swansont

The data from the most recent times is noisier than the rest of the graph; this gives an appearance of there possibly being more fluctuations, and also gives the illusion that the more remote times were smoother transitions. However, I think this is merely due to there being more data from the recent past. This makes it a little more difficult to ascertain any recent trends (spans of hundreds of years) from that graph.

Seems to have fixed it for me as well. The dupes must have been confusing the bulletin board software.

It looks to be within a few percent of the maximum to me. The "first peak" to which I referred is the one that occured ~400kya (first one occurring in time), and is the only one that rivals the current one for duration. The other peaks were much sharper. You can't tell on the first one partly because it's cut off.

It wasn't my graph, it was Dr. Dalek's (posted a hundred times), so I'm not the one who did the cropping. I was commenting on DD's interpretation of it. Anyway...so what? Once again, it's not a matter of whether natural fluctuations occur; they do. The question is how much effect are humans having. To say that the concentrations have been that high before, in the remote past, is meaningless, considering that the species that were alive then aren't now; the natural conditions could have been very, very different.

I'm having issues with seeing all the posts in "Accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth" I've adjusted my "views per page" but when that was set to default or 10 or 20 per page, I wasn't able to get to the last page or two — the same page would keep reloading. I had to set it to 30, and now 40 per page, in order to see the latest posts. I also see that SkepticLance had some posting issues, as there are two sets of multiple posts. Anone else reading that thread having trouble? (I'm on Safari on a Mac). I haven't had issues in other threads.

You say that anthropogenic CO2 comprises 3% of the total, but talk about the remaining increase as being natural; this is deceptive. The anthropogenic contribution to the increase is about 15% (roughly 12 ppm out of 80 ppm), and the total variation is 40%. (One thing I haven't seen is how these increases are broken down; are some of the "natural" increases occurring because of destruction of CO2 sinks, for example)

Excuse me? I think it's pretty well established that we dump CO2 into the atmosphere.

It depends on what you are trying to do. If a single interaction with the spaceship occurs and is essentially instantaneous, then its motion during that instant is in a straight line, and SR should be fine. But over longer periods the non-inertial frame will introduce effects, and you must account for this. (the Sagnac effect, typically)

I think you're using the wrong frame to measure the nanosecond. It's a nanosecond by his clock, not by the other clock. You do have to account for light travel; you can't just ignore it, and you need more rigor (t+d is bad form, since dilation is a multiplicative, not additive, factor) Relativity invites enough confusion on its own, without using sloppy notation.

It wasn't your post to which I was responding, although your "We ban music at night because it disturbs people who can't do anything about it, like go elsewhere." does suggest that a nonsmoker can move away from smoke if he doesn't like it. (And, as I had previously posted, there was no caveat that it was a designated nonsmoking area in my example) But what I quoted was Saryctos, "Don't like the smoke, get away." I wanted to point out that this did not cover all of the situations.

If I find a smoke-free public place, and someone sits down next to me and starts to smoke, why should I be the one that has to move?

This is the slippery slope logical fallacy. Conclusions drawn from faulty logic are invalid. Explain to me how I can choose to not breathe when someone is smoking near me.

The guy's lips are closed — no tongue, so it's not "Frenching." Nothing wrong with what I see.

Umm, did you read the first post? This study addresses precisely that issue, and saw a difference.

There are few positions so extreme that you can't find a credentialed person or two that support it. Creationism has, as bascule has pointed out, biologists who support it, which is what happens when you let iodology drive science. The comparisons are apt. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and science is not a democracy, so it's not a matter of lining up an "expert" or two one each side and voting. You have to dig deeper; you have to look at the data and the methodology. I've steered clear of discussion of the data because it's not my field. But several of the criticisms about general methodology being flawed have been off base, as I've pointed that out.

No. We can still still look at the effects of individual factors, e.g. putting CO2 into the atmosphere and measure how much is put there by humans. From that we can predict the overall effect of that action. This does not ignore past warming cycles if it accounts for the factors that caused them.