Curse

awesome sauce · May 29, 2009, 11:35 PM // 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

What makes the (for example) Permian-Triassic temperature spike "irrelevant"? Who's to say it happened smoothly over that long period of time? Who's to say there weren't shorter periods of a few hundred years where temps rose and fell 1-2 degrees but averaged an increase over thousands? What caused the Permian-triassic temperature spike, according to you?

According to wikipedia, the permian triassic was most likely caused by "ultiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, or sudden release of methane hydrates from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity,[10] and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change."

Note that there is no evidence of any of these things happening in the present. Completely unrelated events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

The "more common" hockeystick diagram omits error and exaggerates the increase in temperature until 2100 based off of a very short spike in temperature recorded over the period of a few months, NOT AT ALL sufficient for actually predicting an overall trend. It's more common because the very vocal nutcase lobbyists like it, it helps "prove" their point to people like you who don't take the minor effort to look through the wool pulled over your eyes and see how you're being manipulated. Please learn to think for yourself.

I have given you my thoughts, I even admitted that the diagram you showed made a valid point. I was simply making an observation at the end of my last post. Contrary to what you seem to believe, my entire argument isn't based off of that diagram, which is the only piece of relevant external evidence you have provided so far. Also, you yourself have manipulated the evidence using skewed data. The graphs you gave don't tell the entire story.
Here is a better one:

This goes back and shows the correlation between CO_2 and global temperatures throughout a large timescale.

(Note that the last glacial period was not the longest in history. Also note that we are not coming out of a glacial period, but in the middle of an interglacial period. Further evidence of your inaccuracies.

We know that 1: CO2 levels have increased over the past 2 centuries along with temperature and 2:Increased CO2 levels are associated with higher temperatures throughout earths history. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to an extent greater than any other in recent history will cause global warming. We know that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by man because it is chemically distinguishable from natural CO_2. Even without these graphs, it has been experimentally determined that CO_2 is an excellent greenhouse gas. Put two and two together and it is easy to deduce that global warming is anthropomorphic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

The point isn't that the earth was "once much hotter in the past", but that the earth has been much hotter AND much cooler, alternating back and forth, all the way back to the Precambrian. You can't claim that the Cretaceous high was due to the earth being younger thus more volcanically active...that's ridiculous because there were 4 ice ages before that. what caused these changes? I doubt you know...and I doubt it's any different than what has caused this current upswing. Notice that the ice age we're coming out of is the longest in the history of the earth. If we take into account past changes in temperature, we're overdue for a temperature increase. Saying that it's different due to the speed at which a 1 degree change has occurred is just bad science, because you totally ignore higher frequency patterns, which I've explained multiple times. If you ignore that data, you have a piss-poor argument for "global warming" based on nothing but a hundred years worth of possibly sketchy data, because you cannot predict a large-scale event with a small-scale range of data.

Again, previous climate changes have known or hypothesized natural causes which aren't the same as the one's we see today. You can't assume that two things are the same simply because they have similar effects, especially when there is overwhelming evidence on the contrary, as I have just shown you. Assuming that a 1 degree change over the past century is drastic is only unscientific unless you don't know the cause, and that it will continue to increase unless the cause is stopped. What is unscientific is making blanket statements relating milankovitch cycles which cause ice ages to the current climate crisis based on zero evidence.

Tullzinski: You give me a link with none of your own narration and I will similarly give you a refutation: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/200...lobal-cooling/

It basically describes that his statements regarding global warming events over the past 15,000 years are total BS. Nothing in the last 15000 years has even come close. Also, his global cooling prediction completely ignores man's influence.

There are always "experts" who like to come out with supposed evidence against global warming just to gain recognition, and they get tons of funding from big business to make their evidence seem credible. There's a reason this guy is still at western washington university. Do you blindly believe every article like this you read?

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 01:19 AM // 01:19

And it goes on and on. He posts a scientific article, and your "refutation" is just some no-name blogger who attempts to pick it apart. You take an accredited scientist and try to refute him by some random blog written by an undergraduate enviro-nutcase without even a year worth of dedicated study in the field of palaeoclimatology. He takes figures and factual evidence then "refutes it" by claiming that it sounds like something "a tenth grader would say"...flat out calling it lies, preposterous, etc etc etc but offering up NOTHING AT ALL even remotely considered factual evidence or even showing that he has done any hands-on research to speak of that will give him any sort of authority in the matter. That entire blog reeks of damage control and some twit's attempt to curry favor with his Sierra Club buddies by attempting to counter science with conjecture disguised as science. he even mentions a Dansgaard-Oeshger event but fails to realize that he just countered his own argument by claiming that there is indeed in a short-term oscillation in global temperature. the Dansgaard-Oeshger event is commonly known as a cycle of fast warming and slow cooling...which would follow the scientific article he's trying to debunk, and supports the raw data we see of a fast warming period that we are currently witnessing. Sorry, but you really lost any edge you may have had in this discussion by coming at me with that blog article.

Look, all you do is come back at facts with conjecture and false reason. sorry, but nobody knows how climate changed back thousands of years ago...all we can determine is that it DID change, and make theories about it. You see a correlation between global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, but you do not offer any proof that the CO2 levels caused or were CAUSED BY the elevated temperatures. You have "greenhouse gas theory" but no concrete evidence that it takes place. The point has been given that water vapor contributes more to global warming than anything else...but you fail to realize that water vapor elevations may very well be cause BY the elevations in global temperature. You also do not prove any which way that the CO2 levels have increased solely due to human processes. The Cretaceous period had elevated CO2 concentrations well above what we're seeing after 80 years of massive industrialization. We've gone from what....300 to 380ppm? The Cretaceous had 1500ppm. What caused that? Big cars for big dinosaurs? Your one graph over a period of time compares levels of gas to the TEMPERATURE OF THE ICE, not the climate temperature in which the ice was formed. You think posting a graph will suffice, when that graph specifically states "comparison of carbon dioxide and temperature in ice cores" as the title? The scale for temperature isn't even in any form that makes sense when dealing with temperature changes. Your first graph is something anybody can just whip up in Excel, without any formal credit given to any respectable author, university, researcher, etc. "Image Courtesy of zFacts"...wow that sounds so damn official I think I just shat myself. Let's not even mention that it's hosted by a biased partisan website...so an Excel "graph" without any real data to speak of, with the "global temperature" curve much smoother than one would expect given the resolution of data available.

Give me a break. When you come back with an accredited professor with actual research under his belt, rather than some greenhorn sophomore with barely a year's worth of study under his belt trying to make some kind of name for himself by regurgitating what he reads in his Sierra Club newsletter, I'll take what HE has to say seriously. But until then, all you're doing is proving that you're just another lame excuse for an environmentalist, probably just some armchair climatologist with his head in the clouds refusing to even take a look at the true facts if they don't lead off with "Humans are killing Mother Earth!" Sorry, but if you claim that the stupid graph I just posted was my only evidence, you're a moron. I posted three graphs in my first post in this thread, and again you completely ignored the one with the error fields. Why can't you comment on that one? You will notice that when we're dealing with a change of 1-2 degrees, and the data has an error of 1.5 degrees, your argument really doesn't hold any water whatsoever...which is likely the reason for your ignorance of the raw data presented to you. Hell, the only one of my three graphs you bothered to claim as fact was the one with the least amount of fact in it! You write one off as "those changes in climate have nothing to do with this climate change", and totally ignore the 3rd.

Here's a graph for you showing satellite temperature data over the last 10 years compared to the STEADILY INCREASING CO2 levels, showing no correlation whatsoever:

Here's another graph for you since my 3rd in the first post seems to be not loading:

The light gray are the error bars associated with the approximations made about global temps before the industrial revolution. Notice the nice little 50 year oscillation as well as even shorter oscillations readily apparent in this data.

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 01:44 AM // 01:44

Here's a correlation between temperature and number of sunspots:

Here's a page of some interesting research debunking Mann et.al.'s "findings"
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarmin...icalRecord.htm

Take a peek and educate yourself. I particularly like this one:

Do you see an overall trend there? Because I don't. I see a slight high during the medieval, a "little ice age", and an apparent spike in modern day. You cannot panic and call doomsday based on an early detection of an upswing in temperature, then say it's just going to keep going up because you ASSUME that it's anthropogenic in origin. There is NO PROOF of that, whatsoever.

awesome sauce · May 30, 2009, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

And it goes on and on. He posts a scientific article, and your "refutation" is just some no-name blogger who attempts to pick it apart. You take an accredited scientist and try to refute him by some random blog written by an undergraduate enviro-nutcase without even a year worth of dedicated study in the field of palaeoclimatology. Sorry, but you really lost any edge you may have had in this discussion.

Did you even read the article? He makes some good points. That professor was clearly altering the the facts in a very deceptive way, just as you had accused the creators of that graph. I have already stated why the diagram of previous extinction events isn't relevant to this argument, and according to you neither is the original hockey stick graph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Look, all you do is come back at facts with conjecture and false reason. sorry, but nobody knows how climate changed back thousands of years ago...all we can determine is that it DID change, and make theories about it.

So we are just supposed to assume that this unknown cause is what's causing the warming today? Isn't that convenient. It's best to go with what we have the most evidence for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

You have "greenhouse gas theory" but no concrete evidence that it takes place.

Are you kidding me? Look at the second graph I just posted. Tell me there isn't a correlation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

The point has been given that water vapor contributes more to global warming than anything else...but you fail to realize that water vapor elevations may very well be cause BY the elevations in global temperature.

Nobody has ever argued that water vapor was the cause of global warming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

You also do not prove any which way that the CO2 levels have increased solely due to human processes.

It is a fact that they have increased in large part due to human processes. We can take a sample of air and measure the amount of CO2 that was created by the burning of fossil fuels, because, as I said, they are distinguishable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

The Cretaceous period had elevated CO2 concentrations well above what we're seeing after 80 years of massive industrialization. We've gone from what....300 to 380ppm?The Cretaceous had 1500ppm.

If the Cretaceous was much warmer, and had higher CO2 concentrations, then clearly higher CO2 was correlated with that increase. If CO2 is increasing now, then by past experience we can assume that temperatures will rise again. 300 to 380 isn't a very large jump, but it is projected to increase if we don't reduce our outputs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

What caused that? Big cars for big dinosaurs?

You keep using this same argument, and you have to understand that it is logically flawed. It is called Ignoratio Elenchi. Just because it increased naturally back then doesn't mean that it is increasing naturally now. There is no evidence, or reason to believe that CO2 is increasing through natural processes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Your one graph over a period of time compares levels of gas to the TEMPERATURE OF THE ICE, not the climate temperature in which the ice was formed.

You don't understand how ice core measurements work, do you? Scientists measure the amount of oxygen- 18 relative to oxygen - 16 because the oxygen - 16 is evaporated first. If it is not returned, Oxygen 18 in the ocean will be higher relative to oxygen 16. This indicates that there has been a colder period with more glaciers withholding the evaporated oxygen - 16. The atmosphere has to be sufficiently cold to form glaciers that hold the oxygen - 16, and the more there are, the higher the oxygen - 18 concentration in the oceans. CO2 from the atmosphere is similarly trapped in the ice.

Are you really dense enough to think that they measured the physical temperature of the ice?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Your first graph is something anybody can just whip up in Excel, without any formal credit given to any respectable author, university, researcher, etc. "Image Courtesy of zFacts"...wow that sounds so damn official I think I just shat myself.

Here is the same graph, from a university...

I find it amusing that you don't trust any evidence that I post on here, yet the majority of your statements I have been forced to accept on pure faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

But until then, all you're doing is proving that you're just another lame excuse for an environmentalist, probably just some armchair climatologist with his head in the clouds refusing to even take a look at the true facts if they don't lead off with "Humans are killing Mother Earth!" Sorry, but if you claim that the stupid graph I just posted was my only evidence, you're a moron. I posted three graphs in my first post in this thread, and again you completely ignored the one with the error fields. Why can't you comment on that one? You will notice that when we're dealing with a change of 1-2 degrees, and the data has an error of 1.5 degrees, your argument really doesn't hold any water whatsoever...which is likely the reason for your ignorance of the raw data presented to you. Hell, the only one of my three graphs you bothered to claim as fact was the one with the least amount of fact in it! You write one off as "those changes in climate have nothing to do with this climate change", and totally ignore the 3rd.

Just keep making blind assumptions about me. I never claimed to be an environmentalist, I'm just stating scientific fact. I WAS referring to your error diagram in my previous post, and even by the most ridiculous error model, my argument still stands. If temperatures are not increasing at all, why are glaciers melting that will dead frozen at the beginning of that model? Why are temperature-sensitive marine life dying off? You can keep writing these things off as being caused by separate unlikely phenomena, or you can accept that they are related by a much more likely cause. Even if temperatures have only increased by the smallest estimated amount by all of the projections, it is still predictied to increase due to greenhouse gas emissions. It is a calculated fact that greenhouse emissions have the potential cause global warming. How can you ignore the correlation, after all the evidence I've just shown you. It is clear that you refuse to accept any evidence and just write it off as eco-crazy junk. If you do that, how am I supposed to debate anything with you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Here's a graph for you showing satellite temperature data over the last 10 years compared to the STEADILY INCREASING CO2 levels, showing no correlation whatsoever:

If you look at the WHOLE GRAPH, there are many fluctuations like that, but the overall trend is that it is increasing along with the CO2

The medieval warming period was not as large as the one we see today, it likely had a different cause, and it wasn't global. It was localized.

Where is the evidence that an increase in sunspots has the potential to cause global warming? I'm sure there are many phenomena you could point to that may cause it, and in some part they may, but what we assume is causing the greatest amount of warming is the one that we know has the greatest potential to cause warming, and that's an increase in greenhouse gases.

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 03:30 AM // 03:30

"Nobody has ever argued that water vapor was the cause of global warming. "

Nobody but actual scientists. You fail. Go home.

"Here is the same graph, from a university..."

University of Michigan is an art and business school, and has only very limited science programs. And the department you pulled the graph from is the "climate change" department...laf.

Again, find me something from an accredited science school that isn't biased.

awesome sauce · May 30, 2009, 03:32 AM // 03:32

I meant nobody on this thread. Someone on this thread said that water vapor is a main constituent of the greenhouse effect, I assumed that's what you were referring to.

As a side note, I could have said "you fail, go home" many times now. The amount of false claims I have found is ridiculous.

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 03:35 AM // 03:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesome sauce

You are confusing global warming with the greenhouse effect. Also, I meant nobody on this thread. Someone on this thread said that water vapor is a main constituent of the greenhouse effect, I assumed that's what you were referring to.

As a side note, I could have said "you fail, go home" many times now. The amount of false claims I have found is ridiculous.

You are a moron. That is all.

You claim that global warming is real and is caused by Greenhouse gases, then you separate the "Greenhouse Effect" from the discussion about Global Warming? Dude, go away...you're like a fly on a turd with your arguments.

And I'm not the one only citing sources from known "green" sponsored sites, liberal arts colleges, and know-nothing nobodies posting direct attacks and conjecture on their free blogs without any real science to back up their conjecture.

You lose. All you've managed to come to me with is a bunch of Sierra Club baloney. When you get a degree in palaeoclimatology, geology or glaciology come back and read all your garbage, you'll laugh at yourself.

awesome sauce · May 30, 2009, 03:41 AM // 03:41

They are not the same thing. Global warming is caused by an increase in the greenhouse effect. You should check your facts before you insult people.

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 03:43 AM // 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesome sauce

They are not the same thing. Global warming is caused by an increase in the greenhouse effect. You should check your facts before you insult people.

They are LINKED!~!! That's the point!! You can't have a discussion about Global Warming without citing the Greenhouse Effect, and you can't cite the Greenhouse Effect without mentioning Water Vapor, which is responsible for over 75% of the "Global Warming" greenhouse gas phenomenon. What you're doing is like discussing how to get a car down the quarter mile the fastest but refusing to talk about the engine!

If you think they are not the same thing, then you admit that "Global Warming" is not 100% (Scratch that, you'd admit that it isn't even the majority contributor) affected by the Greenhouse Effect, which is the ONLY EFFECT that can be attributed to Humans, thus your entire argument is MOOT. So, which is it?

Honestly man...get your dumbass head out of your rectum before you suffocate.

I Is Special · May 30, 2009, 03:46 AM // 03:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesome sauce

They are not the same thing. Global warming is caused by an increase in the greenhouse effect. You should check your facts before you insult people.

A11Eur0 tends to be a really angry person... Try to disregard certain parts of his posts.

Enjoy the debate so far, though.

awesome sauce · May 30, 2009, 03:51 AM // 03:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

They are LINKED!~!! That's the point!! You can't have a discussion about Global Warming without citing the Greenhouse Effect, and you can't cite the Greenhouse Effect without mentioning Water Vapor, which is responsible for over 75% of the "Global Warming" greenhouse gas phenomenon. What you're doing is like discussing how to get a car down the quarter mile the fastest but refusing to talk about the engine!

If you think they are not the same thing, then you admit that "Global Warming" is not 100% (Scratch that, you'd admit that it isn't even the majority contributor) affected by the Greenhouse Effect, which is the ONLY EFFECT that can be attributed to Humans, thus your entire argument is MOOT. So, which is it?

Honestly man...get your dumbass head out of your rectum before you suffocate.

I was trying to distinguish between the greenhouse effect and global warming... because based on your statement I didn't think you knew the difference. Trust me... I'm not trying to disregard it. If I admit that they are not the same thing but have a large amount of evidence to support the fact that they are related, then my argument isn't moot. You just made a huge leap of assumptions.

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 03:52 AM // 03:52

"The medieval warming period was not as large as the one we see today, it likely had a different cause, and it wasn't global. It was localized."

So all you can realistically claim is that humans are responsible for the remainder of the global temperature increase, which is just shy of 0.2 degrees centigrade. Also, if you're taking ONE ICE CORE and judging your entire argument on that (Mann, et. al. hockeystick diagram), then YOUR climate change is ALSO LOCALIZED. Look at the last diagram I posted, that's a multitude of ice core and sediment record trends...there is NO correlation between them all, there is NO significant increase in the last 100 years, thus there is NO GLOBAL FREAKING WARMING! Capiche? Of course not, you're a greenie zombie nutcase.

awesome sauce · May 30, 2009, 03:56 AM // 03:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

"The medieval warming period was not as large as the one we see today, it likely had a different cause, and it wasn't global. It was localized."

So all you can realistically claim is that humans are responsible for the remainder of the global temperature increase, which is just shy of 0.2 degrees centigrade. Also, if you're taking ONE ICE CORE and judging your entire argument on that (Mann, et. al. hockeystick diagram), then YOUR climate change is ALSO LOCALIZED. Look at the last diagram I posted, that's a multitude of ice core and sediment record trends...there is NO correlation between them all, there is NO significant increase in the last 100 years, thus there is NO GLOBAL FREAKING WARMING! Capiche? Of course not, you're a greenie zombie nutcase.

The ice cores are taken from frozen sea water, whose O-18 concentration reflects the amount of glaciers globally. It truly is a global measurement of temperature. I can't find the ice core diagram you're talking about...

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 04:00 AM // 04:00

"You don't understand how ice core measurements work, do you? Scientists measure the amount of oxygen- 18 relative to oxygen - 16 because the oxygen - 16 is evaporated first. If it is not returned, Oxygen 18 in the ocean will be higher relative to oxygen 16. This indicates that there has been a colder period with more glaciers withholding the evaporated oxygen - 16. The atmosphere has to be sufficiently cold to form glaciers that hold the oxygen - 16, and the more there are, the higher the oxygen - 18 concentration in the oceans. CO2 from the atmosphere is similarly trapped in the ice.

Are you really dense enough to think that they measured the physical temperature of the ice?"

Actually it's the carbon-14 levels in the CO2 trapped in the air bubbles in the ice. I have actually taken classes based on ice core, rock core, K-Ar, U-PB, Ar-Ar and U-U dating methods. I have my degree from an accredited science university that conducts regular ice core, rock core, upper and lower atmospheric, and oceanic surveys. You?

Yes, they measured the temperature of the ice. Read the freaking graph. That's the only way they're going to get actual measurements of temperature, because if all they're doing is interpolating climate temperature from the Methane and CO2 levels in the core, putting that third curve in there would be idiotic....because it's JUST AN INTERPOLATION. When you add a third curve to a graph with two curves based off of actual measurements, you IMPLY that the third curve is DIRECTLY OBTAINED DATA. No serious researcher would so blatantly befoul his potential thesis argument by inserting interpolated data implied as directly measured. How can you measure the temperature of the global climate directly from an ice core? DING DING DING: YOU CAN NOT. Please, leave the scientific discussions to the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS please.

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 04:01 AM // 04:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesome sauce

The ice cores are taken from frozen sea water, whose O-18 concentration reflects the amount of glaciers globally. It truly is a global measurement of temperature. I can't find the ice core diagram you're talking about...

The ice cores are taken from Glaciers created by SNOWFALL, not frozen seawater. You really are dense...how is seawater going to make it up to the top of an Antarctic ice dome?

awesome sauce · May 30, 2009, 04:09 AM // 04:09

Evaporated from the sea, dude.

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 04:14 AM // 04:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesome sauce

Evaporated from the sea, dude.

See, this is what I'd like to call full-on backpedal mode.

No, you said frozen sea water. Snow can be moisture evaporated from any water body anywhere in the world, carried around by the air currents and jet streams. Thing is...snow forms locally and falls locally, especially in antarctica. And when this snow forms and falls, it traps LOCAL air and creates glaciation. Therefore, Antarctic ice core measurements tell the tale ONLY for local temperatures. If you really want to get specific: the amount of Carbon-14 trapped in the ice tells us how much ice was present on the earth at the time THAT ice was formed...because there's only so much Carbon-14 present in the earth's oceans at any given time and is preferentially taken into water vapor...AND it decays radioactively over time...thus the error figures in any data set and graph you find that isn't edited and manipulated to herd the sheep.

So let's recount: you went from using ice core readings measuring the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, to claiming that the ice core logs instead measure the amount of the wrong isotope and determine how much ice was present on the earth at the time. Make up your mind!

You obviously don't know how ice core measurements work, yet you decided to challenge my knowledge in the matter...too bad you failed horribly and just nuked your entire argument in the process.

A11Eur0 · May 30, 2009, 04:23 AM // 04:23

"According to wikipedia, the permian triassic was most likely caused by "ultiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, or sudden release of methane hydrates from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity,[10] and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change."

Note that there is no evidence of any of these things happening in the present. Completely unrelated events."

Increased volcanism. Hrm. Have you noticed the increase in siesmicity in recent years? That seismicity is caused by plate motion. That plate motion is driven by rifting motion. Rifting motion results directly in INCREASED VOLCANISM. Mount Augustine and Mount Redoubt say hi. Two major eruptions in under 5 years in the same area. The Pacific plate is diving under the North American plate causing volcanic arc activity. That plate is pushed along by the rifting activity increase in the South Pacific.
"Sudden release of methane hydrates"...just because we don't see it happening doesn't mean it's not happening. Who do you know is out in the middle of the ocean measuring methane content of the water? nobody. Next:
Increasing aridity: yeah it's been a pretty dry 30 years.
Sea level change: that's a given...it's all over the Sierra Club...all these islands and coral reefs disappearing. boo hoo.
shift in ocean circulation: yeah that's been measured as well.

Sounds the same to me. :shrug:

awesome sauce · May 30, 2009, 04:26 AM // 04:26

Again, you refuse to believe any statement I make. Regardless, you probably do know more about ice cores than me. That doesnt make your argument any less flawed. You're saying that only the antarctic temperatures increase with CO2 in the atmosphere? That doesn't make any sense.

Even without the ice core data, it's still a proven fact that greenhouse gases have the capacity to cause global warming. It's the nature of each molecule. That alone should be strong enough evidence.

Also, why wouldn't your completely false statement that we're coming out of an ice age nuke your argument? Or that the majority of the world's scientists are indecisive about the cause of global warming? Clearly you have just resorted to finding small irrelevant inacuracies in my argument because you can no longer sustain your own.

awesome sauce · May 30, 2009, 04:31 AM // 04:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

"According to wikipedia, the permian triassic was most likely caused by "ultiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, or sudden release of methane hydrates from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity,[10] and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change."

Note that there is no evidence of any of these things happening in the present. Completely unrelated events."

Increased volcanism. Hrm. Have you noticed the increase in siesmicity in recent years? That seismicity is caused by plate motion. That plate motion is driven by rifting motion. Rifting motion results directly in INCREASED VOLCANISM. Mount Augustine and Mount Redoubt say hi. Two major eruptions in under 5 years in the same area. The Pacific plate is diving under the North American plate causing volcanic arc activity. That plate is pushed along by the rifting activity increase in the South Pacific.
"Sudden release of methane hydrates"...just because we don't see it happening doesn't mean it's not happening. Who do you know is out in the middle of the ocean measuring methane content of the water? nobody. Next:
Increasing aridity: yeah it's been a pretty dry 30 years.
Sea level change: that's a given...it's all over the Sierra Club...all these islands and coral reefs disappearing. boo hoo.
shift in ocean circulation: yeah that's been measured as well.

Sounds the same to me. :shrug:

This is completely unscientific. These are merely your own observations. Show me some data, then prove to me why it would be more likely to cause the warming than greenhouse gases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

The Pacific plate is diving under the North American plate causing volcanic arc activity. That plate is pushed along by the rifting activity increase in the South Pacific.

THAT'S your evidence? Something that has been happening for hundreds of thousands of years? Give me a break.

The sea level change isn't one of the possible causes, it was an effect that I accidentally pasted onto there.