User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 59

  1. #41
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Go into the fields and observe how plants are growing, and where.
    Now, compare this with our paleoclimate datas, with fossil pollens and so on...

    I'd say plants don't care about our current socio-economic/political movements, do they?
    They don't have to to give false data.

    The issue at hand is one of climate -- not of plant growth.

    Here's a hint: There are more factors influencing plants than just the temperature.

    I will always wonder why people refuse empirical evidences with the last drop of energy.
    Yours for example? It's a load of irrelevant crap. It proves nothing.
    I'd blame Ideologies, but that's probably an NT thing.
    Also if we could keep type out of this...
    we fukin won boys

  2. #42
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Go into the fields and observe how plants are growing, and where.
    Now, compare this with our paleoclimate datas, with fossil pollens and so on...

    I'd say plants don't care about our current socio-economic/political movements, do they?

    ---

    I will always wonder why people refuse empirical evidences with the last drop of energy. I'd blame Ideologies, but that's probably an NT thing.
    What's the wildlife in the area like? Is there a change in how the pollens are carried? We keep hearing about a bee shortage here in the states, can a pollinating insect's demise create a difference? Is there less competition for certain species over the others?



    These are newspapers, articles, books from the 70s, at the tail end of a cooling period that started since the 40s. This was during industrialization, and the temperature dropped. Then it started rising. Our basis for temperature fluctuation with regards to CO2 levels is based off of a 35 year period.

    So why the sudden change? Did our methods of measurement get so much better as to completely flip a trend? Or is the climate just unpredictable and can respond to myriad of factors.



  3. #43
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    No, it's more like asking someone "what will I roll on these dice" and asking "how many times will (x) come up if I roll a thousand times". The analogy actually works pretty well when you think of it in terms of not knowing how many sides the dice has, too...

    The models aren't perfect by a long shot, but I can't see anything terribly faulty with the overall picture. It really boils down to how much of an influence we are having, and my understanding is that the regression analysis shows we are primarily responsible.
    Where?
    I've heard we're the primary carbon exhaust producers (well... except second to the ocean) but on the other hand, I understand that carbon, compared with a number of other gases is a pretty negligible force in the greenhouse effect.

    The question is 'how much influence' does it have, not 'if'... and I haven't seen a well reasoned argument on the layered effects of what we are doing (atmosphere composition change, energy, etc.)
    Well now PT you're answering questions no one asked.

    Motie didn't say we have no influence. He just said that there's an enormous lot of the equation being ignored in favor of our moral masturbation.
    we fukin won boys

  4. #44
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post

    Here's a hint: There are more factors influencing plants than just the temperature.
    Could you list those factors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail!
    I will always wonder why people refuse empirical evidences with the last drop of energy.
    Yours for example? It's a load of irrelevant crap. It proves nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail!
    I'd blame Ideologies, but that's probably an NT thing.
    Also if we could keep type out of this...
    Quod erat demonstrandum!

    You just proved my point. Even in so-called NTs, Ideologies are always very strong. Their deep influence should never be underestimated.

    By the way, I have asked if somebody knew the epistemological difference between opinion and knowledge. Do you?
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  5. #45
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Could you list those factors?
    Indeed sir:
    Wind currents
    Insect population
    Sunspots

    Actually, I'm gonna get a list from Anonymous, who's studying Botany in college right now.



    Quod erat demonstrandum!
    How astute of you to notice my devout assertion of my pious creed!
    It must have been exceedingly difficult to detect being as it is highly non-existent. My congratulations and applause to you.

    You just proved my point. Even in so-called NTs, Ideologies are always very strong. Their deep influence should never be underestimated.
    You have to see how this cuts both ways...

    By the way, I'd ask if somebody knew the epistemological difference between opinion and knowledge. Do you?
    Is this your only defense?

    I've never once used the same argument twice.

    Perhaps if you had a deeper understanding, or more knowledge on the matter (rather than knowing a few points very well) you'd have a more dextrous and agile assertion.
    we fukin won boys

  6. #46
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Where?
    I've heard we're the primary carbon exhaust producers (well... except second to the ocean) but on the other hand, I understand that carbon, compared with a number of other gases is a pretty negligible force in the greenhouse effect.
    CO2 represents about 3.6% of greenhouse gas composition, with water vapor contributing to 95% of greenhouse gas composition.

    .117% of that CO2 is man made.

    Keep in mind, this is only greenhouse gases. Land use, I believe, is extremely undervalued and given less weight than it should in determining human effects on global temperature.



  7. #47
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post

    So why the sudden change? Did our methods of measurement get so much better as to completely flip a trend? Or is the climate just unpredictable and can respond to myriad of factors.
    Or rather, the climate doesn't respond to a myriad of factors, it IS a myriad of factors that are ALWAYS CHANGING. But of course that means nothing, because we have been recording global temperatures for a hundred years of the earth's existence! Gosh darnit, we started this century at a certain temperature, and its gonna stay the same because I said it should!

  8. #48
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    What's the wildlife in the area like? Is there a change in how the pollens are carried? We keep hearing about a bee shortage here in the states, can a pollinating insect's demise create a difference? Is there less competition for certain species over the others?
    Sometimes it's far more complex than that, and sometimes it's simpler. Take the Salix species: they use dominant winds, and no insects. And you also forget the nature of the soil, and the dispersion of mushrooms, especially in mycotrophic associations.

    But what's more interesting, is the natural mechanisms plants use to fight frosts, because you can measure them when you study their biochemistry.

    Well.



    These are newspapers, articles, books from the 70s, at the tail end of a cooling period that started since the 40s. This was during industrialization, and the temperature dropped. Then it started rising. Our basis for temperature fluctuation with regards to CO2 levels is based off of a 35 year period.

    So why the sudden change? Did our methods of measurement get so much better as to completely flip a trend? Or is the climate just unpredictable and can respond to myriad of factors.
    There never was a consensus about this, and the climate science was just beginning to be thoroughly studied. And furthermore, I'd say you are confusing different trends, since these early studies never tried to measure the impact of men's activities, but only very long term cycles (And it's true we should have a new Ice age within a few millenias).

    Now, our datas are far more accurate and take into account a far greater amount of complexity, and I'd say that the fact there is a global warming currently occuring is one of the most consensual theory ever recorded amongst the scientific community. Of course, there will always be a couple of mad ones who will deny this, and we should not have heard of them if some industrial lobbys weren't sponsoring them with huge sums of money just to buy the medias, and give the audience the illusion of a debate when there is none.

    Manipulating the masses is so easy, today.

    If you were studying Global Warming in the fields rather than in the newspapers, well, maybe you'd have a clearer idea of what is really going on. That's all I can say.

    I don't care what's our politicians will say, or what you will say. Frankly, I don't give a damn. I just have to take a pleasant stroll in a nearby forest to collect all the evidences I need...
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  9. #49
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Or rather, the climate doesn't respond to a myriad of factors, it IS a myriad of factors that are ALWAYS CHANGING. But of course that means nothing, because we have been recording global temperatures for a hundred years of the earth's existence! Gosh darnit, we started this century at a certain temperature, and its gonna stay the same because I said it should!
    There are plenty other ways to record the average temperature thanks to plants: Biochemistry both of plant samples and soil, vascularization of leaves, Dendrochronology, Tephrochronology, ratios of CO2 absorpion and so on, and so on...

    You can also record them with the analysis of corals and sediments in the ocean, and so on, and so on.

    This field of research is called Paleoclimatology.

    If you can read french, here's a laboratory we are associated with:

    http://www.lsce.ipsl.fr/

    And here's is another, where I have a few friends:

    Laboratoire de Chrono-Ecologie : Pal

    ---

    We're not playing in the same courtyard, you know, so why argue?
    It's just a pointless expense of energy, but hey, you have the right to be a fool and blind yourself with ignorance. Fortunately, there's no law that will prevent that.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  10. #50
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Sometimes it's far more complex than that, and sometimes it's simpler. Take the Salix species: they use dominant winds, and no insects. And you also forget the nature of the soil, and the dispersion of mushrooms, especially in mycotrophic associations.
    So you're saying the factors are varied and only 1 explanation may not be sufficient? Ok, just making sure.




    There never was a consensus about this
    And there isn't one now

    and the climate science was just beginning to be thoroughly studied. And furthermore, I'd say you are confusing different trends, since these early studies never tried to measure the impact of men's activities, but only very long term cycles (And it's true we should have a new Ice age within a few millenias).
    I'm very aware of this. So now, 30 years later, we can be sure our understanding of the climate system is complete? I'm also aware of an impending ice age. It's happened a couple thousand times since the earth took the general composition it has now.

    Now, our datas are far more accurate and take into account a far greater amount of complexity, and I'd say that the fact there is a global warming currently occuring is one of the most consensual theory ever recorded amongst the scientific community. Of course, there will always be a couple of mad ones who will deny this, and we should not have heard of them if some industrial lobbys weren't sponsoring them with huge sums of money just to buy the medias, and give the audience the illusion of a debate when there is none.
    Is that so? I'd like to thank Risen for this one here.... Apparently a bunch of scientists that include Nobel Prize winners and department heads are starting to disagree.

    Manipulating the masses is so easy, today.
    Tell me about it! Part of why most of the world believes a flimsy pseudoscience [as it is portrayed and lobbied globally] is because of that media you mentioned above. And if you think the media actually deters warming theories, you're out of your mind. It wouldn't be where it was without it.

    If you were studying Globa Warming in the fields rather than in the newspapers, well, maybe you'd have a clearer idea of what is really going on. That's all I can say.

    I don't care what's our politicians will say, or what you will say. Frankly, I don't give a damn. I just have to take a pleasant stroll in a nearby forest to collect my evidences.
    So you're going to go on blind...Faith? That's odd, coming from someone who apparently is so sure of his science. And yes, by all means continue gathering local data, that's the best way to confirm a global trend.



Similar Threads

  1. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Heat Wave Blamed On Global Warming
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 04:57 PM
  4. Americans Waking Up on Global Warming Fraud
    By Fecal McAngry in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 262
    Last Post: 08-25-2010, 11:01 PM
  5. Paper on Globalization
    By Athenian200 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 10:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO