Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > The Sciences

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #126  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:21 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMXXIX
Images: 19
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
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?
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (12-07-2011)
  #127  
Old 12-07-2011, 07:21 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

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.


P.P.S.


P.P.P.S.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Qingdai (12-07-2011), SR71 (12-07-2011)
  #128  
Old 12-11-2011, 07:38 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMXXIX
Images: 19
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

:bump:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
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 ...
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-11-2011, 01:55 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Notice that CO2 follows temperature.

__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-11-2011, 02:30 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

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?
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (12-11-2011)
  #131  
Old 12-11-2011, 02:48 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-11-2011, 03:33 PM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMXXIX
Images: 19
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Notice that CO2 follows temperature.

We've already covered this. I guess you missed this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SR71 View Post
4. Until now, increases in CO2 that are not part of temperature driven sequestration have been rare.
But that doesn't answer the question you've been asked (Did you hope no one would notice?) ...

You are saying that some of the data is wrong. Can you say which part of the graph you chose is actually wrong, Jerry?
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (12-11-2011), SR71 (12-11-2011), The Man (12-11-2011)
  #133  
Old 12-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

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.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-11-2011, 04:42 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCMXXIV
Images: 2
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

So, JEROME, which part of the graph you chose is actually wrong? Please be specific.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
mickthinks (12-11-2011), SR71 (12-11-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
  #135  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:02 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:04 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:08 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

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.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:26 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (12-11-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
  #139  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:47 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:47 PM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMXXIX
Images: 19
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (12-11-2011), SR71 (12-11-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
  #141  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:48 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

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.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:48 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (12-13-2011), SR71 (12-11-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
  #143  
Old 12-11-2011, 08:59 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
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.
:lol:

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.

This is rocket science for you? Really?

Or is that you are just a liar?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (12-11-2011), SR71 (12-11-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
  #144  
Old 12-11-2011, 09:01 PM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMXXIX
Images: 19
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
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.
No, Jerry, your claim till now has been that the last bit of the graph is wrong, and that the data for the distant past is right ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
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.
But maybe you want to change your position now. Would you prefer to claim that it's the paleoclimatological data that's wrong?
__________________
... it's just an idea

Last edited by mickthinks; 12-11-2011 at 09:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (12-11-2011), SR71 (12-11-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
  #145  
Old 12-11-2011, 10:23 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-11-2011, 10:24 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

That is not an interesting game Mick, sorry.
/
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 12-12-2011, 12:41 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXX
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (12-12-2011), SR71 (12-12-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
  #148  
Old 12-12-2011, 01:42 AM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCCI
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
they measure the same fucking thing.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 12-12-2011, 01:42 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
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!!!!
:foocl: :foocl:

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? :lol:

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.

Wow, that's hard, huh??
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (12-12-2011), SR71 (12-12-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
  #150  
Old 12-12-2011, 06:39 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMXXIX
Images: 19
Default Re: Climategate 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
That is not an interesting game Mick, sorry.
lol it's the game you've chosen to play, Jerry.

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?
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (12-12-2011), ChuckF (12-12-2011), erimir (12-13-2011), SR71 (12-12-2011), The Man (12-21-2011)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > The Sciences


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.12418 seconds with 14 queries