General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RuHo View Post
I wonder did you even notice what you did, you stupid blithering fucking idiot



I noticed what I did. You seem to not understand it though.

want me to walk you through it with baby talk?
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-20-2008, 08:54 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Suppose the cause of global warming is increased solar radiation. Based on this, you might predict that no one area of the globe would get hotter faster than any other location. Or, if you knew anything about differences in day length across latitudes and/or the effect of the sun's angle on climate, you might predict that the lower latitudes would heat up faster than the higher latitudes.

The data does not support such predictions:


Source: www.ipcc.ch

What we see, in fact, is higher latitudes (which get less of the sun's heat and have shorter days) heating up faster than lower latitudes - good grounds for rejecting solar radiation as a cause of warming.

Of course, I doubt many of the opponents of global warming theory on this board blamed solar radiation but I gave the example to show you the sort of thing these scientists did. They came up with alternate explanations, ran the numbers, and gradually disproved them one by one until they were left with CO2 levels as a likely cause.

actually cloud cover at different latitudes greatly modifies the impact solar radiation has. It can cause more % to be reflected but also cause more energy once captured to be maintained.

Lower latitudes have more cloud cover. But increase in cloud cover beyond a certain point has no further effect. cloud cover changes at higher latitudes have a large effect.

Now back to co2, not only does the co2 take 800 years after the warming starts to significantly increase it KEEPS on increasing for hundreds of years After the globe starts cooling down again.

But but But science according to Al Gore says thats InconCievieblE
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-20-2008, 09:03 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PopeKevinI View Post
Agreed. Even if global warming turns out to be nonexistent or completely beyond our control, there are plenty of other reasons to cut back on pollution.
Also agreed....I just hate the fact that "global warming" (existent or non-existent) has become not just a political tool but also a way for certain people to profit. Personally I'm not certain that human actions have as much affect on weather patterns as Al Gore and his cronies would have us believe...but I would like cleaner air to breathe and safe water to drink.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 03-20-2008, 09:32 AM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
sorry shithead paleoclimatology shows co2 increas ALWAYS lags temp increase by hundreds of years.

You missed the point. What I said was that you can't make conclusions like "CO2 does not cause global warming" based purely on whether there's a lag between temperature increases and CO2 levels.
Old 03-20-2008, 10:08 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
actually cloud cover at different latitudes greatly modifies the impact solar radiation has. It can cause more % to be reflected but also cause more energy once captured to be maintained.

Lower latitudes have more cloud cover. But increase in cloud cover beyond a certain point has no further effect. cloud cover changes at higher latitudes have a large effect.

Cloudiness at different latitudes has been measured extensively. Look at this graph:



Source: isccp.giss.nasa.gov

While there is less cloud in the south pole, your assertion about there always being more clouds at higher latitudes is, in fact, wrong. There is, at best, a marginal difference in cloud cover across most earth's terrestrial area.

I also seem to recall you arguing previously that the earth is not warming. Do you still stand by that claim or do you want to change this into an argument about the causes of warming?

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 03-20-2008 at 10:25 AM.. Reason: grammar
Old 03-20-2008, 10:13 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
You missed the point. What I said was that you can't make conclusions like "CO2 does not cause global warming" based purely on whether there's a lag between temperature increases and CO2 levels.

I hate to break it to you but if CO2 rises ALWAYS lag behind temperature increases(aka global warming) you can make that conclusion. Unless fluctuating CO2 is the key to time travel.
__________________
.
Old 03-20-2008, 10:17 AM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renork View Post
I hate to break it to you but if CO2 rises ALWAYS lag behind temperature increases(aka global warming) you can make that conclusion. Unless fluctuating CO2 is the key to time travel.

Let's ignore climate change for a second.

Suppose the economy is suffering and the government decides to inject some money by, say, lowering taxes. If it takes 9 months for the economy to rebuild itself, can you then say what the government did had no effect?

Time lags, in and of themselves, are not evidence that there is no relationship between two things.
Old 03-20-2008, 10:30 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Temperatures dropping in 1 year (even 5 years) doesn't disprove global warming.
Just like the average temp going up over a few years doesn't prove global warming is "man made".

Quote:
It's the long term trends, not the short term variations that are important. Like this:

That's even too short term. You have to look at the big picture, to see the natural fluctuations in our climate:

Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Old 03-20-2008, 10:55 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Let's ignore climate change for a second.

Suppose the economy is suffering and the government decides to inject some money by, say, lowering taxes. If it takes 9 months for the economy to rebuild itself, can you then say what the government did had no effect?

Time lags, in and of themselves, are not evidence that there is no relationship between two things.

So in one instance within the context of this particular argument we have these three variables.

Temperature lets assign this X
Time lets assign this N
CO2 levels lets assign this Y

The progression of things for millions of years seems to have been(keep in mind I am just taking what the person earlier said at face value I have done no research on this myself) the following.

Temperature Increase (X) >>> Time passes (N)>>> CO2 levels go up (Y)

You propose we change the variables and see if time lag is a reasonable indicator for this situation and propose the following variables.

Code:
Government Lowers Taxes = CO2 Levels Increase = Y
Time = Time = N
Stronger Economy = Temp Increase = X

Government lowers taxes (Y) >>> Time passes (N) >>> Economy Strengthens (X)
==
Temperature goes up (X) >>> Time passes (N) >>> CO2 Increase (Y)
Which would not be true. So bad analogy or you intended the variables to be the other way around.

So....
Code:
Government Lowers Taxes  = Temp Increase = X 
Time = Time = N
Stronger Economy = CO2 Levels Increase = Y

Government Lowers Taxes(X) >>> Time (N) >>> Economy Strengthens (Y)
==
Temperature Increase (X) >>> Time(N) >>> CO2 Increase (Y)
So for your argument to be comparable The Economy Strengthening would have to be a logical reason for the government to have lowered taxes earlier.




I am really tired and have not eaten in a long time so don't hold it against me too much if I fucked that up really bad.
__________________
.
Old 03-20-2008, 11:00 AM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
I noticed what I did. You seem to not understand it though.

want me to walk you through it with baby talk?

moron didn't even notice it
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 03-20-2008, 11:11 AM Straw Man is online now  
Reply With Quote
#40  

wingedbuttmonkey
 
wingedbuttmonkey's Avatar
 
I'm tellin' you man, it's because the sun is expanding.
Old 03-20-2008, 11:14 AM wingedbuttmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pra3t0r View Post
You know that the IPCC was created and supported by politicians, not scientists. In fact, this supposed IPCC coalition of scientists supporting the global warming theory if you interviewed them individually they don't even believe in it. Their names are being used without their permission and many cases without their knowledge to support global warming theory. The IPCC is made up primarily of politicians.

Very true. And here's some more showing the so called "consensus" is :

Quote:
THERE IS NO CONSENUS ON GLOBAL WARMING
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...l+Warming1.pdf

Interesting read, but the point at hand starts on page 30.
Old 03-20-2008, 11:14 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

UID=growler
 
UID=growler's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kudos View Post
i refuse to go green until it isnt so fucking expensive.

It can be cheap, unless you buy into the all of the marketing.
Old 03-20-2008, 11:31 AM UID=growler is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Just like the average temp going up over a few years doesn't prove global warming is "man made".

Did I ever say that it did? The point of that graph was to show jubjub and the OP that the globe is, in fact, warming. That's what this thread was initially about - look at the title.
Old 03-20-2008, 01:12 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renork View Post
So for your argument to be comparable The Economy Strengthening would have to be a logical reason for the government to have lowered taxes earlier.

The whole point of the analogy was to show that a lack of direct temporal correlation does not imply a lack of causation.

You're taking up the different idea that since CO2 levels rise after temperature increases, CO2 can't be a cause. First of all, it would great if you or Morlock or Badger would provide evidence that CO2 levels rise after temperature does. Second, even if CO2 levels rise AFTER temperature rises, there could very well be a time lag such that the rise in CO2 causes the NEXT temperature increase (not, obviously, the one before it).

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 03-20-2008 at 01:30 PM.. Reason: screwed up a quote
Old 03-20-2008, 01:18 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.