228224 Bullies, 4556 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 181 to 190 of 343
Page 19 of 35 FirstFirst ... 91516171819 2021222329 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 4:01pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    I didn't mean to same graph twice I did mean to show the very short term graph of ~6 years showing yes we can see some small cooling while CO2 rises this is because of all the other factors that effect global temperature.

    The other graph was suppose to be the 100 year one that shows that the overall temperature is higher.
    But over 1000 years, it isn't. Over millions of years, it isn't.

    The wider the view time window is the more it supports CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Once again we can go back and look at Ice core samples and expected global temperatures.
    No, there are several instances in Earth's past where CO2 increased as temperature was decreasing, and visa versa.

    This doesn't meant that CO2's basic physical properties have changed of course, it means that you can't make linear extrapolations from the lab experiments because the feedbacks in our complex, living planetary system are so complex. It's quite possible that human CO2 emissions will have so little impact on global average temperatures over the next 100 years that the effect, if any, will be tiny, causing no harm, or completely hidden by the effect of other natural variables.

    No sane person is claiming that the greenhouse effect of CO2 doesn't exist, but that's totally not the point. The point is whether or not the models which predict future danger requiring massive economic burdens to reduce human CO2 emissions are valid, and I don't think they are.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  2. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    There's not enough words to describe my existence.

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,284

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 4:06pm

    supporting member
     Style: No Style

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    EUREKA!

    I finally found Cullion's source.

    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 12/09/2012 4:11pm at . Reason: /unsubscribe RIP credibility
  3. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 4:16pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I just found Rabbit's doctorate

    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  4. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    5,307

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 6:04pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    But over 1000 years, it isn't. Over millions of years, it isn't.

    nope even going back 400,000 years we see the same thing cycles, the interesting thing is the lag in the older stuff that you don't see in the newer. This has to do with those complex feed back loops. We still see higher CO2 level trend with higher temperatures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    No, there are several instances in Earth's past where CO2 increased as temperature was decreasing, and visa versa.
    We have covered this, CO2 is not the only governing factor in the climate. There are other factors that can have a large effect year to year. However when you look at the data over the long term we see the relationship of CO2 to climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    This doesn't meant that CO2's basic physical properties have changed of course, it means that you can't make linear extrapolations from the lab experiments because the feedbacks in our complex, living planetary system are so complex. It's quite possible that human CO2 emissions will have so little impact on global average temperatures over the next 100 years that the effect, if any, will be tiny, causing no harm, or completely hidden by the effect of other natural variables.
    While you can't make perfect predictions you can look at the data and see that your going to end up with a warmer planet if you introduce unnaturally large amounts of CO2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    No sane person is claiming that the greenhouse effect of CO2 doesn't exist, but that's totally not the point. The point is whether or not the models which predict future danger requiring massive economic burdens to reduce human CO2 emissions are valid, and I don't think they are.
    You sure if I don't go back through this thread I won't see you heavily implying that the greenhouse effect isn't real?

    Too the heart of the mater this isn't about science at all its about public policy.

    I for one am in favor of pushing the freemarket into coming up with cleaver ways to reduce carbon not so much from a global warming perspective, but from a energy Independence, clean air, and energy cost components. Limiting the amount of CO2 through legislation is a means to an end. I don't know if it is the right means but limits spur creativity.

    You want to make a profit selling gas and you have to stay carbon neutral all of a sudden spending that money on devolving algae oil options starts to look real good. Then you end up with gasoline made from carbon neutral, renewable, local resources, who's long term price will be pushed down in the marketplace as competition increases because its not a scarce resource. Other possibilities include bacteria that makes a hydrocarbon slury that like algea oil is nearly identical to crude.

    Truth be told though all and all I don't think we need to legislate much of anything. I am also far from worried about global warming. The alternative energies really are right on the cusp of being economically feasible alternatives and in the next 30-50 years will be cheaper than our current energy production/storage/transportation needs. Once it make more sense from a reliability and cost mechanism to go solar or what have you the market place is going to shift that way.
  5. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 6:20pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post

    nope even going back 400,000 years we see the same thing cycles, the interesting thing is the lag in the older stuff that you don't see in the newer. This has to do with those complex feed back loops. We still see higher CO2 level trend with higher temperatures.
    Not over millions of years. Not in the last 16 years. The timescales of all your examples have been carefully chosen for you.

    We have covered this, CO2 is not the only governing factor in the climate. There are other factors that can have a large effect year to year. However when you look at the data over the long term we see the relationship of CO2 to climate change.
    It's not a simple relationship and it's not at all uncommon for CO2 to be increasing whilst temperature is decreasing, because those other factors really, really matter.

    While you can't make perfect predictions you can look at the data and see that your going to end up with a warmer planet if you introduce unnaturally large amounts of CO2.
    You can't tell how much warmer it will be, or at what rate it will happen yet. You can't tell if it will be a sufficient effect to prevent other inputs to the system causing an overall cooling trend.

    You sure if I don't go back through this thread I won't see you heavily implying that the greenhouse effect isn't real?
    Yes, I've never said that CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. I've repeatedly pointed out the fallacy when you've accused me of that, as has been pointed out to you by others.

    Too the heart of the mater this isn't about science at all its about public policy.

    I for one am in favor of pushing the freemarket into coming up with cleaver ways to reduce carbon not so much from a global warming perspective, but from a energy Independence, clean air, and energy cost components. Limiting the amount of CO2 through legislation is a means to an end. I don't know if it is the right means but limits spur creativity.
    If you want to do something, be specific about the effect you wish to achieve.
    Imposing massive levels of regressive taxation on the commodity used to, oh, transport food and heat homes, amongst other things is a very blunt instrument if your real goal is to reduce sulphur pollution or keep your government from repeatedly going to war in the middle east.

    You've just expended many inches of forum space to conclude 'well I don't really think global warming is that important, I just want people to believe in it so they have a reason to support taxes that force people to do things I think are cool'.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  6. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    There's not enough words to describe my existence.

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,284

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 6:45pm

    supporting member
     Style: No Style

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Imposing massive levels of regressive taxation on the commodity used to, oh, transport food and heat homes, amongst other things is a very blunt instrument if your real goal is to reduce sulphur pollution or keep your government from repeatedly going to war in the middle east.
    Ah your ulterior political motives shines through. I knew I merely had to shut my mouth for a moment long enough for you to show your true colors, unscientist.

    That's the main problem with your garbage scientific analyses in this thread, imho. You never wanted to support science, you wanted to support a political agenda, hence the broken record responses and discredited sound-byte fallacies.
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 12/09/2012 6:55pm at .
  7. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    5,307

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 6:55pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    You've just expended many inches of forum space to conclude 'well I don't really think global warming is that important, I just want people to believe in it so they have a reason to support taxes that force people to do things I think are cool'.
    No I want people to believe in it because that what the science shows. The longer the time gap you look at the better the evidence is. Over millions of years we see a very strong correlation. Stop with the last 16 years I already explained it, it simple we are warmer today than we where 16 years ago .5c to be exact. You keep looking for a nice linear graph, guess what their isn't one because CO2 isn't the only factor there are other factors that will cause a huge variance from year to year. But when you compare the temperature today to that of a million years ago you see that its hotter and wait for it more CO2 in the air. Your simply wrong about the science try reading a few of those 1000s of papers they cover every thing you have complained about in great detail along with the math and laboratory observables.


    The policy debate is a separate debate for me. In the policy debate itself I said I don't think global warming is a major issue, because it will be corrected via technology anyways.

    I did say that limiting CO2 emission has other positive benefits as well and for those reason maybe interested in that being legislated and I am certainly open to debate on those merits. I didn't say we should claim global warming should be used as the stick.

    Although it will be hard to have a good policy debate as we are in two very different places with two very different policies.
  8. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 6:56pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    Ah your ulterior political motives shines through. I knew I merely had to shut my mouth for a moment long enough for you to show your true colors, unscientist.

    That's the main problem with your garbage scientific analyses in this thread, imho. You never wanted to support science, you wanted to support a political agenda, hence the broken record responses and discredited sound-byte fallacies.
    I was responding to a political point made by goodlun. You, however, are still dick-tucking about your imaginary scientific credentials and inability to answer a simple question posed several pages ago.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  9. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    There's not enough words to describe my existence.

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,284

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 6:59pm

    supporting member
     Style: No Style

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    You've just expended many inches of forum space to conclude 'well I don't really think global warming is that important, I just want people to believe in it so they have a reason to support taxes that force people to do things I think are cool'.
    Your version of the many inches:

    'Most of the world's climate scientists are wrong'

    - 'Fmr. MechEng. Grad Student'
  10. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 7:07pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    No I want people to believe in it because that what the science shows.
    Too the heart of the mater this isn't about science at all its about public policy.

    I for one am in favor of pushing the freemarket into coming up with cleaver ways to reduce carbon not so much from a global warming perspective, but from a energy Independence, clean air, and energy cost components.
    Make up your mind.

    The longer the time gap you look at the better the evidence is. Over millions of years we see a very strong correlation.
    No we don't.





    Stop with the last 16 years I already explained it, it simple we are warmer today than we where 16 years ago .5c to be exact.
    No we aren't. You just pulled that figure out of nowhere. Look at the UAH temperature graphs again.

    You keep looking for a nice linear graph, guess what their isn't one because CO2 isn't the only factor there are other factors that will cause a huge variance from year to year.
    Yes, so large that given the uncertain effect of various feedbacks might mean they swamp the effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    But when you compare the temperature today to that of a million years ago you see that its hotter and wait for it more CO2 in the air.
    Atmospheric CO2 levels have changed by a small fraction of the natural range fluctuation for our planet over the last few hundred years.



    Your simply wrong about the science try reading a few of those 1000s of papers they cover every thing you have complained about in great detail along with the math and laboratory observables.
    You keep asserting this and then being proven wrong on almost every point of fact.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.