1veedo

I wish we could give out negative reputation points.

Windows has copied more from Linux and open source then is true the other way around -- just look at Vista for an example. There is no one person to sue though -- you can't just sue "Linux" and Linux can't sue back (especially considering they don't have patents in the first place). Apple on the other hand probably holds just as many claims against Microsoft as Linux does and they can sure.

You could always install grub. If it ever messes up grub still boots and you can manually start windows from there.

Really? Like can you give an example? PS: This means I want a reference.

That must be big fire! Do have any idea where in google Earth you could find it?

I really want one of these. There are no letters on the keys -- it's just a black, blank keyboard. http://www.daskeyboard.com/ You can buy it for 76.95usd (free shipping) here but it's not shipping till June or something. I wonder if it's really worth the price though. Besides being awesome it's supposed to have special keys -- like it would be a great keyboard even if it weren't blank.

Beryl...

I don't know how much this has to do with your little rant but the IPCC's selection is for recent climate change and has nothing to do with thousands of years of temperature records. They use these specific studies to prove that the Earth has been getting warmer, which is I'm pretty sure a fact that even you accept. I'm not entirely sure why they tag 3 in there but this has nothing to do with Britain 125 thousand years ago. Also, while you're arguing that the reason these rapid temperature changes in Britain aren't reflected on historical temperature readings is because we chose data that shows mild temperature fluctuations, your second premise indicates that scientists actually chose "erratic" results which conflicts with your earlier premise. Thirdly, you cannot judge the climate of our planet with just one region. So even if all this about Britain is true, it is no indicator of what the entire planet was doing during this time. I'm sure there are locals where temperatures have risen/drooped very dramatically in the past, but this does not reflect the planet as a whole. PS: Some citations would be nice. edit -- the IPCC quote has nothing at all to do with temperatures! (I've never read their most recent report but I went to verify the claim). They're talking about whether or not recent changes in "physical and biological systems," which we know for a fact have been changing, are caused by human activities. These studies are not global studies but have to do with individual, local, systems, and analyzing local systems that are not changing is a waste of time because the question is, "Are recent changes in physical and biological systems the result of human activities?" There are ecosystems that have been relatively unaffected and the IPCC recognizes this themselves in the report. What they're doing is scientifically valid and really should not be done any other way. This reflects more poorly on yourself then it does the IPCC because unlike you're trying to make it out to be, the IPCC is not actually "ignoring" these other reports -- they do quite the opposite, what they're ignoring them for is in establishing whether or not changes have been primarily anthropogenic. Furthermore, these studies have absolutely nothing to do with your discussion about Britain. This particular premise does not, and cannot, logically precede your conclusion that temperature records are selected to support the status quo that current warming is very rapid. I think you'll also find that conspiracy theories don't get you very far on these forums. The idea that scientists are covering up data is completely ridiculous.

I think you're criticized more for using log charts ;P. The greater-then-10-or-so-million-year charts are going into other climatic periods so in relation to global warming they really can't tell us much -- on this level we're talking about climate change that occurs (literally) as fast as the continents can move or the moon can recede from the Earth. In this case I think your "long" graphs would be perfectly acceptable. Btw the idea about gases pushing out water vapour is really kind of illogical because water vapour runs on completely different cycles from other gases. I don't know where you're going with this but water is kind of "absorbed" by the atmosphere and it comes and goes pretty quickly (it doesn't have a half life, it just rains when temperatures drop and evaporates when temperatures rise).

4% is incorrect.

Alright maybe I missed your little "analogy" (lol I still don't see it), but that had nothing to do with global warming. I was just commenting about how everyone likes to talk about Einstein and relativity -- it's not that big of a deal. Out of total global warming, not "the Earth is warmer because of the atmosphere," but warming that has occurred sense about 1750, humans are responsible for a large portion of the temperature rise. Things changed, however, after 1975, and today, currently, we are causing over 90% of global warming (ie we are causing 90% of any temperature rise that is happening today, eg right now). I think I've made this abundantly clear, you just like to play with words, which is a logical fallacy btw known as an equivocation. I have also made this abundantly clear. You are representing global warming with two linear factors: water vapor and CO2. Your error in logic is assuming that humans are not responsible for this increase in water vapor. You're also leaving out a plethora of other factors in the climate and you are completely ignoring feedback systems. This came from Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis.

Global warming isn't caused by the sun; it's caused by pirates.

This is an argument from ignorance. Then can you please explain why these computer models are so exceedingly accurate? Eg the original NASA GISS simulation back in the 80s that is, still today, "right on the money" (actual quote from NASA)*. This is a false cause and is therefore a rather unreliable method to infer causation -- correlation does not imply causation. Do you not realize what you're doing? You're doing exactly what Bascule said -- applying linear functions and ignoring feedback loops with simple rules that do not work out that way in reality. It has been explained, many times, in simple terms. You're just trying to turn it into something that it's not, which implies you don't understand what's going on. So here you go: Rising anthropogenic -- manmade -- greenhouse gases, like CO2, are causing the Earth's temperature to rise at a very rapid and alarming rate. It's really not all that difficult to understand IMO. Pick up a physics book and look at what the equations tell you -- it's really not all that difficult to understand. I don't know why people always make a big deal about relativity and Einstein. It might take a genius to come up with the idea but it's really not all that difficult to understand, as long as you know one formula: y=(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2))^-1. Now quantum and atomic physics -- that's a whole different ballgame. Ok so you're just redefining what global warming is. In that case this is a straw man -- nobody is saying that humans are responsible for the 50C extra degrees on this planet because of our atmosphere. What scientists are saying is that the rise in temperatures -- above this 50C -- is primarily caused by humans. Out of the .6C increase in temperature sense 1975, humans are responsible for .54C, or .5 if you round down. At this point I think you'd be agreeing with us. I proved your arguments wrong a long time ago and you never addressed my concerns. The biggest error that you're making is assuming that water vapor is entirely natural when in reality rising CO2 levels cause the amount of water stored in the atmosphere to increase. You're trying to make a false dilemma -- either CO2 or water vapor' date=' and nothing else, when in reality they aren't related in that way. They work through feedback processes to effect other factors in the climate -- they aren't always separated linearly like this. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this because you just keep ignoring it. Reason? Probably because you don't like the fact that it makes your premises invalid. You're trying to find simple rules to govern the climate but it just doesn't work like this. There are many things that you are overlooking in your calculations -- for instance the effect of the ice-water feedback where melting ice causes temperatures to rise, which causes more ice to melt, causing temperatures to rise even more, etc, or the effects of black pollution on tundra that absorbs heat from the sun in locations where energy used to be reflected back into space. All of these different factors contribute a very important number called a radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of the change in energy from the sun on this planet -- through feedback loops this figure can either increase or decrease the total amount of energy on this planet which then effects the temperature of the planet. CO2 has an RF value of 1.66w/m^2 and it is the highest out of any other factor on the planet -- the runner up is CH4(also anthropogenic) with .48w/m^2. The sun contributes .12w/m^2 extra. Some human activities have negative values, like particulate pollution from aerosols, which has a total value of -1.55 (if you're looking at these numbers I get this from adding the bounds and dividing by 2). The reason CO2 has such a high radiative forcing value is because it works over various feedback chains in the atmosphere, one of the most important being water vapor. In case you didn't catch that, this means that the effects of water vapor are already included in these measurements and it therefore does not need to be addressed any further. So if you want to do some mathematical gymnastics, these are the numbers that you need to be using: [b']Total anthropogenic: 1.6w/m^2 Total non-anthropogenic: .12w/m^2.[/b] Have fun proving that .12 is greater then 1.6.

Methane is just a fancy way of saying natural gas. It really isn't renewable that I know of -- they mine it out of the ground in much the same way you drill for oil. In fact, methane in the ground is actually oil that has been "roasted" bellow a certain depth in the Earth's crust -- most of the carbon chains get riped off it or something. Above a certain level you hit oil. Below it you hit natural gas. Transporting it is relatively easy though. You can run cars on methane -- they've been doing it sense the 80s. It was at one time considered a viable alternative to gas-powered automobiles. The idea was that you would just fill up your car from home on your own gas line. Methane gets transported in such a strong container that if you were to wreck, your car would actually bend around the methane before it would burst and explode (it's considered safer then gas, but the reason it's safer is because of how explosive it is -- the law requires you store it in tanks with certain specifications).

There are records in ice core samples. The only gases that they include are usually methane and CO2 but if you look at one of the more popular reports it might have with it a data set of various other gases. I wouldn't know where to begin looking though, except if anyone wants I can hunt up a couple titles. One I know is in nature and it costs like $6 or something to get full access to (if you don't subscribe to Nature which is like $100 or something).

Because he has double standards. This is exceedingly clear by the fact that he will accept some data but deny other data on no apparent grounds other then that the latter contradicts his preconceived notions about global warming.

Give me a break. For 4k years temperatures have been decreasing steadily, only in the last 200 or so years have temperatures actually increased any. We know for a FACT that in 100 years temperatures rose .6C which is 30 times faster then the .8C change that took 4k years to completely between 8k and 12k ybp. And if you want to go with the current increase of temperature which is .6C in thirty years, this is .02C/year or 100 times faster then your measly .0002C/year. Yes but in terms of its effect on our climate, CO2 is very important. This .054% of our atmosphere has a much larger effect on our climate then the 78% nitrogen. edit-- Forgot to mention that on top of record warming, this warming is occurring during a time period that we know from historical patterns when temperatures should be decreasing, not increasing. What's going on right now is unusual for two reasons: 1) Because of the magnitude that it's occurring. 2) Because temperatures should not be increasing hardly at all. It'd be ok and all if we were currently at then end of a 100 year glacial period, but we're actually right in the middle of any short term (25k) or long term(100k) cycle so the warming is completely out of place.

Well the point is that your data appears to support your conclusions because it is represented on a log scale. If you were to include the latest data point at 379ppm then you could see how abrupt of an increase we're really talking about here. On your chart above, this point would quite literally be off the top. This is obvious because as we go back on the log scale we get 10k+ years for temperature/CO2 to fluctuate and therefore these changes seem much more rapid despite the fact that they were no more or less dramatic then the troughs we have on 1K years where the changes appear to be 10 times less then any change occurring over 10k years. Likewise the previous hundred years show a small slope because they are spread out over about a fifth of the entire graph with about a million years worth of data taking up the rest of the space. We're not talking about a slight shift in temperature here. We're talking about a change in temperature that has occurred at least ten times faster then any other event in at least 65million years.

Actually theCPE' date=' to be completely honest with you, global warming is as well-accepted in the scientific community as evolution is. Maybe not gravity because this is physics, but outside of the physical sciences, there really aren't any other theories that are as well-supported by both the evidence and the scientists themselves as climate change. Your math and logic have been refuted many times in this thread. You always come back and just repeat yourself and never address the concerns drawn against your own logic. You have failed to refute our arguments against your "logic" so to speak. That was just the introduction of the chapter about water vapor. There are many other mechanisms within the climate that cause water vapor to increase. That is just a basic physical property of water and nothing more -- the climate system is incredibly more complex. No, humans had a smaller (although grater then 50%) influence during this period. Between 1975 and 2005, temperatures rose .6C*, of which humans are more then 90% responsible for*. Yes, but with an overly simplified and miss-understood model of climate science that does not accurate describe how the climate behaves in reality.

Your math doesn't work because you are completely ignoring the effects of human activities through feedback systems. Your argument amounts to CO2 causes X (5-9%) of global warming while water vapor causes the rest. But in reality, as I've probably explained several times and you just ignore, CO2 works through various feedback systems, including water vapor, to effect the climate. Your problem is that you just don't understand climate science -- you are arguing against global warming with a straw man. Other human activities matter as well. Humans aren't causing global warming just by burning fossil fuels, but our farming (and lets not forget about cow poopy), deforestation, pollution on tundra (absorbs heat instead of reflecting it), etc, all contributed at least slightly to global warming (most of these contribute to methane levels, and not CO2). Just being here and "breathing" in and of itself does not effect temperatures. Humans have been on this planet for a really long time and only recently have we started to have adverse effects on the climate.

Ok Icemelt I'll play fair game with you. I want to ask you though, sense these charts seem to be made by you, is there any way you can make time increase linearly? Your argument is that current warming is unimportant in the bigger picture because sea levels and CO2 levels are rising slower today then they have 50 to 500 years ago? I'm slightly puzzled by your CO2 and temperature graphs because they do not represent the 25,40,and 100k year CO2/temperature cycles that have been occurring for roughly 5 million years, and for which we have exceedingly good data of over the past 650,000 years (via ice core measurements). From this graph it seems to me that for at least 400,000 years, CO2 has been fairly predictable -- varying between 180 and 300ppm (just like the IPCC said). Today we're up there at 379ppm and this has occurred all within about two hundred years. Does this not seem like a dramatic increase to you? The same picture is true for temperatures as well.

That's not the issue. Whatever the impact of CO2/water vapor, the fact of the matter is that saying 40% of CO2 is anthropogenic is incorrect. This, specifically, was the statement I was referring to: "man produces 40% of CO2." I have no idea what this has to do with the other premise, "water vapor 97%." Well this is largely unimportant. Even if some of this comes from human activities other then burning fossil fuels (for instance land usage, farming, etc), the statement "humans produce 99% of CO2" is still correct. You're just trying to doge a bullet here with some backwards logic. The book is available online that you can view as a reference. Your observation is correct through. CO2 causes a slight increase in temperature which increase water uptake in the atmosphere, causing an even larger increase in temperature. From the book, "more then half of the warming expected in response to human activities will arise from feedback mechanisms internal to the climate system..." (1). "It is known from basic physical principles that the vapor pressure in equilibrium with a water surface increases exponentially with temperatures a rate such that a 1 percent change in absolutely temperature, a change of about 3C, is associated with an approximately 20 percent increase in saturation vapor pressure. Because water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, the dependence of vapor pressure on temperatures forms the basis of one of the strongest positive feedbacks in the climate system." Although water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is not a climate forcing. "Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR." " Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. In this report radiative forcing values are for 2005 relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W m-2). See Glossary and Section 2.2 for further details." This right here is really the basic stuff. Water may be a powerful GHG (36-66 w/o clouds, w/ clouds 66-85) but there is a difference between a greenhouse gas and radiative forcing. H2O concentration in the atmosphere is a direct result of temperature. If you put H2O in the atmosphere, it rains immediately and conversely if you remove water from the atmosphere, more water would quickly evaporate from the ground (mostly over the ocean I would assume). The interesting thing about water vapor is that, because it is a function of temperature, the abundance of the stuff in the atmosphere is a direct result of CO2 emissions. Where CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, water can come and go very rapidly. So when you increase CO2 levels you also increase the amount of water in the atmosphere. If you reduce CO2 levels, assuming it were possible to just take it out of the atmosphere, water vapor would quickly be removed from the atmosphere which would cause an even further drop in temperature. You have yet to provide a reference for this. As I have pointed out before, with credible citations (ie peer-reviewed and published in a science journal), there has not been a single incident of warming for at least 65 million years that occurred at a rate anywhere near today's observed increase in temperature. Have temperatures been higher then they are today? Of course! But this isn't the issue. This is a straw man. I am not excluding natural factors on the climate. All I am suggesting that the current increase in temperature as measured per decade sense the mid-to-late 1970s is 90% anthropogenic. Temperatures have only risen .6C sense then, not 55 F (GISS). I have also pointed out that global warming sense 1900 is not 90%. Current (eg today) warming only is what's 90% anthropogenic.

This is an argument from ignorance. If you really want proof that 1.2% is incorrect, all you have to look at one of the premises, "man produces 40% of CO2" This statement in and of itself is factually incorrect. Humans have produced 99% of the observed increase in CO2. Volcanoes have produced about 1% of this (pdf). Also, as I've tried to explain over and over again, an increase in CO2 causes an increase in water vapor. That 97% water vapor is actually caused by human activities through a feedback system that has been observed and is very well-understood. One of the reasons CO2 is such a strong force in the climate is because of its effects on other factors in the climate -- such as water vapor (Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks). It only makes up like .039% of the atmosphere or something but it's effects are very far-reaching. Breaking down climate science on such an elementary level severely impairs ones ability to make intelligent conclusions. Btw how is it that you assume this one guy knows better then the entire scientific community? You're just trying to appeal to authority, "well my source is better then yours." I would contend that several thousand scientists have a much better handle on things then this guy. If you want to argue this way then why don't you show me some evidence proving my two sources incorrect? (and not with circumstantial arguments -- use good logic that addresses specific statements in the papers). Lol, exactly my point.

I was alluding to previous posts where I had already provided references. 64 to 85% comes from Stott, Peter et al. (2003). Journal of Climate, vol. 16, p. 4079-4093. "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?" And of course the 90% comes from the IPCC 2007 The Scientific Basis. I explained all of this back in post 102 and my references were back there too. You're just trying to wiggle around and make excuses but in reality, you have no excuses. You're just trying to ignore the data -- or stick your head in the sand as KLB would put it. (it reminds me of children who when you try to tell them something they hold their ears shut and sing, "I can't hear you la la la.") When someone hands you $10,000 to say "global warming isn't real" then I'd say it's "tarnishing" them maybe a little bit.