[jc456]

Was that caused by humans in their factories and cars too?

Why not research the subject, instead of asking the same stupid questions over and over? Just because warming or cooling had one cause in the past, doesn't mean it can't have a different one now. Why do denialists keep ignoring the time course? The changes in the past occurred over tens to hundreds of thousands of years, while we're talking about the last ~200!

Completely agree, why don't you then post up the experiment that proves that there is actually a new cause. You know, like human CO2 is now the only CO2. Come on man let's get the facts pushed down to the masses so we all can agree you're right. See, right now, you just seem like a nutter butter.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How can you accurately research the air 800,000 years ago?

It's a guess. Hell scientist still aren't sure what killed off the dinosaurs along with at least 50 percent of all species living on earth 65 million years ago and they have solid evidence to study.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methods
At the Bern laboratory, four to six samples of approximately 8 grams from each depth level (0.55m intervals) in the ice core are crushed under vacuum conditions. The sample container is connected to a cold trap for several minutes to release air from the clathrates and the air is then expanded to a measuring cell where a laser measures absorption in a vibration–rotation transition line of the CO2 molecule..........

And wouldn't you know it CO2 levels increase AFTER the warming comes. Hundreds of years later. Who woulda thunk it...

Exactly why many scientist think it is a problem.

Scientist thought we were heading into an ice age back in the 70's, they thought that was a real problem too.

Some scientist today think we are heading back into an ice age. It was a small number then and it is a small number now. The real issue then was that it made the cover of Newsweek and/or Time. It sold a lot of magazines.

No matter how much you want to deny the fact that scientist were wrong about global cooling doesn't change the fact that scientist warned of a coming ice age.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, how many times have you told that lie?

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

It's easy to look back at the 70's and know it was all bullshit, but at the time there were scientist that made that claim. It was what the news reported and what the masses heard. I knew it was BS then as is the global warming scare is now.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Jesus the ignorance of people here is boundless, yet they speak as I they know something. Scared people convince themselves of just about anything.

Ignore them. It is coming and the time to take action is now.

 

[jc456]

Jesus the ignorance of people here is boundless, yet they speak as I they know something. Scared people convince themselves of just about anything.

Ignore them. It is coming and the time to take action is now.

It.....is? What exactly is coming?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Jesus the ignorance of people here is boundless, yet they speak as I they know something. Scared people convince themselves of just about anything.

Ignore them. It is coming and the time to take action is now.

Time to take action is now!

What action are you going to take?

You going to stop using petroleum based products?

You going to stop releasing methane into the atmosphere?

Just what exactly are YOU going to do?