|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 15:16:28 GMT -5
As long as scientists are still arguing about the existence, cause and effect of man-made global warming, then I know that the debate is not over... Scientists aren't arguing. It's right-wing extremists with a political agenda vs. science.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:28:45 GMT -5
here is another link www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htmthat links shows the ice core dats and temperatures....the pertinent part is it CONFIRMS my earlier post.....in looking at the graphs it is OBVIOUS that the temperature goes UP, BEFORE the co2 levels rise, just as i posted earlier. those graphs also show the natural cycles and the present time is right in line with the previous cycles.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:35:52 GMT -5
another little tidbit, did you know that warmer air holds more of the predominate "greenhouse gas" than cooler air?
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 15:37:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:40:27 GMT -5
another little tidbit that link and chart above come from a site that supports the concept of human caused GW. here is another link to them www.grida.no/climate/vital/05.htmNOTICE please that one is their chart of the concentrations of "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere......the problem with their chart is they "forgot" the number ONE by a wide margin greehouse gas....water vapor.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:44:11 GMT -5
SAME link that i provided and indeed I UNLIKE the authors of that site am dealing with "real science"...in real science a person does NOT create a chart of greenhouse gases by volume and LEAVE OUT the number ONE by a wide margin greenhouse gas.
i do use and apply the real scientific method in forming my opinions.
the difference it seems from rereading this thread is simple...I KNOW and have already done the study about this issue.
jimbo claims i avoid links but the FACT is, been there done that...i already READ most of the links jimbo provided LONG AGO.
i am discussing the actual science involved NOT other people opinions!
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:45:43 GMT -5
a chart headed "the main greenhouse gases" that leaves out water vapor is NOT science on any level, it IS an attempt to fool those ignorant of basic science.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 15:46:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 15:49:54 GMT -5
a chart headed "the main greenhouse gases" that leaves out water vapor is NOT science on any level, it IS an attempt to fool those ignorant of basic science. Funny that your "basic science" is in agreement with conspiracy theorists and at odds with scientists.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:52:35 GMT -5
LOL...please look at the charts again you will see that the co2 levels SPIKE and then FALL very quickly, so the FACT is the previous times when co2 levels were high even higher than now by a wide margin are followed by COOLING, not by runaway heating YOU claim jimbo.
the charts make MY point jimbo!
IF high co2 level cause more warming then the ice ages we KNOW happened could NOT possibly have happened! because BEFORE each of the recent ice ages there was a spike in co2 levels as shown by the charts!
summed up the PEAKS in co2 levels are followed by COOLING not warming!
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:53:20 GMT -5
jimbo still waiting for you to address the POINTS i make, YOUR comments about me as a person add NOTHING!
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 15:58:50 GMT -5
LOL...please look at the charts again you will see that the co2 levels SPIKE and then FALL very quickly, so the FACT is the previous times when co2 levels were high even higher than now by a wide margin are followed by COOLING, not by runaway heating YOU claim jimbo. the charts make MY point jimbo! IF high co2 level cause more warming then the ice ages we KNOW happened could NOT possibly have happened! because BEFORE each of the recent ice ages there was a spike in co2 levels as shown by the charts! summed up the PEAKS in co2 levels are followed by COOLING not warming! So you're just going to ignore the explaination of why this point is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:59:33 GMT -5
thanks for that link to realclimate, i havent had such a good laugh in a while.
so according to the link which indeed again confirms that the co2 levels go UP AFTER the temperature has already started rising, they have NO IDEA why warming started or what caused it, BUT they claim that the lagging c02 takes over and is the cause of the rest of the warming....BUT when the co2 reaches it peak and should be causing the MOST "warming" the temperature drops like a rock.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 16:06:33 GMT -5
thanks for that link to realclimate, i havent had such a good laugh in a while. so according to the link which indeed again confirms that the co2 levels go UP AFTER the temperature has already started rising, they have NO IDEA why warming started or what caused it, BUT they claim that the lagging c02 takes over and is the cause of the rest of the warming....BUT when the co2 reaches it peak and should be causing the MOST "warming" the temperature drops like a rock. Where are you getting your information from? You don't seem to understand the basics of this issue yet you're very passionate about it. The realclimate people are serious scientists. They explained why your point is wrong in layman's terms but you just ignore it. www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 16:07:47 GMT -5
dang jimbo, those charts also show clearly that while co2 is going UP rapidly the temperature is DROPPING.
that also is represented recently from the 1940's til the 70's while co2 was going UP sharply the temperatures were COOLING.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 16:16:56 GMT -5
jimbo i am getting my information from a base of KNOWLEDGE.
i understand basic science, and that knowledge gives me the tools to DEBUNK the silly basic claim that humans have taken control over the climate!
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 16:29:40 GMT -5
dang jimbo, those charts also show clearly that while co2 is going UP rapidly the temperature is DROPPING. that also is represented recently from the 1940's til the 70's while co2 was going UP sharply the temperatures were COOLING. Up and down but overall up. Funny how you try to dumb down the issue. The more you study the more you will realize you are wrong about this. Most of your arguments sound like right-wing talking points. Simplified distortions of science. What are you trying to prove?
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 16:33:35 GMT -5
jimbo i am getting my information from a base of KNOWLEDGE. A base of knowledge, huh? Is that what you call rushlimbaugh.com?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 16:41:48 GMT -5
anything is better than what you have presented from YOUknownothingaboutscience.com
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 16:43:16 GMT -5
i would be willing to bet that jimbo is actually a poster from the past here under a new name!
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 16:49:16 GMT -5
for review here is my first post in this thread which jimbo said was wrong on every point.
"science? like the FACT that co2 is a nutrient, NOT "pollution"?
like the fact that the ice core records show the warming comes FIRST then the rise in co2 levels?
like the fact that in cause = effect the effect can NEVER come before the cause?
like the reality that the last 10 years have shown no real warming and maybe slight cooling?
like the fact that there is no real way to measure a single "global tempertature"?"
point 1 = confirmed jimbo's link said co2 was "essential" for life on this planet
point 2 = confirmed, jimbo's links again
point 3 = UNrebutted, NOBODY with any knowledge of basic science COULD dispute that FACTS of cause = effect
point 4 = no lniks to the recent data, BUT the links jimbo provided clearly show recent FLATTENING on the graphs of temps
point 5 = unaddressed by jimbo but reality confirmed by scientists from a few fields of study.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on May 15, 2007 17:14:00 GMT -5
billt,
I don't understand this. Will you please explain it to me? I apologize for being too stupid to "get it" myself, and while I'm painfully aware that my private school education was lacking in regards to teaching me basic science, please do feel free to point that out to me and the other members anyway.
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.
Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges -- whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry -- show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere -- which took many thousand years -- was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 15, 2007 17:27:12 GMT -5
jimbo-
Would you like to address the fact- and it's even scientific consensus!- that Mars is showing a warming trend?
So is Neptune.
Since that is the case, I can offer two theories on whyit is so:
1) Karl Rove and the Bohemian Grove, in conjunction with the Skull and Bone Society have managed to smuggle SUVs (and Saddam's WMDs as well) onto Mars and Neptune.
(this is known as "The Alex Jones Theory")
>or<
2) a major factor- if not THE major factor- in the warming trend is the increase in the output of energy from the Sun
For the third time, please refer to the "official" global warming thread. The information that you're looking for is already there; no point in duplicating it here.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 17:29:15 GMT -5
frag, not sure what you are asking me?
have i ever insulted you? if not then why do you imply that insult would be forthcoming?
as the TARGET of insults in this thread and NOT responding inkind not sure WHY again you imply i would insult you with my answer?
i have NOT ever claimed co2 isnt rising, so the whole thing above is irrelevant to anything i have posted, actually my basic science knowledge tells me that twice as many humans would produce twice as much co2 just by BREATHING.
i would address a point from your first paragraph.....it isnt up to the school to teach(as in the student just sit passively and the school GIVE them an education), it IS up to the student to LEARN, a teacher can be the best in the world and provide all the correct information but IF the children refuse to pay attention and LEARN there is NOTHING that teacher can do to "give" those kids an education.
back to co2 please understand those graphs show PAST co2 rises far MORE than todays when humans werent around...what caused those?
could it be that nature could and was removing all the extra co2 humans generate until another factor caused us to start warming? and as in the past after the warming more co2 was held in the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 17:30:49 GMT -5
by the way frag, a reasonable person could interpret your post to me as an intentional INSULT to my character/debating style!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 15, 2007 18:13:47 GMT -5
Bill, Bill, Bill...don't take everything as an insult! Heck, most of these folks probably don't know you beyond what you post so how can they personally insult you? Frag just wanted to get your explanation on the increasing levels of CO2. I was actually going to just say "thanks for hijacking the thread". This WAS about the social issues (population control mostly) attached to global warming, not actual global warming. Like WOMI said, that has its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on May 16, 2007 10:27:02 GMT -5
I wasn't insulting anyone. Sheesh..never mind.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 16, 2007 10:51:33 GMT -5
i will be blunt now.....this thread is an example why most reasonable people dont post here.
i did NOT say frag insulted me, i DID say the post COULD BE taken as an insult by a reasonable person, there IS a difference....IF i took it as an insult i would have said so like i did with jimbo.
frag you DID imply that i would take a shot at your education, and a reasonable person could take that to be YOU claiming that my standard reply would be to insult, and that is NOT true on any level.
words have meanings folks and i am very careful in choosing the ones i use.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 16, 2007 11:20:48 GMT -5
to back my claim about people posting, nearly 200 people took the time to sign up for this forum BUT less than 20 do any posting, and more like 10 or so regulars do 95% of the total posting.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 16, 2007 11:35:05 GMT -5
I wonder why BillT doesn't release his "basic Science" findings and just resolve this whole Global warming mess.
I'm sure that would land him on Time if he could just use his basic 8th grade science and refute the 2,000 U.N scientists.
Why do you argue with us BillT? Take your idindisputable evidence (graphs and crap) and solve this at the National level.
|
|