<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 9 2006, 11:03 PM) [snapback]300621[/snapback]</div> One scientific method is by examining ice cores drilled out of thick glacial ice. The glacial ice layers can date back 500,000 years. It is common practice to measure differences in CO2 concentrations from different areas throughout history this way.
Here's a fact 1 degree fahrenheit rise in 100 years. [attachmentid=4436] DANG! Someone put out the fire!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . [attachmentid=4437] Ahem. We should reduce all pollutant's. [attachmentid=4438] Wildkow
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 9 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]300627[/snapback]</div> I have posted this before. Just a couple of degrees is the difference between glaciers all the way down to NY and 6 feet of water over your head. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmccord @ Aug 9 2006, 11:13 PM) [snapback]300624[/snapback]</div> Yes. C02 is done by direct measures of bubbles trapped in the ice. Temperature is done by measuring in said bubbles the ratios of oxygen isotopes. The ratio of oxygen isotopes at a given temperature have been previously determined.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 9 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]300627[/snapback]</div> May I (gently) suggest you do some reading on Global Warming. It certainly does sound like a rediculous argument, until you understand what is really going on. The wikipedia is a good source of information to start with.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 9 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]300634[/snapback]</div> Sounds wonderful, how do they know the when? Kind of an important issue in my book. Wildkow BTW I said 1 degree in 100 years. I think we can last another 100 years for the next degree and by that time "Beam me up Scotty!" LOL! :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 10 2006, 11:39 AM) [snapback]300971[/snapback]</div> OK. 1891-1991 http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm 1993 I hink. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cool.htm OMG! scientists manipulate data to fit their hypothesis? Say it ain't so! http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm Wildkow
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 10 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]301209[/snapback]</div> we could all live with that IF that was the case. actually scientists predict only 35 years for the next degree, and it accelerates very rapidly from there if we keep doing what we are doing now. that means no acceleration in greenhouse gas production. guess that means china and india are SOL since we sure as heck aint slowing down the way the tubes are dated is by aligning known major events like huge eruptions and the sort. almost like counting tree rings
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 10 2006, 07:58 PM) [snapback]301225[/snapback]</div> You're showing a graph that covers 12 years, ending in 1990, taken from an article in the Washington Times (founded by Sun Myung Moon by the way), and dated 1991. Your other references are taken from web page articles (dated 1996). Wow, that's convincing. Surely you can do better than this. Try again.
Here's a more complete reference to the satellite temperature record (from the wikipedia, like I suggested): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_tem...re_measurements Kind of cracks me up that you're presenting a small segment of the overall picture in order to make a (misleading) point. You're making this really easy for me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 10 2006, 08:08 PM) [snapback]301230[/snapback]</div> Yep, that's our 'faith based' science for you. The U.S. ranks second only to Turkey in rejection of the theory of evolution. Of the countries surveyed, only Turkey believes in evolution LESS than the U.S. I guess there is a passage in the bible that contradicts Global Warming. Can anyone quote chapter and verse?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 10 2006, 10:28 PM) [snapback]301332[/snapback]</div> GODIVA: This not only constitutes the forbidden FEEDING OF TROLLS, it is veritable TROLL INCITEMENT. Naughty Godiva... <_<
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 3 2006, 11:30 PM) [snapback]280800[/snapback]</div> No data?? You are uninformed. There IS indeed a lot of research, and "reliable data from thousands of years"....from Antartic ice cores they have measured CO2 levels and temperature changes over many years. 650,000 years, actually. And CO2 levels are now nearly 30% higher than they have EVER been (in that period of time)! Even though many people want to believe our current warming trend is cyclical, earth's periods of warming/cooling occur approx every 100-150,000 years, and the current numbers are already off the charts. There is plenty of mounting evidence and though much of it may be theoretical, it can only benefit us and the planet to assume humans are major contributors to global warming, and to do something about it!! Only a small amount of temperature change will have/is having a major impact on the earth and it's finely tuned ecosystems. Seemingly small, localized impacts can lead to devestating feedback loops and more rapid change...and by then it will be too late. Please, we should all care.
Just bringing THE GRAPH back... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 8 2006, 08:22 PM) [snapback]299928[/snapback]</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 10 2006, 06:08 PM) [snapback]301230[/snapback]</div> Check the sources Bonehead they come from other scientist Believers and Non-Believers. BTW as many Bible Believers believe that Global Warming exists as not, do you really want to alienate them by Arrogant Elitist attitude and statements like the ignorant one you posted? <_< Wildkow <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 10 2006, 07:10 PM) [snapback]301257[/snapback]</div> It is the best I could find on the web. I'll look for more. BTW do you really think that it was Moon that recorded the temps and published them or do you think it could have been scientist that recorded the temps and it was Washington Times that published the data? And do you doubt that if that stat, 1 degree in 100 years as recorded by scientist, wasn't true that other scientist would come out with their data and prove it false? Your a bit naive but after considering the data I think you'll be convinced by the facts. Wildkow
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 11 2006, 09:28 PM) [snapback]301890[/snapback]</div> Huh? Of course not. I never said he did. I super glad you have so much faith in the graph you presented. So do I. Now do me a favor and look at the rest of the graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_tem...re_measurements Nope, I don't doubt it. I agree with it. Looks like we both agree Global Warming is real.
OK here we go . . . http://www.worldclimatereport.com . . . Climate scientists have long suspected that warming the oceans around a very cold continent is likely to dramatically increase snowfall. Consider Antarctica. It’s plenty chilly, dozens of degrees below freezing, and it’s surrounded by water. The warmer the water, the greater the evaporation from its surface, and, obviously, the more moisture it contributes to the local atmosphere. So, when this moisture gets swirled up by a common cyclone, do you think it’s going to fall as rain in Antarctica? A recent study, no shocker to real climatologists (but perhaps to climate doomsayers), demonstrates this simple physics. It appears in the latest SciencExpress, and it shows that the vast majority of the Antarctic landmass is rapidly gaining ice and snow cover. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...w-job/#more-113 and many moreeeeeeeeeeeeeee . . . ad nauseum. [attachmentid=4463] Wildkow p.s. That being said/posted I am all for reducing pollution. . . p.p.s. You may not have said that but your implication was to discredit the data with and ad hominem attack. p.p.p.s. I believe in global warming yes, but not in the way that you believe. Mine uses scientific fact with a measure of common sense. Yours is facts distorted for political reasons, despicable IMHO. <_< http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...imate-politics/
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 11 2006, 11:09 PM) [snapback]301949[/snapback]</div> The editor in chief of the worldclimatereport website you have quoted from vociferously above, Patrick Michaels, has accepted "$100,000 from energy industry interests to support his efforts to discredit the science of global warming". (Again, see the Wikipedia - search on Patrick Michaels.) This is where you get your "facts"??? Yeah, for sure, I am discrediting data ad hominem that comes from this type of source. And you are accusing me of distorting facts (please present evidence) for policital reasons? Dispicable.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 11 2006, 10:00 PM) [snapback]301980[/snapback]</div> [attachmentid=4464] Sigh! :huh: The facts and the analysis does not come from "Patrick Michaels" they come from other scientist! If Michaels manages to get oil companies to pay him $100K to print those up on the internet more power to him. Your jeaously is glaringly apparent. Wildkow p.s. Your answer is another ad hominem attack. Not quite so easy when ya have to use facts is it? :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 12 2006, 12:13 AM) [snapback]301985[/snapback]</div> Please back up what you say. What have you quoted so far from worldclimatreport.com has been uttered by anyone other than Michaels? Let's have the facts! p.s. I still haven't seen your evidence that I have distorted any facts.
