Hey climate deniers - are you smarter than a 5th grader?

reply to post by Chinesis

Are you a scientist?

Since you seem to be really concerned about this in both your posts, I guess I should answer. No, not yet at least, but I do know some climate scientists in the real world and I have an (ongoing) academic background in this field that allows me to delve into it on a lot more than just "faith".

Anyway I don't know where you're getting this idea from that I'm going around trying to trumpet like I am a scientist, since I've never made this claim - and part of the entire point of this thread was to show that you don't need to be a scientist to dispel some of the most common myths about global warming - that you can in fact be a 9 year old in a science fair.

You say you aren't out to vilify anyone yet look at how
you treat people that disagree with your POV?

I didn't say I'm not here to vilify anyone, I said I'm not out to vilify those who actually act like true skeptics like Curious and Concerned obviously is. I in fact cherish the opportunity to actually get to discuss this topic open-mindedly, sanely, and constructively with people like that.

On the other hand - anyone who wants to make really narrow-minded, dim-witted comments that only feed the already overflowing pool of ignorance, and then arrogantly announce case closed - like Lemon.Fresh did on the first page, well yeah - all the condescending attitude contained in the title of this thread is dedicated to people like that.

You know, all those of you that get so offended at being labelled a "denier" - the way you react to this implication goes a long way in determining whether you actually are one or not. I didn't single anyone out in that title did I? I didn't say hey, all Christians, or all redheads - are you smarter than a 5th grader? So how do you even know I was talking to you?

Now look at the way Curious and Concerned responded to my post - didn't seem to take any offense and responded in a rational manner with some good skeptical points that have instantly earned my respect.

The fact is a title like this goes a long way to weeding out those who really do want to discuss it for the sake of truth, rather than those simply trying to protect their own egos. Yeah it might be a bit childish - but I have tried the nice guy approach enough times to only find out I'm wasting my time dealing with nothing but convictions and insecurities from people who just want to one up me and "win", rather than actually sort any of the facts from the fiction.

Here we go again.
Even if the science was every bit correct (which is still in doubt) the various get rich quick ideas like cap and tax won't fix it. I think you will find people more willing to believe when the big 'leaders' of the fix it plans like Al Gore start behaving like it. That is when they stop flying all over in private jets and having personal carbon footprints big enough for a small country. When that happens I might start to believe. I say believe because at this point it is a matter of faith and I don't care all that much for religion.

How much carbon does one Obama trip produce? Air Force 1, dummy plane, all those suv to protect him ...let him stay home and broadcast all those speeches ....

Originally posted by mc_squared
are you smarter than a 5th grader?

yes i am. but I'm guessing you aren't if this is what you are resorting to...

reply to post by BobbinHood


Right on! You killed this thread with the first response. high five!

Of course I am smarter then a 5th grader..

A simple "clinically controlled" experiment, devoid of any real environmental conditions that keep the "x factor" involved, proves "nothing" in a real world condition..

Your seriously considering that this experiment (under Ideal "controlled" conditions) represents the entire "planet?"

There is not a single person that does the research would ever think that Co2 does not warm a controlled atmospheric set of conditions..

Global warming is the same as (the now current) global cooling phase.. "A cycle" .. nothing more, nothing less..

The audacity of some people to think that they can even have an inkling of a chance to control nature, much less an entire planet

1. Heat from the ocean rises into the atmosphere in the form of evaporation. The warm evaporate rises and contacts the cold air and forms clouds that in turn block the sun’s radiation.

2.Again the increased cloud cover also replaces the ice as a reflecting surface.

3.The latest research finds that the glaciers on the mountains farthest inland have not been melting and in some cases have seemed to be advancing. I believe there is an article in a July or August issue of “The New Scientist” that addresses these phenomena in Himalayan glaciers. Since CO2 is ubiquitous in its dispersion throughout the atmosphere one would think these glaciers should be melting.

Personally, I'm just elated that the Global Warming crowd wasn't around while Europe was crushed under miles of ice. Whew! We all lucked out about that one, no?!

I'm not a physicist... not a politician, nor a biologist, but I've taken graduate courses of BS at the the renowned International School of Murphy's Law, and I confess that I am not inclined to sacrifice anything in my life today due to issues of Global Warming.

The good news if more people think and feel as I do though- If we're wrong, it will be more difficult to survive, and those who succeed surviving will witness a reduction in population, and we'll see the free market dictate higher demand for reduced supply. In the end, it will work out, no problem. I'm cool with that.

btw, 5th graders are suckers for a good salesman, so I don't know if that is the best comparison to be used. How about- are you smarter/craftier/wittier/more resourceful than a Mumbai orphan? ... now that might better illuminate the problems with credibility the Global Warming crowd have to deal with.

OP really believes in global scamming.

No CO2 - no life on Earth.

reply to post by 0ne10


Sigh. You don't understand what I'm saying.

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT CO2 LEVELS ARE RISING. You always need reference points and there are none. That's what is wrong with your analogy. A liver is small, you can check it. The Earth however still has many, many secrets. And even if your analogy was up to par, the liver reproduces itsself so I'd take it the Earth does the same.

Pseudologic need not APPLY here.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by 0ne10

 

Sigh. You don't understand what I'm saying.

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT CO2 LEVELS ARE RISING. You always need reference points and there are none. That's what is wrong with your analogy. A liver is small, you can check it. The Earth however still has many, many secrets. And even if your analogy was up to par, the liver reproduces itsself so I'd take it the Earth does the same.

Pseudologic need not APPLY here.

AH! WE DON'T KNOW! THANKS FOR YOUR WISDOM!

Originally posted by mc_squared

But one of the most prevalent and absolutely WRONG ones is this:
"There is no proof that CO2 causes warming"

Are you going to insult our intelligence by claiming that table top experiment to be a good analog for our atmosphere and overall climatic system?

Concider this quote from the IPCC AR4 report.

Chapter 10 Section 10.5.4.2 Page 805

“The AOGCMs featured in Section 10.5.2 are built by selecting components from a pool of alternative parameterizations, each based on a given set of physical assumptions and including a number of uncertain parameters.”

By the time the questionable science reaches the symmary for policymakers (should be called summary by policymakers but that is another story.) the science is "settled", evidence is "incontrovertible" etc.

CO2 does absorb some wavelengths of infrared but the CO2 that reside in the strata of the atmosphere already saturated with water vapour that has overlapping absobtion of the same wavelenghts so it adds no additional "greenhouse" effect. The effect should therefore be observable in the lower stratosphere where much less water vapour forms. The only problem is that the lower stratosphere hotspot that is assumed in the climate models does not show up in the satellite measurements. In other words the imperical measurments does not agree with the hypothesis.

Had it not been for the political investments in CAGW that should have been the end of it, but as we all know the neo Malthusians, who has never been right about any prediction can not let that get in the way of spouting their message of doom and disaster.

reply to post by cushycrux


Prove it.

Don't post facepalm gifs, prove what you claim is true. Prove to me that across the globe, CO2 levels have been rising over the last couple (tens) of thousand of years and prove a steep incline since , I'd take the industrial revolution, compared to the past thousands of years to show human involvement. Wait! You don't have the records for say twenty thousand years ago so again, YOU DON'T KNOW.

You have no idea what political and socio-economical background your arguments in favour of taxing the entire population for breathing have. I do.

The CO2 awareness is a bid to get in the hair of rising economic superpowers(because none of them are in the US or Europe anymore). Can you understand this? If not then there is no use to discuss much more with you.

reply to post by Zamini


No Record? *DoubleCoboFacePalm*

reply to post by cushycrux


You didn't prove anything other than red and blue going well together on graphs. Oh and that humans have very little do with global warming as it seems to be cyclical, unless of course, there were factories 325 thousand years ago. If your graph is true then I wonder:

how they controlled all the* ice on Antarctica to know they were right or just the parts underneath the exhaust of their motorvehicles? Did all the CO2 that was in the air on the planet Earth get caught in Antarctic ice? And can we expect that in 300.000 years folks might check the Antarctic ice to see how much CO2 was floating around Earth now?

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by cushycrux

 

You didn't prove anything other than red and blue going well together on graphs. Oh and that humans have very little do with global warming as it seems to be cyclical, unless of course, there were factories 325 thousand years ago. If your graph is true then I wonder:

how they controlled all the* ice on Antarctica to know they were right or just the parts underneath the exhaust of their motorvehicles? Did all the CO2 that was in the air on the planet Earth get caught in Antarctic ice? And can we expect that in 300.000 years folks might check the Antarctic ice to see how much CO2 was floating around Earth now?

edit on 21-10-2010 by Zamini because: (*)

edit on 21-10-2010 by Zamini because: (no reason given)

You don't search answers....

Core processing Sawing the GRIP core Modern practice is to ensure that cores remain uncontaminated, since they are analysed for trace quantities of chemicals and isotopes. They are sealed in plastic bags after drilling and analysed in clean rooms. The core is carefully extruded from the barrel; often facilities are designed to accommodate the entire length of the core on a horizontal surface. Drilling fluid will be cleaned off before the core is cut into 1-2 meter sections. Various measurements may be taken during preliminary core processing. Current practices to avoid contamination of ice include: Keeping ice well below the freezing point. At Greenland and Antarctic sites, temperature is maintained by having storage and work areas under the snow/ice surface. At GISP2, cores were never allowed to rise above -15 °C, partly to prevent microcracks from forming and allowing present-day air to contaminate the fossil air trapped in the ice fabric, and partly to inhibit recrystallization of the ice structure. Wearing special clean suits over cold weather clothing. Mittens or gloves. Filtered respirators. Plastic bags, often polyethylene, around ice cores. Some drill barrels include a liner. Proper cleaning of tools and laboratory equipment. Use of laminar-flow bench to isolate core from room particulates. For shipping, cores are packed in Styrofoam boxes protected by shock absorbing bubble-wrap. Due to the many types of analysis done on core samples, sections of the core are scheduled for specific uses. After the core is ready for further analysis, each section is cut as required for tests. Some testing is done on site, other study will be done later, and a significant fraction of each core segment is reserved for archival storage for future needs. Projects have used different core-processing strategies. Some projects have only done studies of physical properties in the field, while others have done significantly more study in the field. These differences are reflected in the core processing facilities.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Zamini

Don't post facepalm gifs, prove what you claim is true. Prove to me that across the globe, CO2 levels have been rising over the last couple (tens) of thousand of years and prove a steep incline since , I'd take the industrial revolution, compared to the past thousands of years to show human involvement. Wait! You don't have the records for say twenty thousand years ago so again, YOU DON'T KNOW.

We do have paleo-reconstructions, such as glaciological and stomata proxies, which serve as relatives and give us a fairly good insight as to how CO2 levels were thousands and thousands of years ago, and it's generally accepted, from ice core data, that CO2 levels, since we started burning hydrocarbons in large quantities were around 280ppm. Though, even that's contentious, because the ice core data the IPCC rely on is generally smoothed out, and information can be lost, which can potentially underestimate true CO2 values. And ice core records, by their nature, don't serve as very reliable proxies, because CO2 will have leached out of the trapped bubbles, albeit gradually, so they probably underestimate true values. They can be used as relatives, but not absolutes. That's the problem with paleo-climate conjectures, they are ultimately uncheckable by direct observation.

Georg Beck did an interesting paper a few years back analyzing past chemical measurements purportedly showing how CO2 levels may have been much higher in the 1940's and that CO2 has fluctuated wildly over the past 180 years. CO2 levels have certainly gone up, but the question is, by how much exactly and from what point in time? Since we have ice core proxies and stomata proxies completely contradicting each other and Callander completely contradicting Beck it's hard to say exactly what the past CO2 levels were. Callander did reject measurements, some say unreasonably. Since we can't do these measurements ourselves though, sometimes I wonder, does it just come down to which scientists you're willing to trust? Anyway, here is a graph showing how ice core proxies compare with CO2 chemical measurements from a peer-reviewed paper by Georg Beck 2007.


And going even further back, here is how ice cores compare with stomata proxies.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Thanks for the clarification.

Since we can't do these measurements ourselves though, sometimes I wonder, does it just come down to which scientists you're willing to trust?

It has come down to this more so than not I'm afraid, which pretty much steers directly away from science, since trusting in something really big which you cannot prove yourself has been a hurdle for humanity, leading to division.

We need something like a scientific 'secularisation' regarding information. I can only imagine the inability of people to agree when their sources of information disagree with eachother, not even taking into account the different interpretations given to the information available. Sadly there is a faint thought that says it has always been like this.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

No, I actually took the time to read a lot of the emails myself, examine them in their proper context, and actually paid attention when the scientists were cleared of any wrong doing through numerous independent investigations.

Did you also take time to analyze the source code that came with those e-mails? Because I did and so did this well-known and respected programmer. We each came to the conclusion that they were fudging the numbers.

Considering most plants grow optimally at 1500ppm of CO2, and we are currently around 300-400ppm, I would say the CO2 levels are relatively low compared to history.

I still think we need to pollute less, but considering that we can barely guess the weather for tomorrow and have only been able to get such massive amounts of data about weather recently, nobody really has any dang clue whats going on.


All I know is Al Gore is making millions and the companies that make the meters for cap and trade will make billions. Where there is that much money to be had there tends to be an agenda.