BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Here's Something for All the Global Climate Change Denialists...
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Here's Something for All the Global Climate Change Denialists...
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
Good for you. Not many are willing to make the sacrifice to produce their own energy but I think that will change with the cost of energy going up (and fast) and more will get into it.

The cost of solar is going down as well,maybe not as quick as I would like but in the right direction none the less. with the new production methods and the larger production lines being built we can hopefully see some real savings soon

I'd love to get a h2 production going for my dump load but time just hasn't allowed it yet. Then run a small car on that but I'll need more panels for that one too

I find that one you start buying panels you can't stop.

Kinda like an addict Big Grin


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Humans didn't make it get warmer, it was getting warmer on a normal cycle and would have been this warm in a few hundred years if humans hadn't contributed.



Hi John G.

12 Volt Dan has posted a direct refutation of your argument complete with supporting links.

I'm really not trying to stir the pot, but since we (humanity) either DID or DIDN'T cause this global warming trend, it would be nice to get some decisive closure to the issue. Do you have anything to refute the refutations given on Dans links?

Peaceful, but thorough debate (with research) should hopefully get us a little further along on the issue.
 
Registered: September 26, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thats what I thought.

The IPCC reports have been extensive and to the point and remember these are presented by scientists that naturally hold back from making to bold a statement. The peer review process works and works well.All links I have provided come from reports that are subject to that very same process

"Earth scientists" have been responsible for some of the worst mis information of the general public. People like Tim Ball and Fred Singer (to mention a few) have reaped good paychecks from the Oil Industry while misleading the pubic on global warming (hey it worked for the tobacco industry)and if you want the links I can post them as well

Like I said before the warming will have dire consequences for man if it continues unabated, that much is certain. whats needed is a concerted effort buy governments and world leaders (and the people)to get together and resolve the problems concerning co2 production as well as monetary problems. We can't tell China,India and a host of other poorer countries that they have to put their growing economies (and standard of living) on hold because of Global warming when The wealthy western economies contributed most of the problem in the first place. This kind of posturing is already going on now.

and heres a link to the IPCC site where all the information has been posted on global warming along with the reports and guidelines on how to tackle the problem. They can be a little long winded but if your looking for the truth (as best we know it) then this is the place to find it


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Argon is not a greenhouse gas:

"Argon gas (Ar) makes up about 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere. In 1–3 sentences,
explain why argon is not a greenhouse gas.

A greenhouse gas absorbs and reradiates infrared radiation. A molecule absorbs IR
radiation if a vibration can be excited that results in a change in the overall dipole of the
molecule. Ar is a single atom, not a molecule, and thus, there are no vibrations (bond
stretches and bends) that can be excited."

http://people.reed.edu/~odonnelj/chem101/PracticeExam2KEY.pdf

Or anywhere else on the web. Note the chem 101.

quote:
Since the CO2 is beneficial to the plants is it really all that bad? Especially since it accounts for only 0.038% of the air in the atmosphere.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980814065506.htm
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2004/02/results_0204.html

As the experiment continued even less optimistic results were observed. (newer info is available...I'm just running out of time)

The added CO2 will thicken the "insulation barrier thus keeping the earths own heat in" evaporating more ground water slowing (most) plant growth. Granted CO2 is in our atmosphere as a small percent per volume, but N and O are not GHGs. Methane is but it in a MUCH smaller volume same goes with O3 and CO. H20 vapor is also as aforementioned, but is effected my the "insulation barrier":

"Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds[11]. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_house_gas

We have definitely F-d with the carbon cycle. True we have created carbon sinks a la landfills but the amount of plastics etc that we bury pales in comparison to the amount burned.

Something major not often discussed when talking about global climate change is how all species will adapt. The earth's climate, as far as we can tell, has NEVER changed this rapidly in the past 800,000 to 5 million years. The amount of change in the next century or 2 that will most likely occur usually takes place over thousands of years, not hundreds. As populations migrate further north and/or upslope of mountains (which is another topic because eventually there is no more upslope thus extinction) to continue to live in their appropriate climate, will they be able to as quickly as required? Or what about species that have co-evolved. Perhaps the animal species will migrate quicker and upon arriving at their new desired living space their food source has not migrated as quickly thus no food. Mass extinction is quite a possibly.

Lets not forget this one; what happened @ the end of the 1700s, the industrial revolution?:


For the sake of transparency, I am an environmental science major.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
`86 Volkswagen Jetta NA: 9 Gallon Marine Tank>Transmission Cooler Tank Heater>TIH>FPHE>Coolant Wrapped Veg Filter>2, 3 Port Hydraforce Valves>Temp. Probe>Line Heater Specialist Injector Line Heaters>Vegtherm on Return>"Crud Catcher">Loop

Everyone Should Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn
 
Location: Woodstock, IL | Registered: May 28, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Oh Oh

sorry bout that "Earth scientist" comment -wewantutopia-

I tend to get a little carried away on this topic some times


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I have no interest in meaningless debates.



Sorry if it came off sounding like I was trying to draw you into conflict John. I's just that you seem to have sharp research skills, and since your opinions were opposed to Dans opinions and since you both seemed to be able to support your positions, it seemed like a good idea to take the matter to conclusion.

Some folks think global warming is real, man made and immensely destructive. If you can refute at least the "man made" part, then humanity can focus on adaptation, rather than trying to stop an giant tidal wave with an umbrella.

It wouldn't have needed to get nasty, only stringently factual and conclusive (assuming that conclusive data exists).

Open minded folks would benefit by detailed cross examination of both positions so we can learn. Debates need not be meaningless, nor offensive.

Yes, you are right that most of us can dig the stuff up ourselves, but if you really dissagree with the majority view, why not at least offer support for why you believe what you believe, then leave it at that? The support either can or can't stand close scrutiny on its own.
 
Registered: September 26, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
I always find it extremely pathetic when one disagrees with the global doom theories that they are being paid off by the oil companies. It's that vast right wing conspiracy right?? Fact of the matter is that a large number of scientist do not buy into the global warming extremism that is put forth. There is a petition that has been signed by 20,000 confirmed scientist which is 10 time the number that Al Gore alludes too. Many who once bought into the global warming theory have also changed their opinions as more science and data is revealed. Everyone seems to forget that the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature levels by some 800 years. Could it be that warming temperatures cause more CO2 to remain in the atmosphere? Could it be that CO2 is the effect and not the cause?

It's funny how it used to be that machines produced carbon monoxide and humans produced carbon dioxide. World population has increased by a factor of 8 since 1750. That means 8 times as much CO2. Also of note, old mature forest produce more CO2 than young new forests from the decaying debris on the forest floor. Two things come of this. To reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere we must reduce the worl population. In addition, we need to cut down all of the old and mature forests making way for new younger forests.

The true problem here is that scientist will conduct 1000s of simulations. They do this by creating many different models with many different inputs and feedbacks. 999 show that man has little effect on the climate. But 1 of those will show catastrophic effects and that is the one that makes it into the news.

Remember this as well. Just because a consensus of scientists believe it doesn't make it right. After all at one time the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Everyone seems to forget that the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature levels by some 800 years.


Of course, I forgot that the temps. skyrocketed exponentially by 30% ~800 years ago Roll Eyes

quote:
In addition, we need to cut down all of the old and mature forests making way for new younger forests.


We've already done this over the past 1000 years.

quote:
World population has increased by a factor of 8 since 1750. That means 8 times as much CO2. To reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere we must reduce the worl population.


This is quite an interesting idea; I wonder how much it has been investigated...how many tons of CO2 humans expel into the atmosphere annually. We DEFINITELY need to reduce the world's human population.

quote:
Remember this as well. Just because a consensus of scientists believe it doesn't make it right. After all at one time the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.


Of course just because a consensus of scientists BELIEVE it doesn't make it right...but a consensus of scientists who perform the same or similar experiments, testing the same variables, and coming to the same conclusions does make a hypothesis a tested theory which ends up being highly probable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
`86 Volkswagen Jetta NA: 9 Gallon Marine Tank>Transmission Cooler Tank Heater>TIH>FPHE>Coolant Wrapped Veg Filter>2, 3 Port Hydraforce Valves>Temp. Probe>Line Heater Specialist Injector Line Heaters>Vegtherm on Return>"Crud Catcher">Loop

Everyone Should Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn
 
Location: Woodstock, IL | Registered: May 28, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Actually, recently, in America, we have taken on the idea of saving old forests for future generations. Also, out west they allow wildlands to grow "naturally" which leads to large wild land fires.

Another interesting thing I found. Yellowstone park with all of it's geysers and such generates 44 million tons of CO2 per year. Yellowstone CO2 production

And when it comes to the scientist, you will find the actual scientist are divided and there is no consensus.

One other thing that bothers me. CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than "air" That being the case, it should all settle and stay near the earth.

I really think that back in the late 60s early 70s there were real environmental concerns. Those were addressed and the environment is better because of it. Now those same enviros need a new cause, but there really aren't any. So they fabricated this global warming. I wonder why they don't spend more effort getting the third world countries to work more environmentally friendly thus putting them on a level playing field with American factories.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
John galt

This above all is not a meaningless debate. Welder has put fort a challenge of sorts to find the truth on whether Global warming is caused by humans or not. I and the majority of scientists have posted Data in direct confrontation of your claim that the world is warming anyway and humans are just speeding it up a bit. this information was taken from the world meteorological Organization You choose to post nothing to refute that but instead post an article by Ronald Bailey. Who is Ronald Bailey?

This article is just that an opinion by a journalist from 3 years ago? citing evidence from 2003? we've learned a lot since then John, A hell of a lot.

quote:
I have no interest in another debate about whose "experts" have more credibility.


I can understand that if these are the opinions you are presenting from people that have no background in science while passing off old data to prove it

Here's something a lot more current ans heres
another of the Arctic ice loss fact is both the antarctic as well as the Arctic (including the Greenland ice sheet are loosing more ice than snowfall is replenishing that fact was proven conclusively by these satellites a couple of years ago.

ScareCrow57

quote:
There is a petition that has been signed by 20,000 confirmed scientist which is 10 time the number that Al Gore alludes too. Many who once bought into the global warming theory have also changed their opinions as more science and data is revealed.

Are you talking about the petition of 1993? if not post it and I will respond if it is it's hopelessly outdated and obsolete now. the fact is that the Climate change deniers numbers are dwindling and will go the way of the dinosaur soon enough as for all myths (for indeed they are just that) I'll give your a site here that debunks 26 of the most common myths of global warming.

It's hosted by New Scientist and completely exposes these "myths" for what they are with scientific data and the reasons behind them. You'll find some of yours there.

quote:
The true problem here is that scientist will conduct 1000s of simulations. They do this by creating many different models with many different inputs and feedbacks. 999 show that man has little effect on the climate. But 1 of those will show catastrophic effects and that is the one that makes it into the news.


What I find incredible is an totally off the wall outrageous statement like that with no links or logic posted to support it. If you have some proof of that crap,post it for all to see

Put up or shut up

Welder

The problem we have with the "deniers" is that they don't have the evidence to back up their claims and while some of it may seem plausible it's just not true. The efforts of a few are such as to not so much miss inform the public but to keep the public confused as to what exactly is happening. Terms like Sound science were used not so much to explain the new data but to imply the old data was not sound. There are some real profits to be had by delaying a response to global warming and greed is the motivator.

I can post links to money trails from big oil (and others) if you are interested but the fist order here is to show You and anyone else unsure that the crisis is real and we really need to do some thing

Take it away John and don't forget to post that link about the Earth warming anyway. Stay on topic


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ScareCrow57

As for your post on Yellowstone, do you know how much Co2 is produced in the States per year?

It makes the 44 million tons produced pale by comparison,not even a drop in the bucket

I believe here In Canada our total output was 750 million mega tons last year so what exactly is your point?

quote:
And when it comes to the scientist, you will find the actual scientist are divided and there is no consensus.


There you go spouting off again with nothing posted to back it up. Is this what we can expect from you in this debate? Lots of comments but no real substance. Like I said put up or shut up

Or it's all just meaningless retoric


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yes Dan, I'm speaking of the 1993 petition. It was at 17,000 but is now 20,000.

As for Yellowstone, I used a liberal trick here, I didn't give the whole story. Wink As it turns out, the average power plant creates about 4 million tons of CO2. The key point however is that a large amount of CO2 production is out of our control. And realize, this is only one of the many producers of CO2.

I would like to offer up the following graph for analysis. It is a graph of temperatures going back 5 million years and can be found at Wiki Global Warming. And let me say I will be the first to say that Wiki is a good starting point, but be suspect of the data. One really needs to be cautious when siting internet sources, the integrity of the data always comes inot question and should be looked carefully. One also has to know what angle the writer is coming from. Having said that I also found the same data and graph at Union of Concerned Scientists So I believe it to be somewhat accurate and believable. By examining the graph one can see that there is a certain periodicity , that is, it contains a fundamental frequency. Any electrical engineer (and perhaps others, I can only speak for the EE crowd)will be able to tell you that any waveform is composed of a series of exponential functions. It would be interesting to take this data and perform a Fourier transformation on it to obtain the frequency components of the data. Also of note, the graph represents a sawtooth wave form. That is, temperature raises rapidly then cools over a long period of time. This cycle is around 100,000 years in length. Looking at long term historical data shows that we are exactly where we are supposed to be. The last rise in temperature occurred around 140,000 years ago and lasted about 10,000 years. Our most recent trend started around 25,000 years ago and should be ending soon, say the next 4000 or 5000 years. Wouldn't it be nice if the proponents of global warming based their predictions on the last 500,000 years and not the last 150?

But what should be noted is that long before man, and well before the industrial revolution, the earths global temperature had highs and lows. Of note, based on past highs from the graph we are right on schedule for the next high. I find it interesting that most of the proponents of Global Warming limit their analysis to the last 150 years.

I also have reason to be skeptical of the modeling of these systems. As an engineer I have had the opportunity to study systems and do systems analysis. This involved the use of models to predict the output. I have also done some work with fractals, examined chaotic systems and know that the climate is a stochastic (non-deterministic) system. These are also the tools that are used to develop these models as can be seen here


As for the models that predict the most gloom and doom making the news. It is obvious that to even the most casual observer that the media jumps all over the most sensational items. Models that predict nothing or no harm get no press. So there is an incentive for the scientist or person doing the model to come up with devastating and catastrophic results. Also, governments are leaning towards funding research that proves the existence of global warming, those on the other side of the fence get less money.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale


ImageIce_Age_Temperature.png (27 Kb, 3 downloads)
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
John

quote:
Of course humans have "caused" global warming.


does this mean that you concede the point that the Earth was warming any? and would be at this point in a few hundred years? . Please tell us

Interesting you should mention an event that took place 65 million years ago. No John dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's but the global warming that was happening then has attracted scientific questioning as too whether a large impact from a meteor really did wipe them out. Make no mistake global warming causes extinctions,that much is known as for attacking Gore personally feel free to do so,it has no bearing on this debate although it is a tactic being used by these so called grass root organizations with monetary investments from you know who

Water vapor does not rule the greenhouse system it is relative to heat the term is called relative humidity and yes it's going up as the earth warms and thats called a positive feedback that will contribute to the rise in temperatures along with the methane released from the Siberian bogs,the water exposed revealing a darker and more heat absorbing surface than the ice at the poles which reflect 90% of sunlight. there are other feedbacks as well

As for you web page. it produces a number of charts and tables to back up it's water vapor claim and discourage the link to rising co2 levels.It even contains a quote

quote:
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.


this is an outright lie as proven by the link I provided from Science Daily based on the report from the IPCC (an organization of over 2500 scientists and backed up by the vast majority of scientists world wide)

then I looked at the person making the quote Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist

This is the "scientist" the tobacco industry rolled out to provide evidence of no link between cigarettes and lung cancer. He Is a "scientist" for hire and will say what you want for a fee,want to know who's paying him now? he has been discredited many times but still gets funding. now how would fund a scientist like that?

I even printed his name earlier as a discredited lier (and he has been called that in print) and a joke with no peer reviewed contribution to the science of global warming at all.

I will say this one last time. The evidence presented (and peer reviewed) is that we will have to cut all co2 emissions by half to mitigate the warming by 2 degrees C by the end of the century and even then there will be serious concequences for mankind as a species

Lets see John if you can find some real scientific evidence to support you claim
,what is it now? because it seems (with the posts you have produced) to be that global warming isn't the problem the vast majority of scientists around the world claim it to be?

Is that what your claiming John


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Might I point you both to this site GlobalrWarming.org for a realistic explanation of the science.

I find it funny in the debate on Global Warming that you are either an alarmist or in the pockets of the oil company. Why is it people cannot accept the fact that there simply isn't enough information or research on the topic as of yet? The last thing the debate on Global Warming needs is a bunch of hot aired politicians running around proclaiming to have the answer. As far as I can see they are looking for answers to a problem that is not fully defined. One almost gets the feeling they found the solution and are now looking for the problem. Eek


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ScareCrow57

The Oregon Petition as it's infamously called now has been discredited long ago but has been reborn again in another attempt to confuse the minds of the public heres the link
and heres a quote that shows the extent of the deception

quote:
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.


It's all there if you care to read it as well as the history of the institute and it's founding member Arthur B. Robinson. This is a scientist that coincidently argued that the effects of a nuclear war were exaggerated.

Yup they are still getting signatures by sending the crap out still despite it's blatantly corrupt science and displaying it to an unsuspecting public. the oil backed resurfacing of this misleading document along with it's history is all available here complete with links to the allegations

This site "de smogg blogg" is a site that exposes the lies being perpetrated on the public and if you want to take it as some right wing fanatical organization thats ok but follow the links provided, they will take you to some real evidence

quote:
But what should be noted is that long before man, and well before the industrial revolution, the earths global temperature had highs and lows. Of note, based on past highs from the graph we are right on schedule for the next high. I find it interesting that most of the proponents of Global Warming limit their analysis to the last 150 years.


They go back a lot further than that ,one of your links shows that. the last few hundred years shows the extent of co2 levels increasing beyond the levels of the last 8 ice ages or 800,000 years ago yes temperatures have increased higher than that over over millions of years but these rises are also associated with mass extinctions

as for being skeptical of the models feel free but don't pretend to know how the work. it takes serious power from super computers to try and model the weather. Computers have evolved enormously since even the start of this century and have followed with better and more accurate results. Don't say they are wrong without backing it up with anything

the model are programed to predict the range of climate change,that why the IPCC reports continue to provide a range of probabilities and the low end right now is 2 degrees C the mass media is the mass media and climate science isn't the only thing that is sensationalized


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
As for the water being a greenhouse gas, I refer to this graphic

The greenhouse effect has to do with the ability of the molecule to absorb Infrared Radiation (IR). As you see, Water absorbs far more of the spectrum than CO2. What is missing from this graphic is the depiction of Argon, which I found on another site, which also absorbs IR.

Knowing the science and the truth shall set you free. Please don't rely on movies like "The Convenient lie" (AKA An Inconvenient Truth). Realize that Al Gore stands to make a great deal of money of of "Green" technology.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ScareCrow57

No doubt the "debate" as you put it is so polarized there is a lot at stake. on one hand the future of mankind and on the other the profits of a multi billion dollar industry

Doesn't get much split than that


as for the debate itself it over. Global warming is real its obvious and it's imminent as signed but the heads of science of the G-8 countries as well as the head of Shell oil and a host of other scientific unions such as the The Royal Society

the scientific evidence

and the g-8
climate statment

you can choose to believe.that's your right but when you post your beliefs without backing up some of your claims I'll be there to prove them wrong

show me one peer reviewed science publication by any one of your "scientists" and I'll show you 1000 that back it up as I already have here


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12voltdan:
ScareCrow57

the model are programed to predict the range of climate change,that why the IPCC reports continue to provide a range of probabilities and the low end right now is 2 degrees C the mass media is the mass media and climate science isn't the only thing that is sensationalized


They actually predict that the Earth will warm 2c and another 0.5 or so caused by man.

And as I have stated previously, be very wary of information gathered from the internet. Blogs are the worst source. Also, avoid sites that are one-sided. If those blogs and one-sided sources provide sources, search them out. I also recommend reading the research papers as well as learning the science. Of course doing that requires a bit of a background in math, physics, chemistry, and science in general. Without a doubt, some of the things that are theorized are surely plausible. But they also leave many questions unanswered.

Personally, I would love to build a neural network to predict the future. Of course it would be huge and require thousands of inputs. Which would also require years of historical data to teach the network. As I ramble on and think about this it might not be possible to do. We only have good data for the last 100 years or so. It would require 800,000 years or more of data.

Anyone know where a person can get the raw data for temperature and CO2 that the graphs are generated from. Might be interesting to do a Fourier Transform of that data. Then again, maybe it has already been done.

So many questions and so few answers.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
As for the water being a greenhouse gas, I refer to this graphic


As I said before water content of the atmosphere is determined by a number of things and yes I agree it's a green house contributor but it's is a feed back due to rising temps that will increase it's content. If you have too much of it in the atmosphere it will release it

It's called rain


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ScareCrow57

quote:
They actually predict that the Earth will warm 2c and another 0.5 or so caused by man.


More crap statements made off the wall and no evidence at all of your assertion. I have posted the results of the latest models from the IPCC reports. are you saying these reports are wrong? are you calling all the scientists liers?

Post something that disproves the accepted science of the day and prove it wrong or shut up

And yes be very wary of the crap on the internet some of it is lies based on no science at all an more on opinion. Opinions are like a**holes,everybody has one

Unless you have some real science showing your views you haven't shown anyone anthing but smoke and mirrors


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Here's Something for All the Global Climate Change Denialists...

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014