I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Lake At The North Pole? Not Really. 300 Miles Away

Hits: 6228 | Rating: (2.1) | Category: Science | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 13 4 5 6 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 6:36:09 PM
@mesovortex:
"Just because things happen in nature does not mean that it cannot happen due to man."
Yes but you have yet to prove that global warming is manmade and not the result of the little ice age ending. Let alone it shows that the past warming has been far warmer and did not effect eliminate any of the species still around today.

"More CO2 = warmer climate"
As I said before, given that line of logic a fart warms the climate too. The question is if it is warming at unprecedented levels that jeopardize the planet. Which it is not.

"The point I just quoted is the only one I need to address."
No, you mentioned several points, all of which were torn to sheds, this is you last remaining point because you can't adequately understand why it is incorrect.

" First the orange graph is only using one source"

1. Temperature after C.R. Scotese

2. CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001

Count em'

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 3:17:57 PM
richanddead:
"He creates the same CO2 graph for multiple pages using different formulas and they all match the final graph being on page 201 and the data points on page 186. "

The page where the orange graph came from, which has only ONE source, only has 23 pages, and does NOT have what you claim.

Game.
Set.
Match.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 3:17:21 PM
richanddead:
"He creates the same CO2 graph for multiple pages using different formulas and they all match the final graph being on page 201 and the data points on page 186. "

Even if his source did have this (which you've yet to provide a single link referring said source) it is only ONE, which again doesn't negate the fact that CO2 does cause a rise in temps if all other things are equal (this is basic physics), and doesn't negate the fact that man can and does change climate.

As an extreme example, if the earth's atmosphere turned into 97% CO2 like it is on Venus, then yes it would get substantially warmer. If the sun was dying out at the same time, then it would get colder, but CO2 would still have a net warming effect on whatever solar radiation was left that hit Earth.

Man is causing entire species to be wiped out. We're changing the coastline. We are changing climate.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 3:13:29 PM
richanddead:
"WTF are you saying? He creates the same CO2 graph for multiple pages using different formulas and they all match the final graph being on page 201 and the data points on page 186. "

You're making this up. His only source only has 23 pages. Provide the source with a link or shut up.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 3:12:10 PM
The argument is simple:

* Change the content of the atmosphere
* This changes climate

Man is changing the content of the atmosphere, therefore he is changing climate.

Anyone who argues against this might as well argue that gravity doesn't exist.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 3:11:20 PM
richanddead:
I also see you tried to tart out the 'hide the decline' saw. Guess what...

Every one of them were cleared of dishonesty:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

The tree ring data that was 'hidden', was really just shelved because it was NO LONGER ACCURATE and SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even if it showed the opposite of a decline (which wasn't referring to temps, but actually a decline of available data), if the data was unreliable, it would have been hidden away anyway.

Unreliable data does not pass scrutiny.

Did you bother to research ANYTHING you posted? You're better than this.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 3:08:41 PM
5cats:
The only troll was yourself and whoever posted this initial link. You haven't once addressed the many points you were wrong about, including confusing VOLUME for AREA.

I guess if you can't talk about the facts, and get even basic science wrong, you have no room to talk.

I backed up everything I said with science and research. You did not.

End of story.

Science will march on without you.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 3:07:14 PM
richanddead:
The point I just quoted is the only one I need to address. First the orange graph is only using one source. The source isn't correctly used. Even if it was, and the orange chart was right, it IN NO WAY shows that man cannot and does not change climate, and IN NO WAY shows CO2 does not change climate.

The link is VERY simple. CO2 causes a net warming effect due to the greenhouse effect WHICH YOU ADMIT EXISTS. More CO2 with everything else being the same (which right now it is) means warming.

Man is increasing levels of CO2, we're changing the climate. Again, we're changing the content of the atmosphere. There's no fancy chemical reactions needed or involved to do this. It's just like dumping bleach into a bathtub. It just makes a different mix of fluid, just like more CO2 in the atmosphere makes a different mix of fluids, which CHANGES climate.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 3:04:54 PM
richanddead:
"Yes ice cores that show temperature was way higher in the past with no aid from man and totally natural. "

You fall back on the same WRONG argument.

Natural things can happen. Manmade things can happen, too. Nature can change the course of the Mississippi river. Man has as well.

Just because things happen in nature does not mean that it cannot happen due to man.

Also, past climate of 600,000 years DOES show that while CO2 may not have been the INITIAL push of a warmer climate, more CO2 DID equal a warmer climate as it was released into the atmosphere after an initial warming trend.

More CO2 = warmer climate.

You keep going around in circles, full of sound and fury, and you signify nothing.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:28:40 PM
(cont)
"Did you just post it because it agreed with your foregone conclusion? Did you not bother to research it? "

Did you? Everything you said has turned out to be false. And yes I researched it, many times infact and debated in in several different posts, with different global warming zealots like you.

"Did you actually read the peer reviewed links you posted? None of them agree with your idea that man isn't changing climate today."

I guess so since they look at deep-time before man had even evolved. But they do all agree with R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III), which is accurately reflected in the graph. Which i think was the point of your entire nonfactual rant, right. But I'm glad to see you finally admit they are peer-reviewed, at least thats a little progress and thats also sign of character, kudos in that respect.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:27:16 PM
(cont)
" And we have tree ring and ice core data which can verify the conclusions we have about past climate "

Yes ice cores that show temperature was way higher in the past with no aid from man and totally natural.

And tree-ring data that doesn't support global warming theories (except the Yamals Urals in Siberia which are an outlier because they were effected a high amount of nitrogen in the soil and were subsequently replaced with the data from the Polar Urals)



richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:20:46 PM
(cont)
"Data over the past 600 million years is not going to be that accurate or convergent, so it's best to use a shorter time frame."

How did you even come to this conclusion? Longer time frames are always better than shorter ones for determining long term trends.

" A cartoonish graph with periods that are suspiciously flat and jerky, and that only has one source (that he somehow construed data from and he doesn't even tell us how he did it), and from a source that looks like a geocities page, is not exactly a valid source."

It has two sources, that are both peer reviewed, that they clearly cited in the graph it self and below it on the web page (that you can't seem to read), that is put together from Articles from the American Journal of Science one of the most reviewed, accredited, and prestigious journals of science.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:18:51 PM
(Cont)
"A geologist with no credentials whatsoever in climate used an old peer reviewed paper to try to figure out past temperature/CO2 data."

You don't seem to know very much about what the science of Geology is or what realms it shows and takes into account. Let alone you don't seem to even know how the data is even constructed in the graph in the first place or who is responsible for which parts.

"you find that the data does not match the chart"

WTF are you saying? He creates the same CO2 graph for multiple pages using different formulas and they all match the final graph being on page 201 and the data points on page 186.

"we have recent data over the past 600,000 years which suggests that CO2 does cause warming"

Please link that.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:18:00 PM
(cont)
"the creator of the chart has an obvious denialist agenda, so he spun data and cherry picked it so he could get his point across."

Yea, because writing an article about the geological findings of the Carboniferous Period and how they produced todays coal beds, he was obviously out to put the global warming theory down.

"The fact of the matter is that CO2 levels and temperature levels over the past 600 million years are not very well known and should not be used to get your"

Yea, because fossils, coal beds, ice cores, rock layers, biodiversity levels, salt deposits, desert deposits, glacial deposits, tectonic movements, ancient migration paths, as well as the distribution of plants and animals that are sensitive to climate, over 600 million years worth of data, are so misunderstood they hardly reveal anything. We should just base all our theories on highly politicized data from the last 30 years, good idea,...not.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:17:16 PM
(cont)
"That orange chart wasn't cited in ANY of those articles that I could read. It simply wasn't there."

Oh Jesus Christ dude, look at what is being said, "R.A Berner, 2001" is the paper that is cited and confirmed. The graph is just graphing his data on CO2 so its easy to see.

"Show me just one where it exists, or show a screenshot. I think you're lying or bluffing."

Look at the link for R.A Berner, 2001, I don't want to keep relinking it, scroll down to "Articles citing this article." (facepalm)

"The pdf sourced does not match the data in the orange chart... temperatures in the chart..."

Let me clear this up for you, R.A Berner, 2001 is dealing with CO2 and C.R. Scotese (creator of the the Paleomap Project and the Pangaea Ultima theory) is credited with the temperature model. Please, please, please, look at the citation given in the graph.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:16:09 PM
(cont)
"I'm not a member of the website so I can't look at the data you are attempting to source. My guess is it's not saying what you're thinking it's saying."




Look at the citation in the lower left hand corner. It says "CO2 based on R.A Berner, 2001"

This is R.A Berner, 2001...
link

"You're saying a chart made in the late 1990s was using 2013 sources?"

No, I'm not, please reread what i said. I said "it is still the accepted stance of the scientific community in general and was cited and confirmed in 9 out of 9 of the most recent studies in 2013 alone." To be cited means it was made before the paper that cited it. And it wa

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:14:07 PM
(cont)
"I'm not sure why you're attempting to argue."
Because you were saying that I simply do not believe in greenhouse gasses. When I was saying that i believe it the greenhouse gasses are at normal levels. See the difference between those two arguments.

"CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because we are emitting more CO2 than anything else."

But it is less of a warming greenhouse gas than many of the other greenhouse gases like methane. So a higher amount does not necessitate a bigger threat. Its like saying that Betelgeuse is a brighter star than our sun because it is so big. Size does not necessitate potency.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 1:13:40 PM
@mesovortex: "We aren't emitting more water vapor, plus it condenses."

As volcanism occurs and as ice melts more water vapor is produced. And it condenses into clouds that hold in heat.

"CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time before it is reabsorbed."

CO2 is heavier that oxygen and stays closer to the surface and stays in the atmosphere until it is used in an organisms respiration.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25760 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36:59 PM



Congratulations @mesovortex on your successful trolling of this topic!

It's no longer about:
- inaccurate previous AGW post
- how this post is 100% accurate

It is NOW about:
- the planet Venus
- counting "peer reviews"
- the meaning of the word "it"

You are in the "Big Troll Club" now, good for you!

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:42:35 AM
richanddead:

All of this should clue you in to the following:
* Data over the past 600 million years is not going to be that accurate or convergent, so it's best to use a shorter time frame. 600,000 years is enough, though. And we have tree ring and ice core data which can verify the conclusions we have about past climate
* A cartoonish graph with periods that are suspiciously flat and jerky, and that only has one source (that he somehow construed data from and he doesn't even tell us how he did it), and from a source that looks like a geocities page, is not exactly a valid source.

Did you just post it because it agreed with your foregone conclusion? Did you not bother to research it?

Did you actually read the peer reviewed links you posted? None of them agree with your idea that man isn't changing climate today.

Not. A. Single. One.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:40:06 AM
richanddead:
To sum up...

A geologist with no credentials whatsoever in climate used an old peer reviewed paper to try to figure out past temperature/CO2 data. His graph does not even match the data. His graph and his data is now old and outdated.

Yet, people have posted it throughout the internet as if it's 100% accurate without even bothering to check the source. It's appeared in 100s of blogs, and 100s of denialist websites. Yet, if you actually dig down deep enough, check the source, check the sources of this graph (er... source since there's only one, and that should be a red flag), you find that the data does not match the chart, that the chart looks suspiciously off, and to top it all off we have recent data over the past 600,000 years which suggests that CO2 does cause warming.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:36:55 AM
richanddead:
Cont...

richanddead:
Here is the ORIGINAL source of your graphic:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

The pdf sourced does not match the data in the orange chart. At all. If you read it, you would have seen it. You should have been very suspicious when temperatures in the chart were somehow EXACTLY stable for a very long time and then suddenly changed. As if there's no variation for millions of years? The PDF sourced also has data that is quite different than what is charted.

Plus, the creator of the chart has an obvious denialist agenda, so he spun data and cherry picked it so he could get his point across.

The fact of the matter is that CO2 levels and temperature levels over the past 600 million years are not very well known and should not be used to get your

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:36:39 AM
richanddead:
Here is the ORIGINAL source of your graphic:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

The pdf sourced does not match the data in the orange chart. At all. If you read it, you would have seen it. You should have been very suspicious when temperatures in the chart were somehow EXACTLY stable for a very long time and then suddenly changed. As if there's no variation for millions of years? The PDF sourced also has data that is quite different than what is charted.

Plus, the creator of the chart has an obvious denialist agenda, so he spun data and cherry picked it so he could get his point across.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:29:16 AM
richanddead:
You're saying a chart made in the late 1990s was using 2013 sources?

What???

That orange chart wasn't cited in ANY of those articles that I could read. It simply wasn't there.

Show me just one where it exists, or show a screenshot. I think you're lying or bluffing.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 422 Posts
Monday, August 05, 2013 11:27:46 AM
richanddead:
Absolutely NONE of those links verify that orange graph you posted. None.

In fact, they argue against it.

Did you even read the links you posted? I don't think you did.

Page: 13 4 5 6 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.