She had the biggest cans I've ever...

[the_professor]

If scientists and politicians want credibility in selling the climate change issue, they need to explain this:

Page A6 of today's "climate change is really happening" Globe and Mail edition (Saturday Jan 27/07) contains a graph, sourced to "Globe and Mail research", depicting the temperature change cycle of the last 400,000 years. I have no idea how it was sourced. Maybe the cave men were writing on walls somewhere.

In any event, it demonstrates a cycle of roughly 120,000 years where temperatures rise, peak, and then fall. The graph ends at "today", with temperatures at a peak. The previous peaks were at roughly 375,000 yrs ago, 240,000 yrs ago, 130,000yrs ago. Each trough (cooler) point on the graph is at roughly the same value and of roughly the same duration.

Each of those peak temperature points are higher than the peak temperatures the graph shows us at today.

There were no cars or factories until 100ish years ago. So what the hell caused the cyclical temperature variations that are more extreme than what we're seeing today? And why do we suddenly think we're to blame?

And it had better be more convincing than this jibberish:

"Paris is forecast to be unseasonably warm next Friday. The current long-term prediction is 8 degrees, significantly above the historic high for early February of closer to 5." Oh boy, a possible record-setting high or low temperature! I've never lived through a record high (or low) temperature on one given day myself...

Don't respond to this post unless/until you have seen the graph. Unfortunately it does not seem to be available online.

[Dash-Ate]

This thread is nothing without pictures.

[the_professor]

This thread is nothing without pictures.

Don't respond to this post unless/until you have seen the graph. Unfortunately it does not seem to be available online.

Are you blind?

[Dominic220]

well, instead of being an ass about it, could you find the graph, scan it, and upload it for all of us 'unenlightened' types to see?

[Brewguy]

So basically you only want to debate this with those people who happen to subscribe to or purchase the Globe & Mail (and specifically have todays issue)? ...That would seem to be a fairly narrow audience.

[Sideshow]

So are you saying that global warming is responsible for big cans?

I heard that early cavedrawings were probably drawn by teenage boys, based on the violent and sexual nature of many of the drawings. I don't remember hearing anything about daily weather forcasts on any of the cave walls.

"Uggg... boobies"
"Ug Ug... Stab Animal"
"Ug Ugg... Highs today 6C chance of fog and global warming"

[. ._]

I didn't even read the original post.

Here's global warming.



Is that kinda right?

-istp

[water wings]

well, i don't really care to comment as i have not seen the graph, but as for how they tell the temperature of thousands of years gone by is like so: It's a method of analysing the arctic ice layers and observing the wee (deceased) prehistoric copopods. Those little buggers have been around since the dawn of earth of feed on bacteria. Anyone who has had a shitty fridge (or left a sandwich in their car) knows that bacteria grows very differently in varying temperatures... sooo, their fossils tell us about the temperatures for each "age" of the Earth, and any temperature fluctuation.
As the ice melts more up in the arctic, they get to see more evidence without even drilling into the ice cap or the floes.
Maybe they will even find another WWll plane, or the rest of Franklin's crew.

I am coco for cocopods!

[w squared]

well, i don't really care to comment as i have not seen the graph, but as for how they tell the temperature of thousands of years gone by is like so: It's a method of analysing the arctic ice layers and observing the wee (deceased) prehistoric copopods. Those little buggers have been around since the dawn of earth of feed on bacteria. Anyone who has had a shitty fridge (or left a sandwich in their car) knows that bacteria grows very differently in varying temperatures... sooo, their fossils tell us about the temperatures for each "age" of the Earth, and any temperature fluctuation.
As the ice melts more up in the arctic, they get to see more evidence without even drilling into the ice cap or the floes.
Maybe they will even find another WWll plane, or the rest of Franklin's crew.

I am coco for cocopods!

That's the most intelligent post in this thread so far. Aside from it's exclusionary tone, the first one wasn't bad...but WW now has a clear lead.

And here I was thinking that you were just a ridiculously attractive woman that flew floats, WW. Who knew that you had a wide streak of "geek" in you too. Are you free Tuesday night?

Actually, I'm just projecting my picture of how the world should be by assuming that you're ridiculously attractive. I'm still wondering if you're free on Tuesday though.

Edited to add the following:

PS: I haven't seen the graph either.

PPS: Nice pic, ISTP.

[Dash-Ate]

This thread is nothing without pictures.

Don't respond to this post unless/until you have seen the graph. Unfortunately it does not seem to be available online.

Are you blind?

Are you blind? I still don't see any pictures of CANS!!

This thread is nothing without pictures.

[the_professor]

Are you blind? I still don't see any pictures of CANS!!

This thread is nothing without pictures.

Ask and ye shall receive:

[w squared]

Are you blind? I still don't see any pictures of CANS!!

This thread is nothing without pictures.

Ask and ye shall receive:

You silly person you...everyone knows that cans are made out of metal, and those things that you posted are all plastic!

Ps. I'm worried that there's something wrong with me. I agree with Capt. S&J's last post!

[x-wind]

So proff. what do you think of Water Wings reply?

[Dust Devil]

...holy burned out whore batman!

As true as that is, it would still be one hell of a ride

[the_professor]

So proff. what do you think of Water Wings reply?

I've heard of it before. I don't know how accurate it can be, for the following reasons:

The temperature cycle shown in the graph would suggest that the glaciers of the world have undergone the freeze/thaw cycle many times. If one assumes that the high amount of melting activity we're seeing today is consistent with what happened in the past (since the temperature variations are the same today as they were in the past), then how do you know the age of the layers? If the top X feet of the glacier have melted and reformed several times over hundreds of thousands of years, it is impossible to know the start point (oldest point), let alone the degree of melting that happened in between cycles.

All the data in the graph suggests that the earth has seen trends similar to today's many times in the past, and in those cases man surely had nothing to do with it.

Why CO2 is suddenly deemed the culprit for an identical warming cycle today is beyond me.

[cyxe]

Pay attention, its being explained below:

[co-joe]

I didn't even read the original post.

Here's global warming.



Is that kinda right?

-istp

Definitely a tourist...mote the hairless armpits.

[corporate joe]

If scientists and politicians want credibility in selling the climate change issue, they need to explain this:

Page A6 of today's "climate change is really happening" Globe and Mail edition (Saturday Jan 27/07) contains a graph, sourced to "Globe and Mail research", depicting the temperature change cycle of the last 400,000 years. I have no idea how it was sourced. Maybe the cave men were writing on walls somewhere.

In any event, it demonstrates a cycle of roughly 120,000 years where temperatures rise, peak, and then fall. The graph ends at "today", with temperatures at a peak. The previous peaks were at roughly 375,000 yrs ago, 240,000 yrs ago, 130,000yrs ago. Each trough (cooler) point on the graph is at roughly the same value and of roughly the same duration.

Each of those peak temperature points are higher than the peak temperatures the graph shows us at today.

There were no cars or factories until 100ish years ago. So what the hell caused the cyclical temperature variations that are more extreme than what we're seeing today? And why do we suddenly think we're to blame?

And it had better be more convincing than this jibberish:

"Paris is forecast to be unseasonably warm next Friday. The current long-term prediction is 8 degrees, significantly above the historic high for early February of closer to 5." Oh boy, a possible record-setting high or low temperature! I've never lived through a record high (or low) temperature on one given day myself...

Don't respond to this post unless/until you have seen the graph. Unfortunately it does not seem to be available online.

Here is a globe and mail article about global warming that isn't invisible and that anyone can see. Funny how it completely contradicts the above post.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home

"Humans have already caused so much damage to the atmosphere that the effects of global warming will last for more than 1,000 years, according to a summary of a climate-change report being prepared by the world's leading scientists." (...)
"The draft says concentrations of two main greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, “far exceed” anything seen over the past 650,000 years, based on data that reconstructed the atmospheric composition of earlier times using air bubbles contained in ice cores.

The changes to the atmosphere are so large the scientists estimate that warming due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are at least five times larger than natural changes caused by normal alterations in output of solar energy from the sun."

"The IPCC report is the fourth to be issued by the UN-organized group of scientists, and draws on contributions of about 2,000 top experts from around the world, including many from Canada."

[corporate joe]

That's the funny thing about unproven theories -- you can argue both sides of the coin.

Actually all the worlds experts, and major organisations like the conservative party, Nasa, the Catholic church, the pentagon, the white house, all major media outlets, all scientific organisations, all major universities are on one side of the coin, and a few people on this forum on the other. You can argue, that is true, but you can't rationalize.

[water wings]

Pay attention, its being explained below:

[corporate joe]

That's the funny thing about unproven theories -- you can argue both sides of the coin.

Actually all the worlds experts, and major organisations like the conservative party, Nasa, the Catholic church, the pentagon, the white house, all major media outlets, all scientific organisations, all major universities are on one side of the coin, and a few people on this forum on the other. You can argue, that is true, but you can't rationalize.

All the world's experts? Sorry, but no. And what the hell does the Catholic Church's opinion on climate change have to do with anything?

News outlets merely repeat what the scientists report, and do not validate scientific theories. Just because it is reported does not make it true or correct.

I give you proof of consensus from Major world organisations including a study from 2000 of the world's top scientist:
The UN: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... port_x.htm
The white house: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334
Stephen Harper: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163104
The conservative party of Canada: http://www.desmogblog.com/welcome-revis ... servatives
NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The Washington post: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... te_change/
CNN and TIME magazine: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/co ... index.html)
The Vatican and Catholic church: http://www.catholic.org/international/i ... p?id=19830
The pentagon : http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 13,00.html
The CIA: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=2084
Even Fox news... : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html
(long live copy/paste!!!)

Now you give me proof of any reputable organisation (not some random guy) that there is still a debate.

[niss]

All the world's experts? Sorry, but no. And what the hell does the Catholic Church's opinion on climate change have to do with anything?

Ummm Maybe because they talk directly to the guy who control the weather? Didnt think about that one did you?

[corporate joe]

Let me simplify this for you. To deny a general consensus you need to base yourself on some sort of facts. To come out here and make a claim you must be basing yourself on something. Otherwise, you are talking out of your ass. My question to you was, what are those facts that lead you to make such a claim? Please provide the source on which you are basing yourself to express something that is going against what all the world's researchers are agreeing upon.
Like I said, some people still say the earth isn't round, yet there are many facts proving that it is, which leads to the current consensus. Same thing with global warming: So many facts point towards humanity’s implication that there is now a consensus. We are causing it, and we need to stop it.
Considering the consequences of not reacting to the issue at hand one needs to have pretty damn solid facts to come out and say :”it’s not true”. Otherwise, you’d not only be missing out on the chance to be part of the solution, you’d be part of the problem,
So what’s your excuse for not taking responsibility?

[corporate joe]

So uhm, one graph that has mysteriously disappeared vs thousand of current graphs clearly demonstrating how the temperature rise is well above anything ever seen in the last 1000 years in terms of temperature and the last 650 000 years in terms of CO2? That's what you are basing yourself on? I remember you denying global warming before that graph was mentioned. What were you basing yourself on then? This is your reason for not taking responsibility?

I won't even bother linking you to all those graphs as you have now attained the "door knob" status. And we all know you can't reason with a door knob. Do your kids a favor (somehow door knobs manage to reproduce) and make a small effort today instead of forcing all of us to make a big one tomorrow.

Oh and one more thing: "read more, think less".

[corporate joe]

For the others that do want to see for themselves:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html