Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2016, 12:23 AM)Beaker Wrote: And ignoring my question that had everything to do with the topic.

Pretty sure I answered that in post #12, but you never answered my question of when the icecaps are going to melt. 

[Beaker]

(04-16-2016, 06:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So when are the icecaps going to melt?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/greenland-ice-sheets-extreme-melt-144000985.html

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2016, 12:30 AM)Beaker Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/greenland-ice-sheets-extreme-melt-144000985.html

I didn't get an answer from you. Did you post second hand news?

Here's my reply:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

[JustWinBaby]

(04-16-2016, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He did not post a single shred of evidence against man contributing to global warming.

No, I did not. And that's the wrong argument.

I merely pointed out there's not actual statistical evidence supporting the claim man is causing global warming.  It's what scientists, who have chosen to study the issue and who's livelihood's depend on the funding, believer - not what they've demonstrated with the scientific rigor they were instructed in.

This the really hard part - you don't need to provide "evidence" or proof AGAINST man-made global warming. But rather people need to provide a STATISTCAL CASE for it being so...which they have not. There's a reason the scientific method exists. If we're going to ignore it just because the hypothesis "seems" plausible....well, that's pretty much a proven loser.

Tomatoe, Tomato....is that you, Dan Quayle?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-16-2016, 08:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually post some evidence to back up your opinion?  Why in the world would you ever do that?  You already have people telling you what to believe.  No need to do any research on your own.  Instead just blindly believe what you are told.

Post any studies you think actually "prove" Man-made global warming and I will happily destroy them in about 30 seconds - in most cases you need read nothing more than the first 1-2 paragraphs of the abstract (what's that?!?).  

But, admittedly, I most likely can't "learn" you why.

If you're asking someone to "prove" man-made global warming doesn't exist, then you're singaling you don't have a clue about how research actually works.

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2016, 05:06 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Post any studies you think actually "prove" Man-made global warming and I will happily destroy them in about 30 seconds - in most cases you need read nothing more than the first 1-2 paragraphs of the abstract (what's that?!?).  

But, admittedly, I most likely can't "learn" you why.

If you're asking someone to "prove" man-made global warming doesn't exist, then you're singaling you don't have a clue about how research actually works.

Why do you put the word "prove" in quotations.

Are you claiming that it is impossible for science to "prove" anything?  

Do you put "prove" in quotations when you talk about "proving" the theory of gravity?

Here is what I can post studies showing.  The earth's climate has warmed dramatically in direct correlation with man pumping billions of tons of a known greenhouse gas into our atmosphere.  Even when taking historical trends into account the earth is warming faster than usual.

Will you at least agree that all of these fact are true before we go any further?

[GMDino]

(04-17-2016, 12:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Clarifying?

Pointing out one of the option 3 questions:  Snarky and passive-aggressive.

[Beaker]

(04-17-2016, 01:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't get an answer from you.

Because you failed to answer post 31 directly. You referred to an earlier post prior to the question being asked of you. Then you post an article of a writer's opinion who makes claims but doesn't provide links to actual studies and has a picture of a polar bear next to a penguin.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2016, 03:06 PM)Beaker Wrote: Man simply can't NOT be affecting things with the amount of fossil fuels we burn each year. And for those who say its part of a "normal" warming or cooling cycle, well....you're wrong. CO2 levels in our atmosphere have never reached the levels they are approaching now. Here's a very simple graphic to indicate what we mean:



You see the up and downs of the red line below the dotted blue line? Those are the normal cycles of the Earth. We are now in territory the earth has never been in before. And another simplistic point that helps illustrate the point....no other planet in the solar system is warming at the rate the earth is right now. If it had something to do with a normal cycle, the other planets would be following the same cycle according to their average temperatures...but they aren't.

So, to make it clear, this is more of me playing devil's advocate than anything else. Your graph doesn't actually support your claim. The amount of time represented on your graph is a tiny percentage of Earth's history. Do you have data to support the claim that the levels of carbon dioxide have actually never been this high? We also must consider that we are still in an ice age. We may not be in a period of glaciation that we typically think of, but from my understanding the entirety of human history has existed in an ice age, and outside of our planet's ice ages there have been no ice caps or glaciers to speak of.

I think it is foolish to think our pumping of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere doesn't have an effect. It would be against rational thought to think it didn't play a role. However, the degree to which this has an impact is something that would be hard to judge. After all, don't we get most of our historic atmospheric data from ice cores? And since there is no ice outside of the ice ages, we would have nothing to work with for the hundreds of millions of years not included in the information we do have.

[Beaker]

(04-17-2016, 10:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: After all, don't we get most of our historic atmospheric data from ice cores? And since there is no ice outside of the ice ages, we would have nothing to work with for the hundreds of millions of years not included in the information we do have.

First, it has been repeatedly shown, both on Earth and other planets, that temperatures closely follow CO2 levels. So you can make the correlation with a high degree of certainty that when CO2 levels are high, temps are high, and vice versa. And there has been ice on the planet outside of ice ages. The polar caps have been around for the majority of Earth's history, ice age or not. Lastly, there are other methods of determining CO2 levels besides ice cores. Not all those methods result in statistical numbers, but give a pretty clea picture of CO2 levels throughout history.

One method is looking at the number of stomata on fossilized leaves. Those are the holes on the bottoms of leaves that take in CO2. Since the plant loses water when the holes are open to take in CO2, it is an evolutionary advantage to be able to survive with the least amount of stomata possible. When CO2 levels are high, plants have fewer stomata. When CO2 levels are low, the plants require more stomata to take in enough CO2 to conduct photosynthesis. Scientists can compare the number of stomata on fossilized leaves to modern day plants and plants fossilized during the times that we do have actual CO2 numbers and extrapolate the approximate CO2 levels at the time.

The graph I posted was obviously a very simple representation of CO2 levels. But it was not meant to be the definitive say. It was simply posted to refute the most common climate change denier assertion that we are simply in a normal cycle of temps....when the levels of CO2 are clearly not within those normal cycle boundaries. You can find cyclic graphs that go back farther and have better data, but that one was fine to illustrate a point for most people.

[xxlt]

(04-17-2016, 01:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't get an answer from you. Did you post second hand news?

Here's my reply:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

Well, when I saw a single article in a conservative British tabloid questioning global warming I was ready to say, "Game, set, match, tabloid! Sorry 97% of the scientists in the world, but you lose, I am sold that global warming is all a hoax."

But, then the video of the page three girl wouldn't load properly and my computer got all kinds of weird acting, so now I am thinking maybe the scientists were right after all. I mean, a British tabloid where you can't watch the page three girl video really loses credibility with me.

And the rest of you, be warned. Yes her jubblies are huge, but that video is trouble.

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2016, 01:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't get an answer from you. Did you post second hand news?

Here's my reply:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

I usually don't resort to attacking the source of information, but what kind of a joke publication posts a picture of a polar bear and a penguin together?  It is one thing to make a simple mistake.  It is another thing to actually go out of their way to post a completely fabricated photo.  Makes it kind of hard to trust their opinion.

But addressing the issue of the expanding eastern ice sheet it appears that much of that was due to extra snowfall.  The land ice and the western sheet of see ice are still shrinking.

And I loved the way this article talked about the "reduction in the rise" of sea levels.  They can not deny that sea levels are rising based on ice melt from other areas in the word and thermal expansion of ocean water due to increasing temperatures, so instead they try to brag about it rising at a lower level.  Reminds me of politicians bragging about reducing the rate of increase of our national deficit. 


But this is at least the type of discussions we need to be having.  Lets talk about actual arguments instead of just saying "It is all just made up by liberals".

[*PhilHos*]

(04-16-2016, 03:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well apparently Bfines argument is that if someone was wrong in the past that means all science is unreliable.  But, as I already said, this is not a valid point.

I am sure Bfine does not let the fact that Doctors used to bleed people to cure them keep him from going to a doctor today when he gets sick.

See? I knew you could do it!

[*PhilHos*]

(04-16-2016, 10:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why are you answering for Larry? 

Seriously though, in hindsight, i should've responded as if Fred was talking to me. Would've been way funnier.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2016, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I usually don't resort to attacking the source of information, but what kind of a joke publication posts a picture of a polar bear and a penguin together?  It is one thing to make a simple mistake.  It is another thing to actually go out of their way to post a completely fabricated photo.  Makes it kind of hard to trust their opinion.

I pretty sure they assumed most would understand it was an illustration to show that animals from both ice caps are reduced to floating around on one small piece of ice in a world of melted ice. Very few probably think it's a real picture.

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2016, 03:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I pretty sure they assumed most would understand it was an illustration to show that animals from both ice caps are reduced to floating around on one small piece of ice in a world of melted ice. Very few probably think it's a real picture.

Seriously?

This is the story right beside it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/575581/PICTURED-creepy-ghost-photo-bombed-family-snap-two-children


So it is kind of hard for me to figure out what the average reader of the Sunday Express thinks is "real".

[NATI BENGALS]

Bros. The senator from Oklahoma had a snowball on the senate floor. In February!! Imagine that... Climate change is a hoax.

Forget the fact that
"Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Last year was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average."
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

And forget the fact the two warmest years on record happened to be 2014 and 2015.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

Senator Bro Science from Oklahoma had a fricking snowball in February. Shit is a myth.

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2016, 11:48 AM)Beaker Wrote: First, it has been repeatedly shown, both on Earth and other planets, that temperatures closely follow CO2 levels. So you can make the correlation with a high degree of certainty that when CO2 levels are high, temps are high, and vice versa. And there has been ice on the planet outside of ice ages. The polar caps have been around for the majority of Earth's history, ice age or not. Lastly, there are other methods of determining CO2 levels besides ice cores. Not all those methods result in statistical numbers, but give a pretty clea picture of CO2 levels throughout history.

That correlation of CO2 and temperature is not something I am disputing. As for the ice, I beg to differ. Ice starting forming on Antarctica about 40 million years ago, so less than 1% of Earth's history is potentially contained in the ice sheet there. The highest estimate I have seen for the Arctic sea ice pack has been 4 million, so we're dealing with less than 0.1%.

(04-17-2016, 11:48 AM)Beaker Wrote: One method is looking at the number of stomata on fossilized leaves. Those are the holes on the bottoms of leaves that take in CO2. Since the plant loses water when the holes are open to take in CO2, it is an evolutionary advantage to be able to survive with the least amount of stomata possible. When CO2 levels are high, plants have fewer stomata. When CO2 levels are low, the plants require more stomata to take in enough CO2 to conduct photosynthesis. Scientists can compare the number of stomata on fossilized leaves to modern day plants and plants fossilized during the times that we do have actual CO2 numbers and extrapolate the approximate CO2 levels at the time.

This is actually very interesting and I had no idea about this.

(04-17-2016, 11:48 AM)Beaker Wrote: The graph I posted was obviously a very simple representation of CO2 levels. But it was not meant to be the definitive say. It was simply posted to refute the most common climate change denier assertion that we are simply in a normal cycle of temps....when the levels of CO2 are clearly not within those normal cycle boundaries. You can find cyclic graphs that go back farther and have better data, but that one was fine to illustrate a point for most people.

I did look at one graph that showed periods within the last 400 million years with higher CO2 levels. Now, I can get behind the idea that what has occurred has been more rapid or has been caused by means beyond mother nature. But the claim that we are dealing with unprecedented CO2 levels on Earth is false based on that information. The chart you provide puts it at 400 ppm where this chart:


has some estimates putting it in the thousands.

Again, more playing devil's advocate here than anything else.

[BengalHawk62]

Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague.

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2016, 12:58 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague.

You can take this anaolgy even a little farther.


As long as we were just living on the surface of the planet we were not doing a lot of damage.  It was not until we started penetrating the surface and using what was "inside" of the earth that we really started messing stuff up.  

It is like a germ not doing much damage when it is just on your skin, but causes a lot of damage when it gets inside of you.


I guess we would have eventually chopped down all the trees, but we would never have grown to our current population levels without nitrogen based fertilizers to produce food and fossil fuels to protect us from the cold.  There would have never been anything close to an "industrial revolution".