2016 even hotter than 2015 and 2014

T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Right. Because untold billions of barrels of fossil fuels have been burned in less than a century on multiple occasions in the earth's prehistory... without any other trace.

o_O

Uncle Buck is right about you. You really are too stupid to breathe unassisted.
Click to expand...
Look, I don't deny it. I just don't accept it with religious fervor.

It's worth trying to see where the holes are in any argument.

Do I accept 100% of what is said? No. Becuase there is a large variable of the unknown. We don't know everything about our climate.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Statistics are used to predict events that occur relatively often. Random is used to describe events for which we have no explanation. We have an explanation for the nonrandom excessive spike in CO2 at the end of the 400000 year series. Are you so daft that you don't see that?

And you are right, CO2 levels didn't double. If I read the graph, it shows the natural series end and the fossil fuels effect begin at about 275 ppm and peak at about 390. That's 38% increase. At no other time in the entire 400,000 years did CO2 levels rise above 310 and there are only 3 other times where Co2 rose above 275 ppm.

Could this have been a natural event? Umm no. Its as ttystikk said. There is only one explanation. Fossil fuels. If you persist, I'll drag other evidence out. But I'd rather not. So don't.
Click to expand...
It's precisely as I said. We're on a natural cyclical peak and we're making it bigger.

The graph isn't super precise. I see 300k peaks of nature and I see a measurement in our atmosphere that is approaching 400k, but at 375, by my looking. You want to say 390... oh well. Maybe you have better eyesight.

My only other additional question was this...

Is there any loss in atmospheric co2 levels through the process of them being locked in ice cores? In other words, if atmospheric co2 is 300 will it be recorded at 300 or 250 or 280 or maybe even 315?

Is there any way to know this for sure. It's a legitimate question that if the scientist are objective in their reports they have had to address. I've not yet seen an answer to it. Have you? I'm not saying that means it isn't answered.

Not only that.. don't our co2 measures in the atmosphere take place at high altitude, where ice cores would absorb surface air?


Edit.. looked at it again. Larger size, turns out it's over 375. Probably between 385 and 390.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Look, I don't deny it. I just don't accept it with religious fervor.

It's worth trying to see where the holes are in any argument.

Do I accept 100% of what is said? No. Becuase there is a large variable of the unknown. We don't know everything about our climate.
Click to expand...
Just constructing a picture with what we DO know leads inescapably to the OBVIOUS conclusion. Quit with the mambo pamby 'could be' games, that's just intellectually dishonest.

Sooooooooo the next thing to do is to follow the money. Right back to the Koch smokers and their right wing publicity generating 'think tanks' in all fifty states, for example. Does that not sound like a concerted effort to misinform? Koch smokers own Duke Energy, one of the nation's largest coal production and coal fired electricity production companies. Ok? They give no fucks about you or your kids, they have theirs and they mean to increase it.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Just constructing a picture with what we DO know leads inescapably to the OBVIOUS conclusion. Quit with the mambo pamby 'could be' games, that's just intellectually dishonest.

Sooooooooo the next thing to do is to follow the money. Right back to the Koch smokers and their right wing publicity generating 'think tanks' in all fifty states, for example. Does that not sound like a concerted effort to misinform? Koch smokers own Duke Energy, one of the nation's largest coal production and coal fired electricity production companies. Ok? They give no fucks about you or your kids, they have theirs and they mean to increase it.
Click to expand...
Look, both sides have monitory incentives to present certian data. Climate gate has given us ample cause to doubt. Not deny, but simply apply a healthy dose of skepticism.

You sound just like a southern baptist with your unwavering faith and out lashes at the slightest questions.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Look, both sides have monitory incentives to present certian data. Climate gate has given us ample cause to doubt. Not deny, but simply apply a healthy dose of skepticism.

You sound just like a southern baptist with your unwavering faith and out lashes at the slightest questions.
Click to expand...
Oh man, filter your bias a little will you?

from wikipedia:
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15]

That was old stuff and completely false accusations were leveled at otherwise hard working people.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I thought you got that right. We made it bigger. Agreement.

The rest of the stuff were questions you can answer yourself.
Click to expand...
Bit they don't want to, because it inescapably leads right back to responsibility for the consequences, and they'd really rather not have to think about those.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Bit they don't want to, because it inescapably leads right back to responsibility for the consequences, and they'd really rather not have to think about those.
Click to expand...
How's the global warming looking out in your backyard today?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
So I could interpret this slogan to include the reality of the US debt level? The reality of the high level of people no longer participating in the workforce? I could keep going to further illustrate the absurdity of your slogan.

Isn't it interesting how words can cut both ways? :bigjoint:
Click to expand...
Absolutely you can. And then maybe you could explain how your points conflict with that statement.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Absolutely you can. And then maybe you could explain how your points conflict with that statement.
Click to expand...
Your same slogan put to a negative image. Same words conveying a very different message. No other point. Dabbing and shoveling away here. :bigjoint:
meme.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top