• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Visage said:
No problem.



No. There is no 'array of views' regarding ice core data. There are no cause and effect issues to resolve. If I look at a thermometer and (assuming its accurate) it says 20 degrees, I know its 20 degrees. If a scientist takes a 200K year old ice sample and measures the air contained therein to contain 250 ppm CO2 then thats just as factual (especially as you can use carbon dating to meausre not just the concentartion of CO2 but also its age). Stop trying to insinuate that the evidence is in dispute where it isnt. There *are* disputed areas of climate science, but this isnt one of them.
Click to expand...

The paper confetti comment was more general rather than being limited to ice cores although I have seen conflicting reporting. I'm likely to be bogged down in some work stuff for the next two days, so bear with me.
 
Visage said:
Id encourage anyone to ask for clarification on any of these posts - im more than happy to go into as much detail as needed.
Click to expand...

Agreed! The whole point of a thread like this is for the less well informed to ask questions, Vis and I get to do the heavy stuff.
 
MARKakaJIM said:
Its called a joke, lighten up, or is that not in the engineers job description?
Click to expand...

I didn't have the first idea what you were writing about, still don't. Forty-six year olds might not know the character mentioned, bear that in mind in the future.
My sense of humour has always been up there without being diminished.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I didn't have the first idea what you were writing about, still don't. Forty-six year olds might not know the character mentioned, bear that in mind in the future.
My sense of humour has always been up there without being diminished.
Click to expand...

Always thought you'd be older than that.
 
Sorry for the late reply.
As a good engineer I will not re-invent the wheel:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

For an authoritive counter-'consensus' website visit:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny - the government takes notice of this idiot academic!:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/9312347/Hay-Festival-2012-Government-adviser-Bill-McGuire-says-global-warming-is-causing-earthquakes-and-landslides.html

Plenty of debate there folks. The comments on WUWT always have decent thought out debate without any preaching.

Regards

Dave
 
Nope. Im just waiting for you to do what you said you'd do on your return, namely address the fact that your understanding of historical global CO2 levels was woefully inaccurate, particularly the dramatic increase in those levels in the last 150 years.

The paper you've quoted claims that CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases, rather than the other way around. How can that be when:

a) prior to the recent increase there was actually a period of cooling (the mini ice age)
and
b) we're only now seeing a temperature increase?

And trying to bolster one's argument by using Jeremy Clarkson is never a good idea for one who wishes to have scientific credibility.
 
Visage said:
Nope. Im just waiting for you to do what you said you'd do on your return, namely address the fact that your understanding of historical global CO2 levels was woefully inaccurate, particularly the dramatic increase in those levels in the last 150 years.

The paper you've quoted claims that CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases, rather than the other way around. How can that be when:

a) prior to the recent increase there was actually a period of cooling (the mini ice age)
and
b) we're only now seeing a temperature increase?

And trying to bolster one's argument by using Jeremy Clarkson is never a good idea for one who wishes to have scientific credibility.
Click to expand...
You seem to cling to the relationship of two variables when reality suggests you shouldn't. Read Mr Watt's site and you might be better informed. I used the Jeremy Clarkson article to emphasise what utter nut jobs some academics can be.
I do real sience as well as engineering for a profitable company, I seek no bias in my conclusions.
 
Last edited:
1266838738-11600-0.jpg
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
You seem to cling to the relationship of two variables when reality suggests you shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Reality is that CO2 is a proven absorber of IR radiation - the very radiation that makes up the majority of the earth's emissions back out into space. Reality is that if you take a system and increase the level of a substance that changes the radiative balance then you will alter the internal temperature of that system.

Read Mr Watts site and you might be better informed. I used the Jeremy Clarkson article to emphasise what utter nut jobs some academics can be.
Click to expand...

Scientific research should be refuted by scientists. Not by some unhinged loon playing the subject for laughs.

I do real science as well as engineering for a profitable company, I seek no bias in my conclusions.
Click to expand...

Bollocks, TBH. You have shown yourself to be utterly closed minded, seeking only to muddy the waters of debate with comments that are, at best irrelevant, and at worse downright wrong.
 
BTW - try answering questions put to you, instead of going of on diversionary tangents and you may garner some credibility.

Notably:

The paper you've quoted claims that CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases, rather than the other way around. How can that be when:

a) prior to the recent increase there was actually a period of cooling (the mini ice age)
and
b) we're only now seeing a temperature increase?
 
You clearly didn't read the "Water vapour rules the greenhouse" article. I seriously doubt your understanding of thermodynamics and energy exchange. I doubt it is well understood by anyone at the planetary level.
My sceptism will always match your certainty until you examine the validity of the doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Vis, I object to the closed mind comment. That is a lazy slur. I'm anything but and that is why I'm challenging you.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Vis, I object to the closed mind comment. That is a lazy slur. I'm anything but and that is why I'm challenging you.
Click to expand...

By telling people that they have a closed mind.

Most of this thread is a major "whoooosh" to me but i do love your style. Ignore everything, post stuff, tell people they refuse change their stance, ignore more stuff, stop posting, come back and start again. Bravo sir
 
Kenny said:
By telling people that they have a closed mind.

Most of this thread is a major "whoooosh" to me but i do love your style. Ignore everything, post stuff, tell people they refuse change their stance, ignore more stuff, stop posting, come back and start again. Bravo sir
Click to expand...

Kenny, I'm not sure who you are aiming that comment at. Problem solving is about having an open mind in most circumstances.
If you were shooting at me then I can say that there were good reasons why I was 'off air' for a week, in anticipation, as I did point out. Vis holds on to a certainty which he cannot defend, complex chaotic systems cannot become deterministic until they cease to be chaotic.
The carbon dioxide hypothesis depends on positive feedbacks to conclude a catastrophic outcome. To date Vis hasn't provided anything other than Wikipedia sourced articles to support his view, people should not believe that the 'science is settled', anyone interested in climate science will tell you likewise. Hanging a political hat on the current mainstream dogma at the expense of the ecconomy is foolish in the extreme.
 
Last edited:
...and Im not going to take a lecture on sources from someone who links to websites that dont even claim to be neutral, and Jeremy fucking Clarkson.

Every single thing I have linked to, including Wikipedia, has citations from peer reviewed scientific papers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top