The vast majority of the chart is measured using the same methods, ...
Yes, the historical data showing how global temperatures and C02 were behaving before humankind's carbon-driven industrialisation and before Antarctic weather records were kept, are reconstructed from analyses of Antarctic ice core samples. So the part of the graph you want to believe in uses the method you want to throw doubt on.
it is only that tiny bit at the end that is using a different method for measurement.
Different shmifferent. You are saying that this means that some of the data is wrong. Can you say which part of the graph you chose is actually wrong, Jerry?
I venture outside for exercise, bagels, and general debauchery--which can only be had with exercise and bagels of course!--AND IT IS COLD!!!!!111!
EXPLAINS THAT!~~!!
CHECKMATE ATHIEISTS!!!1!
--J.D.
P.S.
I miss Doris DumbassDavidMabuse2000
P.P.S.
No, not really, but, unlike Mildred he had insanity as an excuse, washed down with pills and MadDog 20/20 or whatever is a fine wine in America's Hat these days. Maybe it was better in America's Beret? I do not know. However, given that this thread has become much like a Creatard Debate:
Creatard: Theres no evidence of evolution.
Non-Retards: Look, you need [Large reams of evidence, links to discussions, pictures, video, directions to a local library.--Ed.] then we can talk!
Creatard: Its a Theory!
Non-Retards: You do not understand [More large reams of evidence.--Ed.] like gravity!
Creatard: Theres no transitional fossils.
Non-Retards: Look you lia[Reams, and reams, and reams.--Ed.] seriously?! Have you looked at any of it?!
Creatard: Over 37 {37?!} [Stop that.--Ed.] scientists now reject evolution! Millions believe in Jesus!
Non-Retard: You pustulent fucking re[Reams and reams and reams.--Ed.] that Your Mom blows for crack money!!!11
Creatard: I will pray for you.
There really is not much more other than to represent a record of one liar's attempts to deny reality and the Far More Patient to bury him in it.
P.P.P.S.
No, really, that is it. I am just trying to avoid the exercise :fatass: Which I do not have. I am . . . magNIfIcent! Just ask . . .
The vast majority of the chart is measured using the same methods, ...
Yes, the historical data showing how global temperatures and C02 were behaving before humankind's carbon-driven industrialisation and before Antarctic weather records were kept, are reconstructed from analyses of Antarctic ice core samples. So the part of the graph you want to believe in uses the method you want to throw doubt on.
it is only that tiny bit at the end that is using a different method for measurement.
Different shmifferent. You are saying that this means that some of the data is wrong. Can you say which part of the graph you chose is actually wrong, Jerry?
You seem to have lost interest in the point you were trying to make here, Jerry! Maybe you're beginning to realised that AGW is real, and that it's your denialist buddies that are full of shit ...
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Looks a lot more like temperature follows CO2 concentrations. Are you suggesting that temperature variations somehow trigger the release and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere? Can you propose a mechanism for that, besides the incredulity of the fevered depths of your imagination?
Looks a lot more like temperature follows CO2 concentrations. Are you suggesting that temperature variations somehow trigger the release and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere? Can you propose a mechanism for that, besides the incredulity of the fevered depths of your imagination?
CO2 is released from the oceans when it warms.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Mick, I see you are having a hard time with this. Combining data sets produced by different methodologies, methodologies which can not be tested against one another, is not scientific.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
So, JEROME, which part of the graph you chose is actually wrong? Please be specific.
The part where it incorporated the very most recent data, the tiny sliver on the right side.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
See, the data showing past ages was measured in one way, and today it is measured differently, one is more accurate then the other, they do both show the same trend, thus we can conclude that they are complementary, but down to the specific amount ppm, we have no clue how 100,000 years ago would measure using today's method.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
If we took your reasoning seriously, then due to the differing ways of determining the actual date, we would not be able to say with certainty that the death of Caesar preceded that of Lincoln.
If we took your reasoning seriously, then due to the differing ways of determining the actual date, we would not be able to say with certainty that the death of Caesar preceded that of Lincoln.
We are not reorganizing the entire world's economy based upon Caesar vs Lincoln.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
The part where it incorporated the very most recent data, the tiny sliver on the right side.
In order to maintain that your graph supports your contention that there is no man-made climate problem, you have to claim that the most recent data, that is, the data obtained by direct measurement, is wrong—that the scientists who measure the levels of CO2 in samples of air don't know how to do that correctly.
You claim that the guys who measure the CO2 in the tiny quantities of gas in bubbles trapped and compressed into blocks of ice get it right, but the guys who had the whole of yesterday's sky to take samples as large as they like, they are the ones you say are screwing up their measurements.
Is that really what you believe, hand on heart, Jerry?
__________________
... it's just an idea
Last edited by mickthinks; 12-11-2011 at 08:57 PM.
No Mick, the claim is we that have no way of determining how the atmosphere would measure 100,000 years ago using today's method.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
If we took your reasoning seriously, then due to the differing ways of determining the actual date, we would not be able to say with certainty that the death of Caesar preceded that of Lincoln.
We are not reorganizing the entire world's economy based upon Caesar vs Lincoln.
I am glad you agree, and find that this is the only difference.
See, the data showing past ages was measured in one way, and today it is measured differently, one is more accurate then the other, they do both show the same trend, thus we can conclude that they are complementary, but down to the specific amount ppm, we have no clue how 100,000 years ago would measure using today's method.
What does that even mean? What does it actually have to do with anything.?
The data is incontrovertible: Temperatures have been rising more or less in lock-step with man-released Co2 concentrations since the middle of the 19th century. In the past, when Co2 concentrations rose for different reasons, temperatures also rose.
Temperatures have been rising more or less in lock-step with man-released Co2 concentrations since the middle of the 19th century. In the past, when Co2 concentrations rose for different reasons, temperatures also rose.
Right, all those other times were for natural reasons, this time, right now, no matter that it is following the same previous pattern, is THE FAULT OF MAN!!!1111!!!!
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Mick, I see you are having a hard time with this. Combining data sets produced by different methodologies, methodologies which can not be tested against one another, is not scientific.
Sure it is, because they measure the same fucking thing. Note that you can't test measuring on Tuesday against Thursday, because there is no day that's both Tuesday and Thursday.
Nope, 100,000 year old air manipulated within the Earth is different then what we gather today.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Temperatures have been rising more or less in lock-step with man-released Co2 concentrations since the middle of the 19th century. In the past, when Co2 concentrations rose for different reasons, temperatures also rose.
Right, all those other times were for natural reasons, this time, right now, no matter that it is following the same previous pattern, is THE FAULT OF MAN!!!1111!!!!
Which is it Jerome? Is the world getting hotter, or not?
Previously you have argued, in this very thread as a matter of fact, that the world is not getter hotter.
Now, in the above you concede that it is getting hotter!
Is there a big fat fucking hole in your brain, or what?
The past spikes in Co2 had causes that have been identified -- such as massive volcano activity. Hey, Jerry, seen any massive volcano activity lately?
What part of this is fucking rocket science to your numb brain? We know where the increase in Co2 is coming from -- it's fucking empirical. It's coming from industrial activity.
And, just as in the past, though for different reasons in the past, the temperatures are rising, because the heat is trapped. It's trapped, because Co2 is a heat-trapping gas.
You claim that the difference between the paleoclimatatological method of ice core analysis and the direct method of sampling the air leads to errors in the data obtained by the direct method.
100,000 year old air manipulated within the Earth is different then what we gather today.
So it is the paleoclimatatological data, and the earlier part of your graph, that are wrong, then?