|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/12/2007 : 20:38:48 [Permalink]
|
WOW----passive aggressive----
gentlmen--page 12 data shows the 700 years prior, volcanoes and the sun caused temp changes but sfter the 1950's man causes the temp changes.
Please explain why the last 50 years of temp change is not caused by volcanoes and the sun.
Is that conclusion sound from the data----700 years causes by natural factors and 50 years causes by man?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_SPM.pdf |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 20:46:46 [Permalink]
|
www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf
page 3 states that during the second review governments comment of the drafts.
That would be governments not scientists "helping" to draw conclusions.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 20:54:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
WOW----passive aggressive----
gentlmen--page 12 data shows the 700 years prior, volcanoes and the sun caused temp changes but sfter the 1950's man causes the temp changes.
Please explain why the last 50 years of temp change is not caused by volcanoes and the sun.
Is that conclusion sound from the data----700 years causes by natural factors and 50 years causes by man?
What they are saying is that the current concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cannot be accounted for by natural cycles that have been observed in the past. Yes, there are natural cycles, no, there has never been as much greenhouse gas in our atmosphere as there currently is. Yes, warming can happen naturally, no, not to the extent or as quickly as it is happening now…
You are misunderstanding what they are saying.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_SPM.pdf
|
Passive aggresive?
What they are saying is that the current concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cannot be accounted for by natural cycles that have been observed in the past. Yes, there are natural cycles, no, there has never been as much greenhouse gas in our atmosphere as there currently is. Yes, warming can happen naturally, no, not to the extent or as quickly as it is happening now…
You are misunderstanding what they are saying.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:04:50 [Permalink]
|
"yes, warming can happen naturally, no, not to the extent or as quickly as it is happening now…"
www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
based on the chart it looks like in the past the earth has been hotter and heated quicker than it currently is.
So, why would the current temp change(since the 1950's) be man made and the past temp change(700 years prior) be natural?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:06:02 [Permalink]
|
| What they are saying is that after peer review by scientists, governments can comment on the reports. But nowhere does it say they can change the reports in any way… These reports were written to help governments understand the data after all. How can they do that if they are not allowed to read or comment on it? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:10:57 [Permalink]
|
Why would governments need to be involved in the peer review process.
If they are just looking for science why not let the science be published and then they can see it.
Do you really not see the conflict when a governmental represenative is involved in the peer review of science?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:17:56 [Permalink]
|
Do you really not see the conflict when a governmental represenative is involved in the peer review of science?
|
How many times do we have to say it? No government is involved in the peer review of this report.
In fact several major governments have TRIED to have the language of this report altered. Interesting that the sciencists have refused to change their conclusions based on political pressure, isn't it?
What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:18:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
"yes, warming can happen naturally, no, not to the extent or as quickly as it is happening now…"
www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
based on the chart it looks like in the past the earth has been hotter and heated quicker than it currently is.
So, why would the current temp change(since the 1950's) be man made and the past temp change(700 years prior) be natural?
|
At:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
the writer concludes:
As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an angry beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which of course is exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and other GTG emissions. We don't know exactly when or how "the beast" will react, but we do know that it eventually will. It's not a matter of whether, it's only a matter of when and how. Those of us who live in geographcal regions affected by the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation should be especially aware of how sensitive this part of "the beast's" anatomy is to poking and prodding. |
Look at the whole site and stop cherry picking your evidence!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:22:46 [Permalink]
|
I'm guessing you are reffering to:
During the second review
Governments are also invited to comment on
the revised drafts. |
There is a significant difference between being invited to comment and being asked to participate in the scientific review.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:31:17 [Permalink]
|
gentlmen--page 12 data shows the 700 years prior, volcanoes and the sun caused temp changes but sfter the 1950's man causes the temp changes.
Please explain why the last 50 years of temp change is not caused by volcanoes and the sun.
|
How about page 2 of the SUmmary fo Policy Makers:
The global
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has
increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm
to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural
range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as
determined from ice cores. |
We know ~how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere, we know ~how much of the other major greenhouse gasses we contibute to the atmosphere also. So we know that this large jump on CO2 concentration is from human sources.
Now, read the sections on radiative forcing to understand why the extra CO2 is causing warming.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:33:52 [Permalink]
|
Kil---I used the chart with the most data---cherry pick would be using smaler scales so as to find the data you like.
The author states overtly that he is now going to cherry pick--"The previous web page shows ice core data for temperature variability and CO2 concentration over the past 420,000 years. Because of the large time scale, the details of how temperature and CO2 have changed in more recent times are not apparent. The graphs on this page are of the same data, but with progressively smaller time scales in order to show those changes."
The question still stands----Why is man resposible for the temp change since the 1950's and nature is responible ofr the changes in the prior 700 years?
The long term data(which i pointed to) shows much change in co2 and temp over a 420,000 period of time.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:35:44 [Permalink]
|
"yes, warming can happen naturally, no, not to the extent or as quickly as it is happening now…"
www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
based on the chart it looks like in the past the earth has been hotter and heated quicker than it currently is.
So, why would the current temp change(since the 1950's) be man made and the past temp change(700 years prior) be natural? |
Look at his graph and examine the very close correlation between temp and CO2 concentration. Now, look at the far right side of the chart and look at the current CO2 concentration.
What part of that is it that you are not comprehending?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:49:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The question still stands----Why is man resposible for the temp change since the 1950's and nature is responible ofr the changes in the prior 700 years? |
Because man didn't figure out how to efficiently and massively unlock nature's own carbon sequestration systems until the 1800s. Why is it that you ask the question, when the report you're reading answers it?
And why is it that you think a scientific consensus requires 100% certainty?| The long term data(which i pointed to) shows much change in co2 and temp over a 420,000 period of time. |
Have the CO2 levels ever been as high as they are today?
And why won't you acknowledge that your questions about government comments on the report have been answered?
By the way, if the "global warming scare" is a "scam," then it's going to be one that's going to be good for the U.S. economy, long term, so why is it that so many Republicans are against it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 21:54:52 [Permalink]
|
Why does the ipcc predict only a .1C temp increase per decade?
Did you know their prvious prediction in 1990 was up to .3C temp increase per decade.
the real increase was .2C per decade.(only a 15year time frame).
So based on the ipcc predictions the temp rate of increase is slowing.
So Dude could you explain how this statement
"Look at his graph and examine the very close correlation between temp and CO2 concentration. Now, look at the far right side of the chart and look at the current CO2 concentration.
What part of that is it that you are not comprehending?"
corralates with the ipcc data and predictions of a slowing of increase rate of temp.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:00:29 [Permalink]
|
ipccs own documents state that goverments are involved in the reveiw process.
If you read the same words and decide that the govermnet "commenting" on the peer review process, during the peer review process means that the goverments are not involved in the peer view process, than there is nothing futher to talk about.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
