Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[Jiro]

The dinosaurs have no ability to do like the human can do. We have been discovering many things, and the only thing that are logically in the ancients that was found was by us, the humans.

how you know? were you there? and no we have not been discovering many things. We only uncovered handful of our ancestors' artifacts from a few thousand years ago but not much from million years ago. It is possible there was an intelligence species co-existing with dinosaurs just like we co-existed with today animals

Where in the quote you got from mine that talk about the nature?

You keep talking about dinosaur being dumb and humans being advanced.

 

[Hwy99]

how you know? were you there? and no we have not been discovering many things. We only uncovered handful of our ancestors' artifacts from a few thousand years ago but not much from million years ago. It is possible there was an intelligence species co-existing with dinosaurs just like we co-existed with today animals

We already found their bones, if we found their bones, we should have found their stuff like their artifacts. But we didn't. Also their body system are not really functional as much as the humans. If there are such intelligence species along with the dinosaurs, we should have already found them along with other dinosaurs that we found.

You keep talking about dinosaur being dumb and humans being advanced.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the nature, but how the living object evoluted as long as the Earth itself is evoluting.

 

[Jiro]

We already found their bones, if we found their bones, we should have found their stuff like their artifacts. But we didn't. Also their body system are not really functional as much as the humans. If there are such intelligence along with the dinosaurs, we should have already found them along with other dinosaurs that we found.

just a matter of time till we find it! (or not) that's why they continue to search and search.... That's why I posted that we have explored only 2-3% of our ocean. As you know - million years ago, the species were largely aquatic. That's probably why we haven't find the artifacts.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the nature, but how the living object evoluted as long as the Earth itself is evoluting.

si

 

[flip]

why thank you for answering my question. ok here we go

according to your post #68 - 2 key questions out of 9 questions were pointed out -
1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

90% agreed with first question and 82% for second.

from the article you provided -
"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

Now - I don't know what you hope to gain from me answering your question with 90% and 82%. It is apparent to me that you are taking this subject with a singular focus and narrow mind while disregarding the fact that Earth system is too complex to conclude on something as agreed by the scientific community.. hence my colorful description in my post #414.

As said in my post #290 - when a variable (man) is added to the system, the equation has to change. It's full of paradox and nuances. OF COURSE men do play a role but so do increasing population of livestock, cockroach, rats, etc. I did not deny the existence of global warming nor did I deny that men is responsible for global warming.

I simply dismissed a statement claiming that men is largely responsible for global warming. Like you said - "the question is how much?" My stance? not much.

Men did contribute to global warming but men did not cause global warming. BIG DIFFERENCE! thus - my post #414 - "it is up to people to understand what the scientific consensus has agreed on and the details behind it. sadly enough - most people ignore or do not bother educating themselves with details behind it. They depend on what media feed to them - disinformation & misinformation."

I was not asking about your opinion, but what the consensus among climate scientist are. Limiting yourself to a finding where 97% of climate scientists agree that humans have a significant role in global warming is telling us it's a very strong consensus, but not what the consensus is.

The consensus among climate scientists is that man is responsible for global warming(like you don't deny above? "nor did I deny that men is responsible for global warming"). The man have caused most of the global warming we are seeing today. That's the consensus. The consensus can of course be wrong, but that's not my point.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The reason I ask you, is that you claim in post #311, about scientists who research and show interest in man caused global warming, that "They have their own singular focus and a specific agenda. They are as dirty as politicians and corporations", and tell in #309 "they need to focus more on impact of global pollution, not global warming."

Right here you are telling a branch of science that they have an own singular focus and specific agenda. That's pretty paranoid, and you also fail to elaborate what this singular focus and specific agenda is supposed to be.

thus - my post #414 - "it is up to people to understand what the scientific consensus has agreed on and the details behind it. sadly enough - most people ignore or do not bother educating themselves with details behind it. They depend on what media feed to them - disinformation & misinformation."

So true, so true.

 

[Hwy99]

just a matter of time till we find it! (or not) that's why they continue to search and search.... That's why I posted that we have explored only 2-3% of our ocean. As you know - million years ago, the species were largely aquatic. That's probably why we haven't find the artifacts.


si

Well the life in millions years ago in the aquatic was only the multicelluar, but again, those living objects has no ability to do much like the humans can do.

But we will see then!

 

[Jiro]

Well the life in millions years ago in the aquatic was only the multicelluar, but again, those living objects has no ability to do much like the humans can do.

But we will see then!

no that was billions years ago.

 

[Jiro]

I was not asking about your opinion, but what the consensus among climate scientist are. Limiting yourself to a finding where 97% of climate scientists agree that humans have a significant role in global warming is telling us it's a very strong consensus, but not what the consensus is.

The consensus among climate scientists is that man is responsible for global warming(like you don't deny above? "nor did I deny that men is responsible for global warming"). The man have caused most of the global warming we are seeing today. That's the consensus. The consensus can of course be wrong, but that's not my point.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The reason I ask you, is that you claim in post #311, about scientists who research and show interest in man caused global warming, that "They have their own singular focus and a specific agenda. They are as dirty as politicians and corporations", and tell in #309 "they need to focus more on impact of global pollution, not global warming."

Right here you are telling a branch of science that they have an own singular focus and specific agenda. That's pretty paranoid, and you also fail to elaborate what this singular focus and specific agenda is supposed to be.


So true, so true.

Scientists: Flaw in Will’s Ice Assertions - that should suffice as an answer to your post.

a great quote from this article by an ice specialist from my good ole' college - "This battle never ceases to amaze me. People seem to be much more inclined to believe what they hear from non-experts because it’s what they’d rather hear."

 

[kokonut]

This is a no brainer. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, something that those numbers and tests from highly respected labs show.

Water vapor is the one thing that acts as a blanket and helps cool the Earth everytime it rains. CO2 cannot do that. The specific heat for water is on orders of magnitude higher than CO2. CO2 does not have that property nor that capability. Rather, CO2 is a weak contributor and is manifested in various forms through the ocean waters, plants and the whole decomposition processes. But in no way can it compete with water vapors. And in no way can it compete with the power of the sun. But CO2 is essential to life, not a detractor.

 

[flip]

Scientists: Flaw in Will’s Ice Assertions - that should suffice as an answer to your post.

HUH? This article confirms that you and I am causing the global warming and discuss the problem with media hype and bogus-science. It's written by a Andrew C. Revkin.

"MJ: The debate over whether climate change exists—is it really finally dead?

Andrew C. Revkin: There are still people in this country and others who essentially live in intellectual silos and either read Mother Jones or watch Fox News, based on their worldview. And they pick information out that reinforces it rather than keeping an open mind."

Q&A: Andrew C. Revkin | Mother Jones

"One of his specialties is revealing how slowly-building risks such as global warming and the loss of species could transform the planet."

Pace University - Commencement 2007 - Andrew C. Revkin

"The world’s richest countries, which have contributed by far the most to the atmospheric changes linked to global warming, are already spending billions of dollars to limit their own risks from its worst consequences, like drought and rising seas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=1


He is one of mysterious scientists that according to you have a specific agenda. Can he be one of the central persons in this brotherhood of wicked scientists? Waiting for your answer.

 

[Jiro]

you seem to have a rather unhealthy fixation on 97% and brotherhood

 

[C.C.Sinned]

this thread reminds me of why i smoked pot before all my science classes

 

[flip]

Water vapor is the one thing that acts as a blanket and helps cool the Earth everytime it rains. CO2 cannot do that. The specific heat for water is on orders of magnitude higher than CO2. CO2 does not have that property nor that capability. Rather, CO2 is a weak contributor and is manifested in various forms through the ocean waters, plants and the whole decomposition processes. But in no way can it compete with water vapors. And in no way can it compete with the power of the sun. But CO2 is essential to life, not a detractor.

A very simple explaination about CO2 and effect on temperature:

"How does it do this?

Along with methane and water, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy at lower wavelengths than the other major atmospheric gases Nitrogen (N2) and Oxygen (O2).

When a molecule of Carbon dioxide is exposed to long wavelength energy, it absorbs this energy and its speed increases. This added speed is an above-normal energy state, meaning it is hotter than it would normally be. Eventually this molecule will lose, or radiate, this heat again and return to its normal state.

The energy it releases is the same as the energy it absorbed, and so it not only absorbs but also emits long wavelength energy. This energy is radiated in all directions; upwards into space, and downwards back towards the Earth.

What is the Problem?

For every extra molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, additional heat is reflected down back towards the Earth. This means that some heat that would otherwise have been lost from the atmosphere is trapped. Given large enough quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere the amount of trapped heat will cause a rise in the surface temperature.

This change in surface temperature can have dramatic effects. Even a slight rise in temperature will result in increased evaporation from the ocean surfaces. Water is also a Greenhouse gas, and the Greenhouse effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere is compounded by the additional water wapour it causes."

Carbon Dioxide Properties: The Warming Effect

 

[flip]

you seem to have a rather unhealthy fixation on 97% and brotherhood

Ok, will leave you alone with your claims about a majority of scientists having an agenda

 

[netrox]

"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

Can you tell me WHY the large percent of doubters are geologists?

It's simply because they are defending oil companies who provide them jobs!

 

[Jiro]

Can you tell me WHY the large percent of doubters are geologists?

It's simply because they are defending oil companies who provide them jobs!

bingo!

now you understand, flip?

 

[sequoias]

this thread reminds me of why i smoked pot before all my science classes

 

[flip]

bingo!

now you understand, flip?

Understand what? It was my understanding you did not want to continue?

If I was wrong you did not want to continue, feel free to:

1. elaborate what I am supposed to understand here.

2. reply my question on what specific agenda about 90 percent of climate scientists share when they have a consensus that human activities are the reason we got this global warming.

Good luck

 

[Everglade85]

One thing is certain. We have a very limited knowledge of Earth's complex climate system.

The majority of scientists do not have a secret agenda. The goal of science is to improve upon our knowledge by using the scientific method. In order for a theory to be challenged, there has to be some hard evidence refuting that theory that can be verified through multiple experiments. That's the whole beauty of science. A system that relies on evidence and is not subjected to people's emotions, beliefs, or politics.

 

[deafskeptic]

One thing is certain. We have a very limited knowledge of Earth's complex climate system.

The majority of scientists do not have a secret agenda. The goal of science is to improve upon our knowledge by using the scientific method. In order for a theory to be challenged, there has to be some hard evidence refuting that theory that can be verified through multiple experiments. That's the whole beauty of science. A system that relies on evidence and is not subjected to people's emotions, beliefs, or politics.

 

[kokonut]

Can you tell me WHY the large percent of doubters are geologists?

It's simply because they are defending oil companies who provide them jobs!

Nice red herring with nary a proof. The word "geologist" is not synomous with oil. It's broad and have many specializations that fit under the geology umbrella description. Such would be economic geology, engineering geology, geophysics, geochemistry, geochronology, hydrogeology,igneous petrology, isotope geology, metamorphic petrology,marine geology, palaeoclimatology,palaeontology, pedology (soil), petroleum geology, sedimentology,structural geology, volcanology, and so forth. It's no different from saying the same thing about math, there are tons of specializations that would fall under the math umbrella. Your ignorancy is showing badly.