All of them, it's pretty boring, you're playing the Gish gallop making a number of claims without your own evidence and then demanding others refute it. There's no point conversing with you, no amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So how about this: you prove your claims are right, with overwhelming evidence. Start from the beginning of the thread.
So how about this: you prove your claims are right, with overwhelming evidence. Start from the beginning of the thread.
Honestly, going through your posts for sources is ghastly. I did the exercise though.
We end up on nutters websites as Ice Age Now - The next ice age could begin any day, political websites such as Rockwall Conservative – Conservative dialog for patriotic Americans or second rate newspapers as Home | Daily Mail Online.
Notably absent are any serious sources. The only half decent one is a reference to Bob Tisdale through a graph of his. Which isn't much. Once again: Bob Tisdale tries to hide the massive warming | HotWhopper or Bob Tisdale's trick of hiding the data, revisited | HotWhopper
edit: btw, I don't know why I even bother; I'm out of this thread, anyone with a modicum of sense can see how ridiculous this is.
We end up on nutters websites as Ice Age Now - The next ice age could begin any day, political websites such as Rockwall Conservative – Conservative dialog for patriotic Americans or second rate newspapers as Home | Daily Mail Online.
Notably absent are any serious sources. The only half decent one is a reference to Bob Tisdale through a graph of his. Which isn't much. Once again: Bob Tisdale tries to hide the massive warming | HotWhopper or Bob Tisdale's trick of hiding the data, revisited | HotWhopper
edit: btw, I don't know why I even bother; I'm out of this thread, anyone with a modicum of sense can see how ridiculous this is.
Last edited:
Evenharmonics: I am deeply sorry to say this, you are probably a nice individual and all. But looking at your posts make my eyes glaze over and blink slowly, purely out of boredom. This is exactly what I was casually mentioning earlier about checking sources properly. Would you just pretty please with bells and ribbons on, check sources from different sides of the camp, and evaluate credibility, relevance and if the data is represented from a somewhat realistic standpoint, in a proper manner, before commenting further. Thank you.
And please don't start a flame war, I fear that we are close to getting the thread shut off here if people keep bringing up politic and religious references all over the place. For me this is an interesting topic, and believe it or not, but I have actual interest in what people have to say. It would be so nice to have a proper discussion.
And please don't start a flame war, I fear that we are close to getting the thread shut off here if people keep bringing up politic and religious references all over the place. For me this is an interesting topic, and believe it or not, but I have actual interest in what people have to say. It would be so nice to have a proper discussion.
Those graphs in post #340 have reminded me that the world has not had a big volcano eruption since 1991. It does not go far enough to show any really big ones. If it went back further there were a couple of very big ones that cooled the planet such as Tambora in the ring of fire. We had a year without a summer.
^ Proof that you don't know the specifics. I'm not surprised as I already know the types.
My intention on this thread wasn't to entertain anyone. It was to debate about the subject brought up by OP. If it turns out not entertaining to you then c'est la vie.
You may be mistaking me for another forum member.
The reason I like and post the Berkeley Earth graphs is that most of them look at multiple studies of land and water temperature studies, as well as CO2 level studies. The creator of Berkeley Earth was a climate change denier and quite conservative. The graphs show the CO2 and temperature levels during major volcanic eruption periods.
I am curious, Evanharmonics, do you believe in the science and findings of Charles Darwin and that which followed and support? I do not mean this as a joke or an insult, I find that many folks I know who are doggedly opposed to Climate Change science believe that Evolution is nonsense or, if not that, a theory full of holes and problems.
In addition, while I am 100% am convinced of man induced climate change, and the disasters it will bring, I also believe that with 9 or 10 billion people on the Earth, we will be unable to deal with it in any meaningful way. Man's population and the issues that it will create will doom us in the future.
I am curious, Evanharmonics, do you believe in the science and findings of Charles Darwin and that which followed and support? I do not mean this as a joke or an insult, I find that many folks I know who are doggedly opposed to Climate Change science believe that Evolution is nonsense or, if not that, a theory full of holes and problems.
In addition, while I am 100% am convinced of man induced climate change, and the disasters it will bring, I also believe that with 9 or 10 billion people on the Earth, we will be unable to deal with it in any meaningful way. Man's population and the issues that it will create will doom us in the future.
OK wrong question.The measurements of two speaker cables are shown, one is new and the other is used for a while, a.k.a. burn-in, and the measurements don't support the claim that they sound different. Your reply is like asking for peer reviewed studies in respectable scientific papers that they indeed don't sound different.
The thing is that I can come up with plenty peer reviewed papers showing CO2 is a main factor in climate change, even going back to the 19th century. BTW there are more factors that influence climate, so it's no wonder that CO2 doesn't always align with temperature.
What do those climate change deniers deny? Can you be specific?
Your personal belief is none of my business.
For those reading the thread out of interest and not agenda, one thing to think about how much more data and modelling is being done every day, and so consensus is increasing. This is one reason the language that the IPCC uses has been getting stronger over time.
Back in '93, I was doing my masters in chem eng, and a close friend doing his phd in mech eng invited me to a seminar for someone applying to be a prof in mech eng. He had done a 2D computer simulation of the oceans, showing the effect of temperature on ocean currents. One of the "interview" questions he got was asking what could cause the temperature rise in the oceans. He answered that it could be a 10,000 year planetary cycle. The prof cut him off short; he had obviously gotten his answer that the candidate was open minded and following related research and no point wasting more time on it. I always found it interesting to contrast that against the mountain of data available today. I'm sure the skeptics will re-interpret my experience
Back in '93, I was doing my masters in chem eng, and a close friend doing his phd in mech eng invited me to a seminar for someone applying to be a prof in mech eng. He had done a 2D computer simulation of the oceans, showing the effect of temperature on ocean currents. One of the "interview" questions he got was asking what could cause the temperature rise in the oceans. He answered that it could be a 10,000 year planetary cycle. The prof cut him off short; he had obviously gotten his answer that the candidate was open minded and following related research and no point wasting more time on it. I always found it interesting to contrast that against the mountain of data available today. I'm sure the skeptics will re-interpret my experience
Last edited:
Where are those papers and what kind of change? Please be specific.
What are those factors?
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Phys. Rev. 38, 1876 (1931) - The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/callendar_1938.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
So the effect of CO2 on climate has been known for quite a while now. I can go on, should I?
Climate change - Wikipedia
1 Solar irradiance
2 CO2
3 Aerosols
Hello,
- #DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land << JoNova
By the way, what is the normal temperature of the earth ??
- #DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land << JoNova
By the way, what is the normal temperature of the earth ??
That internet blog cherry pick some graphs from a paper and shoehorns it into its own biases. I suggest everyone reads the original paper: (PDF) Hemispheric and large-scale land-surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2010
Yes, please do. You haven't provided what you claimed. The following quote is your claim.
People over the age of single digit know that climate changes. The question was what specific changes in this context. You've been pinning CO2 from human activity as the culprit. What change did that specifically produce?
No water vapor? You should look it up.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.