Results 101 to 110 of 186
-
10-07-2009, 03:27 PM #101
It was 54 degrees when I left for work this morning. Its now 78 degrees outside. The earth Rotates. There is a sun that heats the Earth. It doesnt take much to create some "studies" or "Scientific Evidence" that there is global Warming. The problem arises when you try to attribute the various "studies" to industries that directly compete with the new Money-Making Technology that is being forced onto us. The loudest Global warming Alarmists are or are connected to those who stand to make the most money. The rest of the "scientists" that shout Global warming the loudest are doing so from a politicol and ideological standpoint. the same can be said for some Global warming denyers on the right, but most independent scientists agree that it is an overblown farce that has become all about money and power. Its no different than the way the democrats use minorities and the poor. They use the far left and the treehuggers to push their agenda, but the agenda being pushed is just a cover for their true motives which would never pass without the manipulation of their own voters. Liberal Voters are Funny. They have become the "Brainwashed", the "government Zombies Man!!" and all the other things the "free your mind" crowd used to say. Liberals are "the man". they are the establishment. They just dont seem to know it.
-
-
10-08-2009, 03:18 AM #102
No I do not dismiss papers because they go against what I think. I will give you an example. In the first article OPT presented on his opinion, the abstract does not tell how much of a difference they noticed in NASA satellite estimates. If the difference is one percent versus fifty percent, this means something. A good scientific paper that noticed a big difference would state that the amount the NASA satellites are off in the abstract. It makes me very suspcious of the information. I have yet to look at the paper though so I can not say for sure. This is why I did not say anything about the first paper yet.
This is what I mean by good information. Have all of your information up front and it should not be opinion until the you go to the discussion part of the paper. When a paper does not define discussion as such, it makes me suspcious of what they are saying. A good scientific paper follows a certain method. It goes abstract, population, methods, data, interpetation, discussion, problems/issues with the article, and conclusion. It will be noticeable even in some of the more popular scientific journeys such as Nature and Sci Am. Next time you read one of the papers from these publications you noticed it follows this method even if the titles are changed.
When I do not know something, I tell people of this fact. Read my post on the Wyden bill for healthcare. This is the way science is. If there may be be a problem with the interpetation, the paper will admit it. This is why I am suspicious of OPT's 3rd paper. It only criticizes newer information. Then it picks papers that are 30-40 years old to make it's point. If we were in the 1970's, I would say that global warming is not proven. The information was not as good as now. We have many indicators. You just can not ignore all of the evidence.
-
10-08-2009, 06:41 PM #103
Record snowfall in Chicago.
If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago. The record was set just three years ago when it snowed on Oct. 12.
-
-
10-08-2009, 07:23 PM #104
This is a one time event. One time events do not make a trend. With global warming weather becomes more erractic. If anything the fact that it is snowing sooner in Chicago is a sign of global warming. Chicago is next to the inland sea known as Lake Michigan. If the surface temperature of Lake Michigan is warming, more water vapor goes into the air. When the water vapor hits the colder land, it condenses into snow or rain.
http://ordtemperatures.blogspot.com/...ber-8-ord.html
I will admit we do not know for certain what the effect of the extra carbon will be this time. Science can not predict the future for certain. The least it could be is one foot elevation in the oceans. The most likely based on simulations will be between 15-20 feet. We are having an effect. You have not taken into consider that the over-all temperature on the globe is getting higher even though we are at solar minimum. Wait until the solar maximum cycle starts in 2012. It could increase the effects.
Now if you want to complain about how governments are handling it, I have not problem with this idea. I do not like the idea of a carbon tax either. In the end, it is a tax on the middle class and will only make the rich wealthier.
-
10-08-2009, 07:44 PM #105
I will admit we do not know for certain what the effect of the extra carbon will be this time. Science can not predict the future for certain. The least it could be is one foot elevation in the oceans. The most likely based on simulation will be between 15-20 feet.
I don't see proof that higher carbon causes higher ocean levels.
Have you seen "Drain the Ocean?" The raising sea levels are likely coming from earth displacing the ocean. For example, in Hawaii there are seven islands that are above the ocean, but dozens more below the ocean forming from lava.
If humans are causing the ice caps to melt and sea levels to rise, then how do you explain the ice ages and higher sea-levels we have had in the past? Was it the SUVs that cause the ice age to warm? Or was it the sun?
Another test. Place in ice cube in a cup and fill it to the top. Come back after the ice melts and you will see that the water level actually lowers! Basic science. But some how when the ice melts in the north pole we are to believe that water levels will rise?
Also, I love the statement that "since we have higher carbon levels and the ice caps are melting then it must be the higher carbon levels from humans that are melting the ice caps."
Or could it be the ice caps facing the sun on a more direct axis and/or a hotter sun that is causing the warming? A little research (vice Al Gore movies) goes a long way!
-
-
10-08-2009, 10:14 PM #106
Your assumptions are false based on not knowing the evidence. If you had done the research, you would have know that we are at solar minimun right now and the earth is getting hotter. This means the sun is cooler right now, yet the earth is hotter.This is based on observation of the amount of radiation the sun is giving off from satellites and the fact that the sun has less sun spots.
As for the ice in the cup association, this is true if the ice is in water. Most of the glaciers are on land. When they melt, it will cause sea levels to rise. The most likely glaciers to melt are the ones on mountains and Greenland (land) due to its lower latitude. If you have a full glass of water and then place an ice cube in it, what happens? The cup overflows. This would be the true experiment you should try. This is where the estimation of a 15-20 foot rise in sea level come from. Greenland has enough ice to raise the levels around this much.
As for the past cycles on Earth, you need to read up on plate techonics and some the extinction events. There is evidence that CO2 levels were higher in the past due to volcanic activity. Read about the great dying and the Siberian traps. According to the geologic evidence most of Siberia in Russia was having volcanic activity. This was placing less CO2 in the air then we are now as per a rate. 90% of species die during this event. If 90% of species die now, the human population will be very minimal or gone.
Plate techonics helps stabilze the atomsphere. CO2 and methane that falls to the bottom of the ocean gets place back into the mantle to be recycled out. It helps keep the atomshpere in balance. We are overriding the system with the burning of fossil fuels.
This is why I am worried. It is about our survival. It is about our destiny. Shall we be a galactic species or die on Earth? Personally, I would want humans to go on long enough to at least colonize Mars and the solar system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian...tinction_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
-
10-09-2009, 08:55 AM #107
" If you had done the research"
you mean if he had done YOUR RESEARCH.
Scientific equation- Think Progress + Huffington Post x Daily Kos - Common Sense/Reality = I'm always right
-
-
10-09-2009, 09:52 AM #108
Have you even read his posts? Purely scientific. You do realize you're good at making yourself look foolish, right?
-
10-09-2009, 10:31 AM #109
Purely scientific, but only the science that he deems worthy. He handily leaves out any contrary science, of which there is plenty.
-
10-09-2009, 10:37 AM #110
I'm even better at making you show everyone who and what you really are................??????????? .....,,,,,,,........That would be a BIG L
-
Originally Posted by Williy@anker 
