ghstofmaxwll

It's measured in parts per million just like anything else in the atmosphere.

Many models have in fact proven themselves to be very accurate. Besides the study bascule keeps posting there's also the first GISS analysis done in the 1980s (on computers not nearly as powerful as they're using today). According to NASA, the model is, still today, "right on the money"*.

For what reasons? Do NASA back you up that anthropogenic global warming is a fact from this model(or any other)? I think you will find that they dont. They employ real climatologists.

This is what you want the conclusion to sound like. It in no way says that what iNow was stating was not A conclusion. You think iNow did not give the "correct" conclusion. That's a whole different thing from your original claim.

 

Nor did you address that the data you want IS available. You are now speaking from ignorance: "until we have the ability to measure the direct input of manmade compounds". We do have the ability to measure the direct input of man-made compounds. We know what humans are putting into the atmosphere. Also "against the output of an increased greenhouse layer" shows more ignorance. There is NO "greenhouse layer". No one says the greenhouse gasses are confined to one layer of the atmosphere. The greatest concentration of ALL gasses is, of course, in the troposphere. But there is no "greenhouse layer" within the troposphere or stratosphere.

Once you've lost the arguments you have to pick at me yeah? Maybe I should have used the word barrier.

No! His so called conclusion is not scientific. It is an assertion based on indirect correlation. Climate has many complex interacting variables so picking on CO2 being increased is an assumption. And we cannot directly measure the blanket of greenhouse gases surrounding the earth.

It is also done by retrodiction. This is especially true of computer models in general and climate models in particular. Remember, the computer model is supposed to model ALL climate, not just future climate. That means that the model should generate the values for climate in the past. This is how models are initially tested: do they "predict" what we have already seen. That is, does the model generate the values we have already observed.

 

This is how the flaw in the models for cooling in the tropics was found. The model did not retrodict accurate temperatures because the model did not include increased cloud formation (and the subsequent reflection of incoming radiation). So the model was modified to take this into account.

 

So, Bascule knows the IPCC models have been tested. They accurately retrodict data we already have. This can be seen dramatically in the graphs in the Scientific American article. You can see that the variables "predicted" by the model for the past line up exactly with the values actually seen in the past. Since the model does that, it gives support to the model as hypothesis so that we can have confidence that it is accurately predicting to values we do not yet have in the future.

 

For your information Dick for brains, even the most complex models on supercomputers cannot come any way near to irreproachable accuracy and in fact usually fall well off course pretty soon. Ask the treasury or the MET office about their billion £s systems!

I ask you people again to come up with a scientific conclusion based on the findings, and ditch the assertions.

An hour is definitely possible.

Quote:

""Oxygen needs are much reduced when the body is cold, therefore a permanent brain damage from low oxygen states may not occur. A 60 minute cold water submersion victim has been fully resuscitated. ""

End Quote.

http://scuba-doc.com/hypoth.htm

also

http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/coastal_communities/hypothermia

Yes I meant year....He said year, yeah?

Student brains are usually preserved by alcohol, but the side effects are obviously more instant.

 

 

 

No, my argument was that it is nearly impossible to prove a universal negative. In response to Lockheed's claim that it is impossible to hold one's breath for a year, I gave an example of how it might be possible. Feel free to carry on where he left off and prove that it is impossible to hold one's breath for a year.

 

Make your initial premise that their breath holding can involve means of preservation other than the normal preservation of life coming from the intake of oxygen (if indeed your belief is that frozen bodies are not in fact dead) then, otherwise your argument is not logical but a mere trick question.

Exactly. That's why I'm only going to have my head frozen.

But only certain lower organs in other species have been frozen for a short time and recovered. Human brains definitely are not included.

 

 

But I just gave you a specific example that you can, in fact, hold your breath for over a year. Frozen people don't need to breathe.

 

 

.

Does it make no difference to you that you have moved the goal posts duing your propositions?

Your opening argument was that you cant prove you can hold your breath for a year( holding your breathe requires you to be alive, yes?)....So why did you move the parameters for the logical outcome to include dead people?

By the way, people who are being so called "cryonically frozen" after death are being defrauded...There is no known chemical solution that can prevent tissue being damaged from freezing, hence a frost bitten limb will be wholly irrecoverable. Besides who is going to keep those freezers going if alcor have squandered your money a century earlier?

Since when does science prove a universal negative? You can't actually prove that god didn't create the universe (possibly planting evidence re its age), any more than you can prove any other universal negative, no matter how loudly or how many times you say you can.

Basically it comes down to logic and reasoning versus being fooled by human nature.

Its okay. If you read the earlier posts, lucaspa is basically trying to lamblast me over a video I posted.

I'm lazy you see. I just saw you saying it was wrong(assuming you meant evolution does not fit). Some of these posts here have heavyweight references and links, so not very conducive for the casual asshole( like me) to digest.

 

 

I'm well aware of that. All I was doing was telling lucespa that we are already aware of the arguments that discredit creationism.

 

 

Sorry, was you not one of the people arguing evolution is flawed?

I jumped in late in the argument.

We all know why it is so wrong so its kind of pointless to have to repeat it over and over again. And besides, you should look at his other videos and his credentials... They are not ad hominem, and this one isn't either. The analogies are there to demonstrate a point about creationism.

This "know" you speak of is in fact not knowledge but biblical assertion. We know nothing of the sort in regard to evolution being wrong whereas we know plenty about it being correct. If you look in the dictionary you will find the word "know" is the quality of seeing the underlying factuality. not the quality of being told something is true by a higher authority.

Besides, I find it rather comical that despite being that wrong they still insist on forcing their beliefs on others and in the education system.

I think you know full well that science isnt about forcing belief on anyone, but allowing students to experiment and find out through records that a finding(such as evolution) stands up.

So again I ask: what's the resolution of your graph paper GCM, and what's the granularity of its timesteps?

It doesnt matter! What matters primarily is the context of your graph i.e. what goes before and after your selective snapshot of 30years out of the earths 4+ billion years of greenhouse activity. Where since the planetesimal stage, concentrations of greenhouse compounds(molecules with two or more unlike atoms) have surely reached bigger spikes while they have in fact decreased.

If you were replying from any kind of scientific background rather than ignorance, you'd know it's thoroughly impractical to model the climate system without a computer to perform the calculations.

I am aware that complexity and number of variables in the best climate models we can come up with need super computers . But you implied that modeling of any sort can only be performed on a computer, which someone that has ever gone through mathematical modeling education would not do.

Why was Fred banned?

Lol you wish. You keep trying to "interpret" graphs the way you want to but the fact is actual scientists have already interpreted the data and seem to disagree with your position.

You see, the key word here is "interpret". You cant interpret something to an extent of removing doubt. Anything that needs interpretation also need extreme caution when stating a conclusion. real scientists know this.

No scientist will ever say the following: "We have interpreted that so and so is fact from our data".

 

 

Actually you just said they could be replaced by a pen and graph paper...

 

If you had any scientific training instead of copy and pasting out of context trends, you would know that we can model with paper and pen.

How cautious is extremely cautious? You mean we should wait for Greenland's ice sheet to start falling apart? Or until global temp. goes up by 4-5 C?

....No! just to be cautious so as to find the real mechanism for Greenlands vicious circle. Not just make data fit like a glove into the popular culture of the time.

Sorry, ghstofmaxwll, but neither. What iNow posted was the conclusion from scientific evidence. It's not an assertion. It's a conclusion from data.

 

In August 2007 Scientific American had a summary article of the data to back the conclusion. Included in Figure 1 are the contributions of solar forcing, volcanic activity, man-made greenhouse gasses, etc. You need to read the article and then go back to the references in the article and read those. And the references in the references. THEN you will have all the data and will realize that iNow gave a conclusion from data.

 

I have a PDF copy of the article. If absolutely necessary, I will post it as an attachment so everyone has it. I can probably get away with the copyright issue by calling this forum a "class" and distributing material to the class.

No! A scientific conclusion would be something a long the lines of: The historical data of (?) year climate trends are consistent with a large increase in atmospheric compounds(green house gases). From this we can indirectly conclude that its possible increased industrial atmospheric compounds( in particular CO2) are the cause of an upward trend, but until we have the ability to measure the direct input of manmade compounds against the output of an increased greenhouse layer and also taking into account the time delay of such a system - We conclude that although this is compelling, we must be extremely cautious in jumping to conclusions of fact in any way.

I don't think you will find many NZ'ers who are saying this means global warming is a load of cobblers, mate.

You see, there are magnitudes of certainty between "cobblers" and "fact".

The big bang would have about a 20% magnitude of certainty, relativity 90%.

Global warming by humans hasn't even got as long a history of study as those, so you wouldn't even be able to estimate a 20% surety from the indirect data of

climate history. Some of the good models with photon scatter could push the probability up a bit though I guess.

Down here in Kiwiland, we're getting the tail end of an "extended" winter. This morning was about 3-4 C, and it's the middle of spring. We haven't had weather this cold for quite a few (maybe more than 20) years, and we had hailstorms last week.

I don't think you will find many NZ'ers who are saying this means global warming is a load of cobblers, mate.

Maybe its anthropogenic global season flip, mate.

How many sources would it take to convince you otherwise?

It doesn't matter how many sources you looneys present it matters what they contain i.e. conclusive data, that rules out natural fluctuation is responsible for a spike in global temperature.

Will any amount of actual data open your eyes, or are you too busy standing on your soap box to see the impact we're having?

He means where in this thread.

How can it be unscientific if that's exactly what the scientific community agrees upon?

Try to understand what you're talking about prior to attacking it. Your basic premise is that the reason claims of anthropegenically induced global climate change are wrong is because so many people support it. If people continue to disparage those who recognize that humans are impacting our planet in a negative way, it will only slow our progress toward achieving a solution.

 

We are changing our planet. We must change our behavior. Why continue wasting time trying to persuade people that the data is inconclusive? The data can only be classified as inconclusive to the person who does not understand it. There really is no disagreement among those who are experts in the field. Trusting them is not a fad, it's a method of survival.

 

 

 

I see a mass extinction event coming very soon. Too bad it's not just the morons who will die.

No, Richard! You know what you are talking about before claiming facts! Have you studied planetary Physics in between reading media sensationalism?

When has anyone claimed that there are not natural cycles or that all change is due to anthropegenic causes? :confused:

When just about every layman (who has never studied natural planetary greenhouse effects and climate changes) farts out the latest fad.

The climate change caused by humans is, however, the most dominant and significant.

....You see! unscientific and evidencless assertions!

Fer chrissakes, how many scientists are able to say there is absolute certainty about anything? Name more than one thing that we are 100% certain of (apart from "knowing we're alive")...

Exactly!

What would be the opposite of "wholly unscientific" would be to back claims up with evidence. You know, like the the way science actually works.

The opposite to unscientific would be to make no claims at all on the basis of an inconclusive peak in global climate temperature, that we have no way of telling from a natural fluctuation.

Give me your opinions about global warming

The insistence that climate change is due to man is scientifically ignorant. Primarily its ignorant to natural peaks and troughs present in complex(multi variable) systems such as the earths climate.

Yes there is compelling data that could be consistent with man-made compounds contributing significantly to the earths greenhouse effect. But It is wholly unscientific to claim any certainty what-so-ever, and any scientist who asserts "we are changing our climate" is not a scientist but a political tool.

Dentistry always reminds me of bob fish.

Nice to see ya to see ya nice.

Hi

Im new.