The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-18-2016, 11:11 AM   #26
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
CO2 is not temperature. CO2 is not sea level. You are using a theorized predictor to Trump observational or historical temperature data.

So, now how does current temperature and sea level compare to those 800,000 years?
You don't appreciate that CO2 dictates temperature.

This is about an hour long but will provide much information to you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
Further, look at the first graph you posted. It has the 0 axis line during the second portion of the little ice age when temps were about .5 C below average, which means 20th century warming at most is a rebound from that low, plus another .5 C or so above that average. If natural variation accounted for the .5C drop during the mini ice age, why not a .5-.6C climb now?
To which plot are you referring? The video of CO2 concentrations or the last ~140 years of solar and temperature?

The surface temperature doesn't change without some form of forcing. What's caused the increase over the last ~150 years? Not an increase in solar activity.

What else, then?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 11:17 AM   #27
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
You don't appreciate that CO2 dictates temperature.

This is about an hour long but will provide much information to you.





To which plot are you referring? The video of CO2 concentrations or the last ~140 years of solar and temperature?

The surface temperature doesn't change without some form of forcing. What's caused the increase over the last ~150 years? Not an increase in solar activity.

What else, then?
Wags, we have a failure to communicate. The science on exactly what the forcing factor of CO2 is, is unsettled. Hence the reason the models have been so horrible in predicting actual temperatures.

Let me try this one more time, without you following back to the comfort blanket that is CO2...

Show evidence that the current temperature and sea levels are out of normal climatic variation for the last five inter-glacial periods.

Don't point me to a youtube video on CO2. If this is such a proven fact, then you should be able to produce that indisputable evidence in minutes.

So, let's have it. Educate me on this topic. Show me how we are outside of normal climatic deviations for an inter-glacial period.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 11:28 AM   #28
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Wags, we have a failure to communicate. The science on exactly what the forcing factor of CO2 is, is unsettled. Hence the reason the models have been so horrible in predicting actual temperatures.
Watch Alley's video.

It will lead to much understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
Don't point me to a youtube video on CO2. If this is such a proven fact, then you should be able to produce that indisputable evidence in minutes.
I'm providing the most accessible means to you. If you can't spare more than "minutes", then you're not going to be able to understand the science. Yes, it takes work and time. Sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
So, let's have it. Educate me on this topic. Show me how we are outside of normal climatic deviations for an inter-glacial period.
Watch Alley's video and appreciate the timeseries of CO2 over the last 800,000 years.

Those two provide what you want.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 11:35 AM   #29
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Watch Alley's video.

It will lead to much understanding.



I'm providing the most accessible means to you. If you can't spare more than "minutes", then you're not going to be able to understand the science. Yes, it takes work and time. Sorry.



Watch Alley's video and appreciate the timeseries of CO2 over the last 800,000 years.

Those two provide what you want.
You should be able to provide sourced graphs, with the studies to support them, showing that current temp and sea level (actual and rate of change) are outside of norms.

Why cannot you not answer a simple request with repeating CO2 multiple times?

Addressing the temp and sea level, even if CO2 is the primary driver of change, without mentioning CO2 should not be so hard for you.

Why is it?
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:09 PM   #30
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Ok, to show you how it's possible to talk temp without CO2, I'll go first.

Here are NASA and Hadcrut graphs of temp anomalies over the last 160 or so years. Showing the cooler than average period in the late 1800s (last little ice age period) into the 30's when most temp records still exist (even though we've had decades of "record" heat now).







Now, just for some perspective as to the rate of change, I've done a crude copy and paste job. I've taken the section of the graph showing the climb out of the cool period around the turn of the previous century, and laid it next to the so called "unprecedented" recent rate of change.



So, clearly the 1980 to present rate of change isn't even unprecedented in the last 160 years, but that doesn't matter. 160 years in the Earth's climate isn't even a drop in the bucket. I would need an academic like WAGs to help me come up with something much, much, much, much smaller than a drop to make a better analogy.

Now, provide the proof that modern temperatures and sea level, and the modern temperature increase and sea level increase (address all four) are out of the range of normal climate deviation for an inter-glacial period.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:10 PM   #31
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
You should be able to provide sourced graphs, with the studies to support them, showing that current temp and sea level (actual and rate of change) are outside of norms.

Why cannot you not answer a simple request with repeating CO2 multiple times?

Addressing the temp and sea level, even if CO2 is the primary driver of change, without mentioning CO2 should not be so hard for you.

Why is it?
Watch Alley's video.

Then read the sources for the Shakun/Marcott reconstruction that I've provided. See the links.

Just because you don't like it that CO2 is the "control knob" of the climate system doesn't mean it's not.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:13 PM   #32
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Ok, to show you how it's possible to talk temp without CO2, I'll go first.

Here are NASA and Hadcrut graphs of temp anomalies over the last 160 or so years. Showing the cooler than average period in the late 1800s (last little ice age period) into the 30's when most temp records still exist (even though we've had decades of "record" heat now).
You can do better.

The data that goes into those graphs is readily available; instead of a cut-n-paste, download the data itself and do an analysis of the rate of temperature change.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:15 PM   #33
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Watch Alley's video.

Then read the sources for the Shakun/Marcott reconstruction that I've provided. See the links.

Just because you don't like it that CO2 is the "control knob" of the climate system doesn't mean it's not.
Wow, I guess when you've entered the church of climate change, they brain wash you so badly that you can't answer simple questions.

I'll take that as you saying that you are lost without parroting what you are told by your superiors at the uni and that you can't answer such a simple question without saying... C02, C02, C02, err, err, C02, C02 (my best parrot voice...)

I'm astonished as someone that works in the field and someone that is a self proclaimed expert, that you can't answer such basic questions. Wow. Shocked to be honest.

I'm not even claiming it ISN'T outside of the norms, I'm just asking you to think for yourself and PROVE what you are claiming is true.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:17 PM   #34
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
You can do better.

The data that goes into those graphs is readily available; instead of a cut-n-paste, download the data itself and do an analysis of the rate of temperature change.
I don't have to, because you've yet to show a single piece of evidence that we are outside of normal inter-glacial periods climatic variation.

So, I can only conclude one of two things.

First, you are a creationist and don't believe the Earth existed before this current inter-glacial period.

Second, I've confused you with big terms like "inter-glacial period."
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:29 PM   #35
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I don't have to, because you've yet to show a single piece of evidence that we are outside of normal inter-glacial periods climatic variation.

So, I can only conclude one of two things.

First, you are a creationist and don't believe the Earth existed before this current inter-glacial period.

Second, I've confused you with big terms like "inter-glacial period."
I thought you wanted honest and rational discussion.

There are many periods of Ice Ages and ice-free eras in earth's past. Be more specific - just how far back do you evidence from?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:50 PM   #36
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Elway needs to go to AA.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 38,015

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Phillip Lindsay
Default

This is the classic "unknown unknowns" argument that people use to argue against man made climate change, like this is a court trial and what we need is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's absurd. What we know is that CO2 levels have risen steadily and dramatically in perfect correlation with increasing CO2 emissions by human beings. No means exist to determine direct causation in this case because there is no way to conclusively account for exactly where all the CO2 is coming from. The excess CO2 in the atmosphere could possibly be coming from another, unknown, source, but it's incredibly likely. To hold to such views is basically suicidal, and for what? Even if climate change is not the result of humanity (it almost certainly is, but whatever), fossil fuels need to be replaced for a litany of reasons, both for the environment and to prevent the inevitable shortages that are coming. Fossil fuels are not an inexhaustible resource, and the only people who gain from us stubbornly refusing to develop alternatives are the oil and gas mega-corporations. If man-made climate change is real we are screwed if we continue to follow the path we are on, but even if it isn't, we are screwed because our entire way of life is based upon a resource that has an expiration date.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:58 PM   #37
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Elway needs to go to AA.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 38,015

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Phillip Lindsay
Default

This link really addresses the mental disconnect for the deniers going on in this "debate".

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr.../#.WFboo1yzBW0
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 02:11 PM   #38
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I thought you wanted honest and rational discussion.

There are many periods of Ice Ages and ice-free eras in earth's past. Be more specific - just how far back do you evidence from?
I believe I've answered this at least three times above. You need to start reading posts you are responding to, not just jumping straight to your canned responses.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 02:12 PM   #39
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
This link really addresses the mental disconnect for the deniers going on in this "debate".

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr.../#.WFboo1yzBW0
You are exhibiting the mental disconnect.

I've asked a very simple question, and all you can do is go on and on about denying.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 03:55 PM   #40
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Elway needs to go to AA.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 38,015

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Phillip Lindsay
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
You are exhibiting the mental disconnect.

I've asked a very simple question, and all you can do is go on and on about denying.
You keep asking a loaded question, with the intent of saying "hey, there's been rapid climate change before without humans being involved", and I have pointed out that over the past 150 years CO2 levels have steadily increased in a direct correlation with human CO2 production. The natural conclusion to be made from that is that humans are producing an excess amount of CO2 relative to the planet's capacity to absorb and process it. Posit an alternate scenario that's actually based on science if you want to be taken seriously.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 05:54 PM   #41
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I believe I've answered this at least three times above. You need to start reading posts you are responding to, not just jumping straight to your canned responses.
Give me a time frame.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:02 PM   #42
Atwater His Ass
Ring of Famer
 
Atwater His Ass's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,172

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

No you.
Atwater His Ass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:37 PM   #43
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Give me a time frame.
It's hard to take you serious that you want to have an honest debate when you clearly have not read a single post I've written. So, in answer to your question, I will quote the SIX times in this thread that I stated it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Again, you have to stay in a rude antagonistic manner.

What makes this warming out of the norms of the last 500k years?


So, before we prove a negative, how about you put forth your best case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
So, when you look at the last five inter-glacial periods, how does the current warming and sea levels compare to those?

It's incumbent on you, the believer, to show us the deniers, what proof you have that what we are seeing today in terms of temperature and sea level is out of the normal climatic variations seen within an inter-glacial period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
The whole man made AGW movement is predicated on forcing factors that have been wildly overstated in the models, which is why even though CO2 has actually increased at a higher rate than expected, observational warming has not matched what the models have predicted.

So, again, without focusing on CO2, show where the warming we've seen in this inter-glacial and the sea level rise we've seen, or even that is predicted, is out of the ordinary for say the last five inter-glacial periods.

You guys are the ones that mock Christians for looking at the world as if it's only 6,000 years old, but the AGW crowd likes to focus on only the last 150 years or, when temperatures dipped well below the average of the previous thousand or so years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Again, I asked you to show how this is out of the norm for what has been seen in the inter-glacial periods for the last 500k years (five inter-glacial periods). You can't put up a graph of 160 years or so, which is less than a blip in time, and use it as ANY sort of proof to prove the theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Climatic change, including temperature rising and falling did not start at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

If it is so indisputable, I'll ask you the same question I've posed to the other two in this thread.

Where is the indisputable evidence that the change in temperatures over the last 160+ years, and the current temperatures and sea levels, are out of the normal variations expected in an inter-glacial period? Where is the evidence that the temperatures and sea level are higher than say in the last five inter-glacial periods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
CO2 is not temperature. CO2 is not sea level. You are using a theorized predictor to Trump observational or historical temperature data.

So, now how does current temperature and sea level compare to those 800,000 years?

Further, look at the first graph you posted. It has the 0 axis line during the second portion of the little ice age when temps were about .5 C below average, which means 20th century warming at most is a rebound from that low, plus another .5 C or so above that average. If natural variation accounted for the .5C drop during the mini ice age, why not a .5-.6C climb now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Wags, we have a failure to communicate. The science on exactly what the forcing factor of CO2 is, is unsettled. Hence the reason the models have been so horrible in predicting actual temperatures.

Let me try this one more time, without you following back to the comfort blanket that is CO2...

Show evidence that the current temperature and sea levels are out of normal climatic variation for the last five inter-glacial periods.

Don't point me to a youtube video on CO2. If this is such a proven fact, then you should be able to produce that indisputable evidence in minutes.

So, let's have it. Educate me on this topic. Show me how we are outside of normal climatic deviations for an inter-glacial period.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:40 PM   #44
ShaneFalco
Infamous
 
ShaneFalco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 17,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Wow, I guess when you've entered the church of climate change, they brain wash you so badly that you can't answer simple questions.

I'll take that as you saying that you are lost without parroting what you are told by your superiors at the uni and that you can't answer such a simple question without saying... C02, C02, C02, err, err, C02, C02 (my best parrot voice...)

I'm astonished as someone that works in the field and someone that is a self proclaimed expert, that you can't answer such basic questions. Wow. Shocked to be honest.

I'm not even claiming it ISN'T outside of the norms, I'm just asking you to think for yourself and PROVE what you are claiming is true.
WGS doesnt work in the field. His job is posting in the Political Section of the OM
ShaneFalco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:46 PM   #45
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneFalco View Post
WGS doesnt work in the field. His job is posting in the Political Section of the OM
Strange. I thought there was that phrase "practice makes perfect..." that would come into play here.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:48 PM   #46
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneFalco View Post
WGS doesnt work in the field. His job is posting in the Political Section of the OM
Your "job" is to be stoned.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:49 PM   #47
ShaneFalco
Infamous
 
ShaneFalco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 17,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Your "job" is to be stoned.
speak of the devil, and he shall appear.....
ShaneFalco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:49 PM   #48
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
It's hard to take you serious that you want to have an honest debate when you clearly have not read a single post I've written. So, in answer to your question, I will quote the SIX times in this thread that I stated it.
Did you watch the Alley video yet?

Why not?

PS - For an exercise, compute the surface temperature of the earth given incoming solar and the average albedo. Then explain why your result differs so much from observations:
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:50 PM   #49
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Your "job" is to be stoned.
God, no. Don't give Falco an opening to talk about weed. NO!!!!!!!!
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 06:51 PM   #50
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneFalco View Post
speak of the devil, and he shall appear.....
Speak of the stoner, and he might appear. If he remembers...
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 PM.


Denver Broncos