Still no proof of Global Warming

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

300,000+ years of data says no.

Bitch!

Saying bitch doesn't make what you say right. That's called junk debating.

[Escaped Gorilla Genitals]

Internet detectives prove the analysis of peer reviewed studies by internationally renowned scientists wrong using googled links to third rate news sources and cherry picking data, world is shocked!

[leo]

Originally Posted by Jim Morrison

Internet detectives prove the analysis of peer reviewed studies by internationally renowned scientists wrong using googled links to third rate news sources and cherry picking data, world is shocked!

Can't you see that global warming is just a liberal myth perpetrated so that scientists can collect grant money. I mean shit, Al Gore made an entire documentary about global warming, and we all know he's a liberal. Al Gore!!!! Thus global warming is false. QED.

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

because some people take grant money to do basic science research
Others take it to do specific research to PROVE a particular theory regardless of its merit

Real science TESTS a theory

Junk science sets out to confirm a theory at all costs.

even a dumbho should know this

well that was pretty basic, but I should have understood you're not getting it

[d_brow]

did you know......water vapour is a major greenhouse gas??
bet ya didnt!

[Gibonius]

Another neat factoid:

CFCs are incredibly potent greenhouse gases (crazy high oscillator strengths). The Montreal Protocol, which started the process of banning CFCs, did more to prevent greenhouse warming from human sources than even the most optimistic estimates of Kyoto would have accounted for.

[Renork]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Anyway, the ocean's have warmed. Your link, borrowed from the OP, considers data from 2003 and on. The graph, below, which I have now posted twice in this thread, considers data over a much longer time period.


Source: ipcc.ch

53 years compared to 5 years does NOT = 'much' longer within a geological/climatological context. That is like the different between a 1/2 inch and a centimeter in relation to a marathon.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Renork

53 years compared to 5 years does NOT = 'much' longer within a geological/climatological context. That is like the different between a 1/2 inch and a centimeter in relation to a marathon.

I would consider an order of magnitude to fall into the category of "much".

Regardless, the point of that graph, initially, was merely to point out the stupidity of using 5 years worth of data to support the idea that the globe isn't warming.

Various trolls then asked if the earth had warmed in the past 50 years. Since that graph had ocean temperature data for the past 50 years and since the ocean is a significant part of the earth, I then used that graph to support my contention that the earth had warmed.

The reality is if you want to continue this debate, you're much better off starting from the position that the earth is warming, as even the most delusional scientists will agree to that point. Even still, you'd be hard press to go against the wealth of data that supports the idea that CO2 is contributing to global warming.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

So 50 years is too short for you when I cite it but somehow 10 years is a good length when you're trying to prove your point?

In one case I used a display of thousands of years to prove you wrong. In another case I only needed 10 years to prove you wrong.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

The reality is if you want to continue this debate, you're much better off starting from the position that the earth is warming, as even the most delusional scientists will agree to that point. Even still, you'd be hard press to go against the wealth of data that supports the idea that CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Seriously now, you've been proven wrong on both your points (warming / CO2 = warming). If you want to continue this debate, you need to find a new angle to come from. You're boring us until you do.

[Badger_sly]

Originally Posted by leo

Up to your usual hypocrisies huh badger?
I like how you attempt to strike at the credibility of the IPCC with terribly unreliable sources.

Aww poor leo, did someone pee in your Cheerios this morning?

I don't strike at all of the IPCC's data. I actually use some of their data to show that warming and cooling trends are natural and not man-made (unless all those little tribes back then had massive industrial polluting factories):



So......... yeah. Anyone going to help you pull your dirty foot out of your mouth, you ?

Cue your grant money conspiracy theory.

Who was the in that other gw thread that was pushing the conspiracies?..... Was that your dupe account by chance? I shot him down there quite easily. Yet all it takes is for one of you simpleton s to watch Gore's movie, and you fire up another thread.

[d_brow]

CFC's are the majpr cause here.
Its the fact that CFC's have a higher Global warming potential which mean....they stay in the atmosphere way longer than CO2. And by long i mean up to a thousand times longer.

[ceejamon]

I'm on the fence on what the facts are, but I say that it's better safe than sorry. It can't be a BAD thing to improve the environment, decrease our carbon footprints, recycle, and develop green energies. So why we're waiting for definitive proof, might as well go that route. If it's bunk, we have cleaner air. If its not, we may save the planet.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

In one case I used a display of thousands of years to prove you wrong. In another case I only needed 10 years to prove you wrong.

Your first graph, showing temperature change over thousands of years does not disprove a) that the earth is warming now b) that CO2 isn't having an effect on the warming. All it shows is that temperatures have varied over the years.

Your 10 year graph also proves nothing.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by Badger_sly

Seriously now, you've been proven wrong on both your points (warming / CO2 = warming). If you want to continue this debate, you need to find a new angle to come from. You're boring us until you do.

Again, just because you want me to be wrong doesn't actually make me wrong.

You have yet to show that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming or actually come up with a ready natural warming mechanism consistent with the available data. I brought up the theory that its an increase in solar radiation which is causing the warming and showed IPCC data that disproved it. Do you want to come up with any other "natural warming" theories I can disprove?