Global Warming is over.

[MR E30 325is]

What do you mean data to prove out side of normal cycles. What about weather cycles that run on 1000 year patterns or 10,000, 100,000, 5,000,0000 year cycles we have good data for 150 years, we only barely understand very very short run weather cycles. Fuck the "scientists" cant hardly tell you what the weather is going to do tomorrow, 10 hours before it happens WHY THE FUCK should I have any trust in what they say about whats going to happen 50 or a 100 or 1000 years from now

12,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was under a fucking mile of ICE. and 65 million years ago it was a tropical paradise that was much warmer than now.

Like I said its not like a city sized chunk of ice has never been floating around in the oceans before, just because people were not smart enough to document it or here period does not mean its a big deal or that it has not happened before or wont happen again in the future !!!!!

Finally, a politics and religion thread I can post in, simply because this is the exact shit I am studying in college!!

It is true that scientists cannot accurately tell us what the weather will be like tomorrow, but they can accurately depict the climate on a broader scale.

For reference, climate means weather over a long period of time.

And it is also true, that over the part 250 millions years, the earth has gone through around 25 to 30 "ice age" cycles, but few if any have seen CO2 levels as high as this. Scientists have validated this by pulling massive ice cores out of Antartica and the North pole, and studying the bubbles in the ice at varying depths.

You cannot sit there and tell me that you dont think the massive changes we as humans have made to the carbon cycle, by cutting down trees that store carbon, and by pulling carbon stored in oil and coal out of the ground to burn and put into the atmosphere do not have an effect on the earth and our climate. To do so would truly show your ignorance!!

In most of these threads I dont interject because my level of knowledge is slim to none. And now that I am witnessing a thread in which I am well educated, it is easy to spot those that are like me in most other threads, with their lack of knowledge.

[gwb72tii]

Finally, a politics and religion thread I can post in, simply because this is the exact shit I am studying in college!!

It is true that scientists cannot accurately tell us what the weather will be like tomorrow, but they can accurately depict the climate on a broader scale.

For reference, climate means weather over a long period of time.

And it is also true, that over the part 250 millions years, the earth has gone through around 25 to 30 "ice age" cycles, but few if any have seen CO2 levels as high as this. Scientists have validated this by pulling massive ice cores out of Antartica and the North pole, and studying the bubbles in the ice at varying depths.

You cannot sit there and tell me that you dont think the massive changes we as humans have made to the carbon cycle, by cutting down trees that store carbon, and by pulling carbon stored in oil and coal out of the ground to burn and put into the atmosphere do not have an effect on the earth and our climate. To do so would truly show your ignorance!!

In most of these threads I dont interject because my level of knowledge is slim to none. And now that I am witnessing a thread in which I am well educated, it is easy to spot those that are like me in most other threads, with their lack of knowledge.

massive??
what percentage of annual global CO2 is anthropogenic?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Just wondering, the Russians took years(decades???) to drill down to a lake that is ~20million years old, how long did it take to drill out 250million year old samples?

[smooth]

Just wondering, the Russians took years(decades???) to drill down to a lake that is ~20million years old, how long did it take to drill out 250million year old samples?

The length of time wasn't due to sitting there drilling straight down into the ground. It was due to funding shortages, equipment failures, and weather conditions in the antarctica. They have to leave every winter because during the summer the weather dropped to minus 89 degrees celsius o.O I believe it's the coldest environment on earth.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I don't think you answered my question, do you think you did, or do you think that was a diversion?

[smooth]

I didn't answer your question because I don't know how it takes to drill ice cores. Wait for the kid studying it in college to answer your question. I'm just pointing out you're comparing apples and oranges.

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://www.pages-igbp.org/ipics/data/ipics_oldaa.pdf

Wait, does that say the oldest core is 1.5 Million years old? (As of 2006)

[gwb72tii]

Fair enough.

Hey did you read the hyper linked articles in that write up? The WSJ OP-eds are more interesting to read imo

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

Yes and the one from the 16 climate related scientists says it all, really

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html

[smooth]

I hope you read those articles carefully because the argument boils down to trust the actuary tables. The argument is that the science isn't clear enough to justify spending money to reduce greenhouse issues. Reading it closely, however, reveals the meat of the argument is more about the reality that it's not worth it from a cost-benefit analysis.

I actually don't dispute that. But I also don't dispute that, from a pure economic standpoint, it's less expensive to refuse to follow regulations and pay out to widows when oil rigs explode, or mine shafts collapse, or gas tanks explode on impact...etc. You're aware of the history of using this kind of argument I'm positive you are and it's not something I personally agree with doing. Not from a quality of life perspective.

And I certainly take issue with the claim that this is all about leeching money from the government given that the largest leeches, in order of tit suckage, is defense, oil, and justice.

[herbivor]

You cannot sit there and tell me that you dont think the massive changes we as humans have made to the carbon cycle, by cutting down trees that store carbon, and by pulling carbon stored in oil and coal out of the ground to burn and put into the atmosphere do not have an effect on the earth and our climate. To do so would truly show your ignorance!!

That's exactly what they're saying. And yes it's primarily because of ignorance of the real science and refusal to read the volumes of technical literature that is needed to really see and understand. They have been fed plenty of disinformation and propaganda by faux scientists, paid for by very wealthy people and corporations that have a genuine monetary interest in burning fossil fuels. (Heartland Institute is one of many propaganda machines). In fact, nearly any counter-argument or link they share can be linked to one of these groups. I've shown them on previous threads but it always falls on deaf ears, so I've stopped trying.

https://www.skepticalscience.com

[gwb72tii]

That's exactly what they're saying. And yes it's primarily because of ignorance of the real science and refusal to read the volumes of technical literature that is needed to really see and understand. They have been fed plenty of disinformation and propaganda by faux scientists, paid for by very wealthy people and corporations that have a genuine monetary interest in burning fossil fuels. (Heartland Institute is one of many propaganda machines). In fact, nearly any counter-argument or link they share can be linked to one of these groups. I've shown them on previous threads but it always falls on deaf ears, so I've stopped trying.

www.skepticalscience.com

oh come on herb, so now you're the expert at the expense of the 16 scientists in the above articles, eh? you want peer review of AGW, you have it in the above referenced articles.
they are "faux" scientists how exactly? because they haven't adopted the religion of AGW?
i'm certainly no expert in climate science (neither are you), yet when you're confronted with expert opinion from climate scientists that disagree with your prejiduces, they are now "faux".
i don't think anyone here has ever argued the earth has not warmed, just that we're skeptical of man being the cause. so far, the data, as actually measured in the environment versus mathematical climate models, supports that skepticism, as the scientists correctly point out.
i've read a lot of the science from your side, i think i understand a lot of it. the trouble arises when the predictions are not supported by emperical evidence.
when your side quits hiding emails, quits forging fake documents, quits being overtly political, and makes the climate models they create open public knowledge instead of proprietary, perhaps your side will win the argument.
keep the faith

oh, please pray tell exactly what is the "real science"" you allude to??

[smooth]

I'm not sure what you mean by propietary climate models because my ex-roommate, a galaciologist, used open source software for his modeling and while I didn't understand the algorithms he used they were accessible by the public.

[cale]

dude, i've posted facts on this subject if you care to search, so bite me.
you're side of the isle is on a slippery slope going downhill fast.
no warming as expected, no melting glaciers, fewer hurricanes, nothing as predicted by the government funded "scientists"

oh come on herb, so now you're the expert at the expense of the 16 scientists in the above articles, eh? you want peer review of AGW, you have it in the above referenced articles.
they are "faux" scientists how exactly? because they haven't adopted the religion of AGW?
i'm certainly no expert in climate science (neither are you), yet when you're confronted with expert opinion from climate scientists that disagree with your prejiduces, they are now "faux".
oh, please pray tell exactly what is the "real science"" you allude to??

So you'll defend the credibility of those that provide findings to which you agree with but you question the credibility of those providing conclusions which you disagree with...based on what?

They're not real scientists because I disagree with them says the hypocritical hypocrite.

[Farbin Kaiber]

So, how long does it take to get 250 million year old ice core samples, and where is the published research showing what those samples have to bring to the scientific community?

Why are these Climate Change people not answering? It's an easy question to answer.

[cale]

So, how long does it take to get 250 million year old ice core samples, and where is the published research showing what those samples have to bring to the scientific community?

Why are these Climate Change people not answering? It's an easy question to answer.

Where did anyone make mention of ice cores with 250 million year old samples?