More global warming

Times be changing, OldGeezer. Scientists can predict and track atmospheric/climatic changes for periods longer than BILLIONS now. Originally Posted by shanm

Link?

Link? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The temperature climates for prehistoric eras have already been mapped out. The people who do that are called paleoclimatologists. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

I personally knew a very sharp mind in that field back in university. He tested air bubbles trapped inside rocks that were dated using radiometric dating to determine what atmospheric density was like back in several prehistoric eras.

For future changes, here's some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth

Sorry, DSK, but OverCompensation gave a stupid answer. He admits that it takes thousands, maybe millions of years of data to determine climate trends, and then says that the Earth is warming and it's because of humans. That does not make sense. OC is agenda driven, and oblivious to facts he himself posted. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

COG - you make a good point. Perhaps overcompensation would like to rebut it? Originally Posted by DSK

It's difficult to respond because he doesn't really understand what I said. Yes, it does take time to see climate trends but what we are currently seeing is something we have not seen before. And they can also extrapolate out to see where the trends will lead. The variable in the equation is man. It's more than just warming. It's about the level of CO2, etc. Take a read in this link from NASA and see if they can't explain it to you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Ok, let's take a look at those million and billion year forecasts. How accurate have they turned out to be? What empirical evidence is there that the million and billion year forecasts have been close to actuality? Link, please.

Ok, let's take a look at those million and billion year forecasts. How accurate have they turned out to be? What empirical evidence is there that the million and billion year forecasts have been close to actuality? Link, please. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You'll be dead, what do you care. I guess you don't give a shit about future generations, though? I posted a link. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson, that's the great thing about science, it doesn't require you to believe it. It just is.

Ok, let's take a look at those million and billion year forecasts. How accurate have they turned out to be? What empirical evidence is there that the million and billion year forecasts have been close to actuality? Link, please. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, after that we can go instruct my accountant on how to do my taxes.

My doctor says I'm at high risk for diabetes, but what the fuck does he know, am I right?

The difference between theory and reality, in 2 charts.

That NASA graph of CO2 increase was sure scary though.
Here's another way to look at it graphically.


Next >


Home >


Next >


Home >

About the only conservatives not scoffing about climate change live on a ocean front.

That NASA graph of CO2 increase was sure scary though.
Here's another way to look at it graphically.


Next >


Home >


Next >


Home >

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

This is the beauty of science. It's true regardless of whether you believe it or not. Educate yourself.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-...al-climate.htm

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Ahh yes, the cartoon. That last bastion of the ignorant.

This is the beauty of science. It's true regardless of whether you believe it or not. Educate yourself.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-...al-climate.htm Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

The Tyson quote is true. As for "educate yourself" I'd reply in kind.
17 plus years of no warming while atmospheric CO2 continued to rise is a tremendous indictment of the GCMs and their oversensitivity to CO2 forcing. Out of over 100 models there are exactly 0 that were able to predict or explain "the pause". I think there is 1 where real world observance falls within the cone of uncertainty the model predicts. As I stated elsewhere, no one denies that the greenhouse effect exists, only that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as some theorize.
What do you call a weatherman who can't make accurate weather predictions? A climate scientist.

The Tyson quote is true. As for "educate yourself" I'd reply in kind.
17 plus years of no warming while atmospheric CO2 continued to rise is a tremendous indictment of the GCMs and their oversensitivity to CO2 forcing. Out of over 100 models there are exactly 0 that were able to predict or explain "the pause". I think there is 1 where real world observance falls within the cone of uncertainty the model predicts. As I stated elsewhere, no one denies that the greenhouse effect exists, only that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as some theorize.
What do you call a weatherman who can't make accurate weather predictions? A climate scientist. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

and the increase in water vapor, which amplifies the effect of the CO2? 17 years out of 13.8 billion? That's what you're going to hang your hat on?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...change-skeptic