Topic: Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland - page 18. (Read 20356 times)

Why do you put experts between quotation marks?
And why is it somehow smart to blindly disbelieve what is the overwhelming consensus among the worlds best scientists and instead do your own cherry picking "research"?  Do you consider yourself such a wold authority on climate science that you know better than all the worlds scientists combined, that you think you can do a better syntheses of all the available science than the IPCC  ? I find that notion as ridiculous as thinking you would be able to build a better space shuttle than NASA in your garage. They are only "experts" after all, what do they know.

I hear you. I'm not convinced we are.

I'm not convinced we aren't doing it personally.

+1 but its not called global warming its called nature.

Guys, global warming is true, but it has nothing to do with us. It's a natural occurrence on earth and we will all either freeze to death or burn to death if we survive long enough.

According to BP the proved oil reserves will last about 46 years.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037157&contentId=7068604

Yeah, that's right.
My post was not a reply to you, but to some other people here.

Eh, I'm more interested in discussing the science. That the field has been politicized is obvious.

Videos you might want to see:
http://youtu.be/7lzYj7bCf7M
http://youtu.be/mF_anaVcCXg

Here is a long term map of CO2 and temperature:



Compare this to short term:


To really understand these we need to know

1) How "Global Temperature Anomaly" is calculated
2) How "Temperature Difference" is calculated
3) How Temperature and CO2 levels were measured or estimated. Where were the measurements/samples taken from, etc.
4) If the measurements were "corrected" or "calibrated" in any way. If so, how?
5) Why neither of these charts have any error bars. Where is the ERROR?

The caption for the upper figure provides us with some of this info:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

Even so, more self-research is necessary to understand the workflow that resulted in each of these graphs. My point is that graphs can be made to show whatever the graphmaker wants. Was the lower chart posted by flipro designed to inform or to scare? Is the upper chart designed to inform viewers about the CO2-Temp relationship, or hide the importance of more recent data by using huge scales?

If you think you understand global warming and have not done this minimum amount of self-research, you are wrong. You do not really understand and can be manipulated with anecdotes and images. I am no expert in climatology, and do not have the answers to the above questions right now. My goal with this post is to contrast accepting "expert", forum poster, and journalist interpretations vs. an example of a rational approach.

+1 - easier to adapt than get the whole world to change.

While they spout controls they benefot and use that cash to buy stuff in safe areas

Re the charts - zoom out a few thousand years.

But i agree co2 should be curbed too, since i like efficiency anyway

I'm a republican (well, republican counterpart in my country), but still very democrat from most other user's perspectives. So, yeah, this is a Republican forum.

This is a Republican forum to say the least.

The human animal tries to separate itself from nature, and it is only in the context of this separation does the concept of something being "man made" even exist.

It's all natural, including the man-made part, and including the natural selection part. Humans will inevitably bump up against natural limitations they will not surmount just as obliviously as do other species. A sterilized planet is just a clean slate from an evolutionary perspective, it wouldn't last forever if it did occur.

That's the silver lining. When it comes to the earth, we may as well poke it before it's cold and see how that works out, no?

I would counter that perhaps adapting would be easier than developing climate control technology.

Correlation is not causation. This doesn't mean that correlation doesn't exist.

Randy, do you live near the tropics? Closer to the poles, the warming is accellerating; it's quite scary, really. Anyone disputing it would be immediately called a dissenter and denialist here. I'm not a geologist, but geologists aren't useful here. I don't care whether warming is normal or not, it's still warming and it's still dangerous.

In fact, sea level rise is partly offset by sea ice melt in the arctic and antarctic, so I'm not really concerned about this.

Bam. This times a million.

Actually it is the media and forum posters, this island has not "recently sunk":


What does "rather sooner than later" mean, and it is normal for the earth to warm and sea levels to change:


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

I AM NOT saying that sudden changes due to man are not happening. I am saying that blindly accepting what "experts" tell you is bad, accepting what the media says is even worse.

Not precisely what I meant Randy. Extra water melt from the caps cant be helping them boss

1. The resolution of sampling climate data for the previous million years is far from accurate. No one knows if this is precedent. Period. We aren't seeing extreme climate changes, as there is absolutely no basis for comparison, nor a sample period long enough to matter. This is like basing your hashrate on one second of submitting shares, to bring it all full circle.

2. See, this is all speculation until it plays out...

3. No one knows. Period.

Those charts someone posted correspond roughly to the milankovich cycles. Roughly...no one has ever been able to link more than a rough similarity, and for their accuracy in predicting ice ages, they are damn near worthless.

You guys need to learn that correlation is not causation, particularly on a geologic time scale. There is no precedent for this, and everyone who thinks they know what they are talking about has only been working on it twenty years...


So I suppose the last 200 years is responsible for the 'sinking' of those thousands upon thousands of islands in the past 10,000 years. Sensationalist journalism. You have probably never lived in the tropics, when a single storm can eat away 500 meters of land and plop it somewhere else, nor do you seem to know much about oceanography or climatology. Shit be changin' all the time, homie. No one's been watching long enough to know a damned thing.

Dree12: Where is all this evidence you speak of? All sorts of things happen on this planet which affect the weather. Have you ever heard of a drought? Are those some modern invention of the industrial revolution...

Your lifetime? Pahahahahaha....you obviously aren't a geologist.