http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1718000/1718269.stm |
"In January, researchers Ian Joughin of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California, Santa Cruz, said ice was thickening in West Antarctica. The scientists said the change, if not merely part of some short-term fluctuation, represented a reversal of the long retreat of the ice. Their finding came less than a week after a paper in the journal Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys — long considered a bellwether for global climate change — had grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s" coincidentally one of the researchers is from UC-Santa Cruz. hmmmmm. Im sure nate will have plenty to say, but it seems to me they don't know what to think due to the ongoing conflicting "evidence". |
|
|
these are my arguments- 1) any real scientist would insist that we do not have significant data to support a claim for or against a global warming trend. Local peaks and valleys a trend do not make. 2) human activity is not causing global warming, if global warming is infact occuring. no way, no how, it is a ridiculous and unfounded concept. |
|
|
Is this a rational statement, Antigone? I've seen snow in my yard, which is located somewhere where it doesn't snow, two years in a row. This is evidence that an ice age is coming. Is this a rational statement, Antigone? |
What he's done is provide a link to an article with evidence of a significant rise in temperature at the South Pole. Where is your evidence? "human activity is not causing global warming, if global warming is infact occuring. no way, no how, it is a ridiculous and unfounded concept." Cite please? |
human activity did not cause the warmth before the ice age we always think we are more impressive than we are might as well keep people on their toes, though. it can't hurt |
|
i'm asking antigone to confirm or deny the rationality of two statements i have made based on statistics i have observed. both represent insignificant data to make the conclusions that i have made because the period of global climatic change is larger than the period i've gathered data over. i understand the scientific method may be and odd concept to you psych majors. antigone has provided a link that indicates temperature rises on one side of antartica while temperature has fallen on the other side. what does this show? nothing. "human activity is not causing global warming, if global warming is infact occuring. no way, no how, it is a ridiculous and unfounded concept." Cite please? i said that. are you paying attention? do you recall learning about something called an ice age? we've evidence of several of these.. ice ages. this is a direct indicator that there is a natural cycle of warming and cooling in the global climate. the global emissions of so called greenhouse gases has decreased dramatically over the past 100 years. over the past thirty years or so we've either had slight increases in average global temperature (if you look at city based recording stations) or have been essentially flat (if you look at satelite recording.) one explination for the discrepancy is the 'urban heat island' effect, where asphalt and steel holds heat in a localized area. previous to the past thirty years there had been a distinct global cooling observed. to a degree that there was a lot of people crying that we were entering an ice age. |
daaaaaaaaaaaayummmmmmmmmmmmmmm |
What a waste of time. For the record, I want everyone to look at this: http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~pmerikle/papers/mem-anesth-full.html This is what a typical psych journal article looks like. Decide for yourselves if this is scientific enough to satisfy you. I'm through with this pointless argument. |
|
"i'm asking antigone to confirm or deny the rationality of two statements i have made based on statistics i have observed." It's your typical straw man argument. The two "statistics" you mention are actually anecdotes. Shall I give you definitions, or can you look them up yourself? Or, maybe you don't trust that the experts who create dictionaries actually know what they're talking about... |
not that that is any reason not to conserve and find alternatives but how do you know what they observe now would not be happening anyway? |
it is obvious that no one is going to bring up an argument that actually counters my own. |
otherwise im not sure who would want to go round and round with you when your attitude is that of an arrogant prick lately. oh wait, i guess tiggy did by making this thread. some say when men get booty, their hormones are more in a tussle and tend to be more aggressive assholes. don't ask me for scientific evidence of this. i have none. |
No argument can counter your own because you base your views on faulty axioms and blind skepticism. Your approach is unscientific, so why bother trying to convince you with a scientific argument? |
|
not that i have a problem with that. i am just disappointed that he's latched on to this pseudo science crap. |
there is insignificant data to make any claims about global climate trends. prove otherwise, tiggy. |
|
|
speciation by natural selection is a rather limp theory. there are plenty of holes. do you believe we have gathered significant data to understand global climate trends? |
even the dopey CNN staff writer reports it correctly: "Only long-term, worldwide studies can confirm global warming, its causes and likely effects, scientists say." |
Global warming is one such theory. Do you have another competing theory which has the same empirical basis? To dismiss this speculation based on knee jerk skepticism is unscientific. |
heheheh..I know I used that last time, but it was worth a second airing. |
|
By looking at the data scientists have collected, we can assume with a great amount of certainty that it is still happening today (see uniformitarianism in an encyclopedia). Though it seems that we are getting hotter temperatures in most places, some places are actually cooling. Shouldn't we call it Global Extreming instead? LS |
1) any real scientist would insist that we do not have significant data to support a claim for or against a global warming trend. Local peaks and valleys a trend do not make. 2) human activity is not causing global warming, if global warming is infact occuring. no way, no how, it is a ridiculous and unfounded concept." In statement 2, what happened to the lack of significant data to support claims for or against global warming? Just wondering. I find it interesting that 500 million billion tons of ice have disappeared in the last 40 months, and it would be good to come up with a valid explanation. |
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/06/07/p1s4.htm who cares what causes it? it may turn out to be the hot air from crackpot, libertarian, elitist, white dudes that's melting the ice caps. so what? i laugh at all the rich folks who'll lose their beach front homes. ha ha ha! head for the hills! |
|
|
|
i'm sure this point is clear and antigone agrees, because he won't stay on the argument. this wasn't a discussion of polution at the start of the thread. "I find it interesting that 500 million billion tons of ice have disappeared in the last 40 months, and it would be good to come up with a valid explanation." the problem is that the boy bands of science have already determined that it is global warming. |
they didn't disappear, someone just lost track a party by that dog that bought madonna's house they're hiding aliens thirsty aliens ice can only last so long seals playing a trick on us ok. i don't have any good ideas. but what do you expect from someone who loses all the keys to her car. |
why does your ass get so chapped at the thought of conservation? or does it? do you need the idea of global warming to err on the side of caution and conservation? are you that big of a 'Montgomery Burns' capitalist? |
well, apart from the montgomery burns bit. then i laughed and laughed. well, really i giggled i think. but a lot. |
Skeptic: "I don't believe in gravity." Scientist: "Why?" Skeptic: "We haven't observed enough stones falling! And besides, when I drop this pebble and feather at the same time, the pebble falls faster. Your THEORY of gravity says they should fall at the same speed! Hah! Refute that!" Scientist: "Well, the friction of the air..." Skeptic: "Trying to patch your THEORY together, eh?" Scientist: "Do you have an alternate theory?" Skeptic: "Oh, you science types have already made up your minds. What's the point?" |
|
antigone, your arguments are moronic. are you denying that there are cyclical periods of global warming and cooling? are you denying that those cycles are much larger than the span of collected temperature data? what data can you (or anyone) provide that shows that our current temperature trends (over the past 30 years) is not a localized climb instead of an overall trend? |
|
all the people in tents trying to conceive children? |
How about providing some evidence beyond CNN? Temperature data can be gleaned from ice cores going back thousands of years. You call my arguments feeble? PuhLEASE! Try this data, based on Vostok ice cores. |
jesus christ you guys argue like french pansies in a bakery tossing croissants at each other. id like ice data on Fudgy the Whale and Cookiepuss. |
|
" However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation. " |
"Temperatures could increase rapidly, and then decrease just as rapidly--as they have repeatedly over the past 420,000 years." |
|
yeah tiggy, if my dumbass COULD get it why couldnt your genius ass get it? |
And I'm not ignoring your "could" statements, they're just unscientific. Speculation is meaningless without empirical backing. Yes, the core data alone only shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but that's not what I was using it to refute. You claimed we only had temperature data back 30 years. Seems you were mistaken. |
|
|
empirical data can mean anything Anything you know that. quit bein a dick. |
|
the first one was for eri |
|
she used the word "empirical" with every god damn statement she made. needless to say, most of us walked away with nothing. it was one of the most empty artist discussion/exhibits I had ever witnessed. my friend did want to get in her pants though based on empirical data. |
empirical data can mean anything Anything you know that. quit bein a dick." How could I know this when I don't even know what "empirical data" is? I was just stating what I saw on the boards. There is nothing here that would convince me one way or the other. I guess looking at contradictory information and stating that neither one makes any more sense than the other makes me a dick? |
"the first one" meant her first of the three posts......"as does everything" see? i love it when the posting becomes furious and people have no fucking clue. i should probably not have pointed this out to eri and let some sort of potential scrap develop. |
|
|
it didn't disappear, it just turned to water. it's probably been fixin to do that for a really long time, then someone farted, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back. or it was the aliens. hey, i have an idea. let's try to explain crop circles! |
this is my point about your global warming theory. "You claimed we only had temperature data back 30 years. Seems you were mistaken." accurate data. the article you refered to clearly states that the accuracy of the data is questionable. that the data supports my claims is more important than the point you were attempting to refute. your arguments are inane. i'm not playing anymore. |
|
Nate- Why can't you acknowledge(you sort of already did actually) that we humans are polluting and we really could be affecting the natural cylce of our mother earth? And that we should continue to develope new methods with less pollution. We can't change anything we have already done so I think all you fuckers should stop worrying about it and just continue to develope more enviro-friendly products. The earth is on a cycle one way or another. Although maybe we are saving ourselves from freezing to death. Maybe we should keep our pollutants so we don't enter an ice-age. If we hit a world wide drought by that time we should have reached mars and we can just farm ice from the red planet to hydrate us. |
|
|
|
empirical data can mean anything" Bullshit. These statements are hardly worth refuting. But you can easily refute them yourself with a little experiment. Beat your head against a brick wall a few times. The pain you'll feel is empirical data, and you'll find a definate correlation between that pain and the impacts. I'm not dodging the assertion that climate goes in cycles. That fact is obvious. It'd be like dodging the statement, "You're alive!" Duh. It doesn't change the global warming bet, though. In fact, you can argue that it makes it even more important that we not contribute any more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. If you're in a rocking boat, when is the worst time to push on the side? If we're already at a natural high point in CO2 content, does it make sense to push it further into a extreme area that the world has never experienced? And I would ask Nate to point out where the articles said the temperature data was innacurate, but since he's pussied out I guess there's no point. |
|
|
anyway, antigone, you are fully aware that that is not the data relationship i'm talking about that is simply the result of a direct action time and space and the ability to measure separate the alleged action from the re-action in this case it's more like saying that women in one country don't wear bras and don't get breast cancer, therefore bras cause cancer. the possibility is there, but it doesn't make it true. or scientific. [though to go on a tangent i would also argue that there are unknown and unseen facets to both your described action and 'green house effect'] |
"that is simply the result of a direct action" From our perspective, yes. But, what if some self aware, intelligent viiri colony in your body wanted to know what the connection was? Some of them may speculate that there is no connection between the impacts and the hormone wash of pain that happenes every hundred "generations", or so. It's a matter of perspective. Besides, all experiments are direct actions. "time and space and the ability to measure separate the alleged action from the re-action in this case" Time and space always seperate action and reaction. Are you saying we can never make testable statements about the past and the future? |
|
|
antigone is either 1) a moron or 2) intentionally making moronic arguments to get under my skin. By Nate on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 01:27 pm: patty picked up on the 'could', tiggy. why didn't you? i wasn't saying i thought it was the reason, just a possibility. further supporting my claim that we don't have sufficient data to move beyond gross hypothesis. " However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation. " |
|
first of all, i contradict myself all the time second, in my head i covered the possibilities of your tiny sentient beings [them, and us] in my unseen facets tangent [that i didn't follow] this loses any aspect of fun because you argue the english not the idea and fuck off, darling spider 'Also, by saying with such confidence that the hole in the ozone layer is cyclic, you contradict yourself quite effectively. How can you think that the ozone hole is a cyclic phenomenon if you don't believe in our ability to measure past climate changes, -i don't remember saying this and that "empirical data can mean anything"?' -this goes both ways, dontcha know my scientific observation from all the empirical data i ever gathered [not that i actually believe in that data or my ability to measure it or even determine what is real] shows that all things are cyclical other than that, it's just somethin i said. i do that sometimes. 'Time and space always seperate action and reaction. Are you saying we can never make testable statements about the past and the future?' like you said, it's a matter of perspective |
I bet you're just sore cuz I never sent you the shrines I promised. |
|
I am listening to in my car that mix tape you sent me that one time. It's still pretty good. |
|
|
|
|
"this loses any aspect of fun because you argue the english not the idea" Ideas are conveyed using language. What else can I argue against? Nate: The next paragraph reads: "Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing." This is from here, btw. |
We are being held onto the Earth by a force that is pushing us away from empty space. Think of it as you would a balloon or a ball held underwater. The bigger the displacement of the item, the more pressure the water puts on the ball. In gravity's case, the displacement is the mass of the object. Bodies in space that have a higher mass have a higher displacement, and therefore a higher pressure put on them. Objects on a body in space are subject to these force pushing them toward the body. The farther from the body the object is, the more the forces are pushing at it at an equal rate on all sides. LS |
|
|
And if a force is pushing equally on all sides of something, it goes nowhere. But other than that, totally. |
i always heard it explained as a warp in space-time. objects are caught in the curvature much in the same way that, say, rubber duckies gather around an inflatable raft - they get caught in the bend it makes in the water. this would be like a 2-D example. i've never understood that explanation, either. |
|
But does this mean that sooner or later Nate and Tiggy will come bobbing to the top? |
im trying to catch up here. |
It was the weiner episode. |
And I guess I should have said that there never is an exact equal pushing from all sides, otherwise we wouldn't have orbits and such. I should really write a paper up on this. LS |
http://salon.com/news/wire/2002/09/13/summer_heat/index.html |
|
what would you stake on the bag being 75% red marbles, 25% black? |
|
spunky -- on earth2 (you know, the other earth where everything is the same as it is here except their technology doesn't produce man-made greenhouse gasses) the average temperature is mostly unchanged except for naturally accounted for variations. ergo, we are warming the earth beyond natural effects. it's pretty hard to argue with those facts but i'm sure you'll find some wacko reason to dismiss them. |
called ice cores. Also good data comes from sediment cores. We are still coming out of the last ice age, actually. more accurately, we are still in an ice age, as there have been periods of time when it has been much warmer than now, consisently enough that whole ecosystems evolved to take advantage of it. still, warming is something to be concerned about. Natural or not, we need to decide what to do about it. Me, i think i might move to New York and invest in gondolas. |
Well, according to this sample size calculator, with population size of 10^9, maximum allowable difference of 0.1, confidence of 0.95, and variance estimate of 1.0, a sample size of 385 is sufficient. So, I'd give it a 95% stake, since my confidence is 0.95, right? Though I'm not sure if the variance estimate is right. And the maximum allowable difference is up to you. But, I ain't no expert in statistics. |
either statistics are confusing or you don't know what a "proportion" is. |
or, to save us some time, who gives a fuck? my real estate is 500' above sea level. |
|
|