Thoughts on "Scientific Consensus."

[KittenKoder]

Rocks, your posts here show one fact: There is still no connection between CO2 and temperature. Think about it a bit before you try to rebut that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup God has been replaced by another figure in white, not robes this time but a lab smock.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yup God has been replaced by another figure in white, not robes this time but a lab smock.

You can't replace what never existed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup God has been replaced by another figure in white, not robes this time but a lab smock.

You can't replace what never existed.

Simply retarded. When BILLIONS of people believe in something you don't get to claim it never existed. We have historical evidence to prove the bible recounts real people and real events. That involves 3 different religions. Jewish, Christian and Muslim.

However YOUR Gods have no evidence they ever existed.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yup God has been replaced by another figure in white, not robes this time but a lab smock.

You can't replace what never existed.

Simply retarded. When BILLIONS of people believe in something you don't get to claim it never existed. We have historical evidence to prove the bible recounts real people and real events. That involves 3 different religions. Jewish, Christian and Muslim.

However YOUR Gods have no evidence they ever existed.

Trillions followed the religious beliefs I do, so if you only have a few billion but want to use the number of people who believe the myth as proof, then mine trumps yours by far. Also, almost the entire christian bible was proven wrong by historians and scientists, just because you want to ignore it doesn't make the opposite true.

 

[Old Rocks]

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum



Carbon dioxide has a more complex absorption spectrum with isolated peaks at about 2.6 and 4 microns and a shoulder, or complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns. From this we see that carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radiation. The plot for water vapor shows an absorption spectrum more complex even than carbon dioxide, with numerous broad peaks in the infrared region between 0.8 and 10 microns.

The total spectrum of all atmospheric gases is given in the bottom plot. This shows a "window" between 0.3 and 0.8 microns (the visible window), which allows solar radiation (without the lethal UV component) to reach the earth's surface. "Earth radiation", the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns. The total atmosphere plot shows that a narrow window (except for an oxygen spike) exists in the range of wavelengths near 10 microns.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh, and RGS ... if the number of people who believe a myth and twisted facts can prove it's true then the the sky is falling because the envronuts and their twisted facts outnumber us who don't believe because of real science.

 

[michiganFats]

Trillions followed the religious beliefs I do, so if you only have a few billion but want to use the number of people who believe the myth as proof, then mine trumps yours by far. Also, almost the entire christian bible was proven wrong by historians and scientists, just because you want to ignore it doesn't make the opposite true.

I agree. And, the presence of artifacts proving human presence in an area hardly proves the existence of God. Give me a videotape of Jesus walking on water, and allow Penn and Teller to peer review it, and we may be on to something.

 

[KittenKoder]

Trillions followed the religious beliefs I do, so if you only have a few billion but want to use the number of people who believe the myth as proof, then mine trumps yours by far. Also, almost the entire christian bible was proven wrong by historians and scientists, just because you want to ignore it doesn't make the opposite true.

I agree. And, the presence of artifacts proving human presence in an area hardly proves the existence of God. Give me a videotape of Jesus walking on water, and allow Penn and Teller to peer review it, and we may be on to something.

LOL .. if Penn, Teller, and George found proof it was real then perhaps I'd listen. Any prophet is as good as another.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Yup God has been replaced by another figure in white, not robes this time but a lab smock.

You can't replace what never existed.

At the least, what people believe is real is real in its consequences - for better or worse.

To some extent it's becoming unnecessary to convince everybody of climate change. I think a majority of Americans can agree that we need to get off of foreign oil and one way to do that is to develop cleaner alternatives. If you live in a large city you can readily notice how dirty and loud combustion engines make the air. Why should we tolerate that? Decades ago people thought we would be living like the Jetsons by now. It's easy to see how far we haven't come and how much further we could go with the use of energy. It's useful to wonder why this is. Who benefits from people thinking mankind cannot change the climate with their actions? On the other hand, who benefits from scientists claiming that climate change is plausible? Who has a reason to be biased?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

People appear to think that having substantial majority of scientists in a field believe something means that the belief has to be correct.
.

Which people? Who? Give examples and evidence please, we'd like to know who you're talking about first.

 

[JohnStOnge]

That graphic is far too course, and fails to show the very rapid decline in the Ordivician that led to a glacial period at that time.
Appalachian Mountains, Carbon Dioxide Caused Long-Ago Global Cooling

I'm not seeing anything in the article you linked that contradicts the graphic I posted or that suggests that it's any more "coarse" than anything else one might estimate about things as they were hundreds of millions of years ago. The graphic does show a rapid decline in CO2 levels followed by a dramatic plunge in temperatures during that period. However, it also shows that the plunge in temperatures occured when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today.

That doesn't mean I think that shows that CO2 has no effect. All I'm saying is that there's a whole lot more involved than CO2 levels.

 

[JohnStOnge]

People appear to think that having substantial majority of scientists in a field believe something means that the belief has to be correct.
.

Which people? Who? Give examples and evidence please, we'd like to know who you're talking about first.

That's how it appears to me. If it doesn't appear that way to you, I can offer you no "proof." I don't know if anybody has conducted a scientific poll to get an estimate that would allow anyone to confirm that the way things appear to me is correct.

But my guess is that it appears that way to you as well.

 

[Old Rocks]

That graphic is far too course, and fails to show the very rapid decline in the Ordivician that led to a glacial period at that time.
Appalachian Mountains, Carbon Dioxide Caused Long-Ago Global Cooling

I'm not seeing anything in the article you linked that contradicts the graphic I posted or that suggests that it's any more "coarse" than anything else one might estimate about things as they were hundreds of millions of years ago. The graphic does show a rapid decline in CO2 levels followed by a dramatic plunge in temperatures during that period. However, it also shows that the plunge in temperatures occured when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today.

That doesn't mean I think that shows that CO2 has no effect. All I'm saying is that there's a whole lot more involved than CO2 levels.

And that was exactly why I posted the second post with the link, "Location, location, location"
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms Earth. But just how much warming you get depends on where you put your continents.

If adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect that warms Earth, it must have happened in the past. That’s why paleoclimatology, once a small and esoteric field, is such a growth industry these days, with legions of geologists trying to glean past temperatures and CO2 levels from rocks, and legions of climate modelers trying to tell us what it all means--not only for the past but also for the future of Earth’s climate. On the whole, the results have been what you’d expect. When carbon dioxide levels were low, the climate was cold, and when they were high, the climate was warm, says climatologist Thomas Crowley of Texas A&M; University.

But lately two glaring exceptions to that simple rule have turned up. During the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, there seems to have been 16 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today--and yet, judging from the gravelly deposits it left behind, there was also an ice sheet near the South Pole that was four-fifths the size of present-day Antarctica. The second exception is even more troubling. The Cretaceous Period, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 levels were about eight times what they are today, has been one of the most popular case studies for global warming forecasters. And everyone knows what the climate was like during the dinosaurs’ heyday: steamy. Or was it? The latest evidence, reported just this past summer by British researchers, suggests that temperatures in the tropics 95 million years ago were no higher than they are now; and while it was a lot warmer at the poles than it is today, it was still freezing cold.

What happened to Earth’s greenhouse during these two periods? Climate modelers are beginning to believe the solution to both puzzles may be the same: geography. Carbon dioxide does tend to warm the planet--no one is questioning that--but the climate you actually end up with depends to a great degree on how you arrange your continents.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

People appear to think that having substantial majority of scientists in a field believe something means that the belief has to be correct.
.

Which people? Who? Give examples and evidence please, we'd like to know who you're talking about first.

That's how it appears to me.

Its appears this way to you because why?

 

[Alex Jones]

Once valcano gives off more carbon dioxide then all of humanity ever has.

-------Does anybody ever wonder Why the media only reports one side of this issue????

There is clearly scientists who don't believe in global warming. Yet it is promoted as if my car is the reason the ice caps on mars are melting.

Here is an example of Mass Media ignoring a major study that just came out in recent weeks. A top Japanese scientist

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Track this topic Print story Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

 

[KittenKoder]

Once valcano gives off more carbon dioxide then all of humanity ever has.

-------Does anybody ever wonder Why the media only reports one side of this issue????

There is clearly scientists who don't believe in global warming. Yet it is promoted as if my car is the reason the ice caps on mars are melting.

Here is an example of Mass Media ignoring a major study that just came out in recent weeks. A top Japanese scientist

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Track this topic Print story Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

Hmm ... is it five before you can post links ...

Although, this link has already been posted in another topic, but the environuts avoided it like the plague.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once valcano gives off more carbon dioxide then all of humanity ever has.

-------Does anybody ever wonder Why the media only reports one side of this issue????

There is clearly scientists who don't believe in global warming. Yet it is promoted as if my car is the reason the ice caps on mars are melting.

Here is an example of Mass Media ignoring a major study that just came out in recent weeks. A top Japanese scientist

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Track this topic Print story Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

Alex, Alex, do your homework. USGS figures, mankind puts 130 to 150 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere yearly than all the volcanoes in the world combined during the same period.

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects


Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

 

[KittenKoder]

See ... told you they avoided the Japanese find.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

See ... told you they avoided the Japanese find.

If I'm not mistaken,the Japanese report you're talking about has yet to be translated into English. You know Japanese?