Online Now 2680

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

On this Board 336
Record: 738 (6/16/2013)

Online now 2678
Record: 9625 (10/8/2011)

Boards ▾

Palmetto Proving Grounds

The place for Gamecock talk, news and information

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

The McGuire Room

The place for Gamecock basketball talk, news and information

The Sarge

The ultimate online destination for the latest scoop on Carolina's national power baseball program.

GCI Archives

Everything from Gamecock Insider Tony Morrell, in case you missed it.

Spurnotes Archives

The place to read all past editions of Spurnotes

Video Archive

Hall of Fame

The best of the best

Ticket Exchange

Buy and sell your Gamecock tickets here.

Test Forum

Feedback for TBS and 247Sports.

Reply

scientists say global warming=climate change

  • joetheogre said...

    I'm at work, so I don't have all the data at hand, but the Earth has warmed substantially faster in the last 150 or so years than it has during any other warming period in recorded history.

    No crap. Ever heard of the little Ice Age?

    Snoop Cock

  • joetheogre said...

    Please provide a list of these scientists. Publishing PhDs only. TIA

    Seriously? Come on, dude. Google is your friend. As more information is gathered, there are more and more skeptics daily who have PHD's in fields related to climatology. I just found list upon list in about 30 seconds. Just a few: Richard Lindzen, Vincent Gray, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, etc...

    Snoop Cock

  • Just to give some of the names out there that disagree:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/50-top-astronauts-scientists-engineers-sign-letter-claiming-giss-is-turning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock/

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

    BigBlairCock

  • Snoop Cock said...

    Seriously? Come on, dude. Google is your friend. As more information is gathered, there are more and more skeptics daily who have PHD's in fields related to climatology. I just found list upon list in about 30 seconds. Just a few: Richard Lindzen, Vincent Gray, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, etc...

    For some reason, the global warming enthusiasts like to pretend that there are no scientists out there that will say that global warming might be bs.

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

    BigBlairCock

  • Snoop Cock said...

    Seriously? Come on, dude. Google is your friend. As more information is gathered, there are more and more skeptics daily who have PHD's in fields related to climatology. I just found list upon list in about 30 seconds. Just a few: Richard Lindzen, Vincent Gray, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, etc...

    googling is not what scientists do. they do research. you can find all kinds of silly lies on the internet, the right wing is insistent upon it.

    its on the internet, it must be true. and guess what, i bet if you google flat earth you might find some moron advocating that

    in the meantime science goes on. the scientific method...what does that mean to chemical salesmen and shoe salesmen and other grunts, i dunno

    but, anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of a diseased society. pick and choose your science, depending on your politics
    and if rush limbaugh told the dolts it was real, then it would be real. to you

    lack of critical thinking, intent upon being hopeful instead of realistic. ignoring the burning earth around you....sick sick sick

    Aaron Burr Cock

  • This is seriously about the 10th thread I have asked for anyone to post a link to a peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal that disputes anthropogenic global warming. I would really really love to read any article that fits that description.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • BigBlairCock said...

    For some reason, the global warming enthusiasts like to pretend that there are no scientists out there that will say that global warming might be bs.

    Please, please, pretty please link one peer-reviewed published article. I really want to read it.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • Snoop Cock said...

    Seriously? Come on, dude. Google is your friend. As more information is gathered, there are more and more skeptics daily who have PHD's in fields related to climatology. I just found list upon list in about 30 seconds. Just a few: Richard Lindzen, Vincent Gray, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, etc...

    Still just quoting names from that same wikipedia article you pulled from without citing before, huh? What was the name of that article? Oh yeah, "list of scientists opposing MAINSTREAM scientific view of global warming" or something like that.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • BigBlairCock said...

    Just to give some of the names out there that disagree:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/50-top-astronauts-scientists-engineers-sign-letter-claiming-giss-is-turning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock/

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Any article that cites Fred Singer and Fred Seitz isn't worth toilet paper. You know that these guys, after retiring from government work on the atomic bomb (because they are physicists, not climatologists), started the George C. Marshall Institute and dedicated their lives in the 50s-70s to showing that cigarettes did not cause cancer, right?

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • BigBlairCock said...

    For some reason, the global warming enthusiasts like to pretend that there are no scientists out there that will say that global warming might be bs.

    That's not true; there are scientists out there. The question is are those scientists conducting experiments and publishing peer-reviewed articles in the relevant field. I don't much care what a solid-state physicist has to say about global warming. Why would I go to a dentist to get a heart transplant? Dentists are doctors, but that doesn't mean they can do heart transplants. What makes you think physicists are experts in climatology? If they conduct experiments and publish peer-reviewed articles, then I would love to read their findings. Please just post one so I can read it.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • CockAtLaw said...

    Please, please, pretty please link one peer-reviewed published article. I really want to read it.

    Here's a list.........you can look up each article if you like.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

    BigBlairCock

  • CockAtLaw said...

    . What makes you think physicists are experts in climatology? If they conduct experiments and publish peer-reviewed articles, then I would love to read their findings. Please just post one so I can read it.

    Since you bring up climatology:

    Father of Climatology Calls Manmade Global Warming Absurd | Uncommon Descent

    more

    www.uncommondescent.com
    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

    BigBlairCock

  • BigBlairCock said...

    Here's a list.........you can look up each article if you like.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

    Thanks. I am interested in reading these.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • CockAtLaw said...

    Thanks. I am interested in reading these.

    I'm not going to pretend that I've read all of these myself...........but it looks like this is what you requested, so there should be some reliable information.

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

    BigBlairCock

  • BigBlairCock said...

    I'm not going to pretend that I've read all of these myself...........but it looks like this is what you requested, so there should be some reliable information.

    No, this is fine. I will go through it myself when I have time. Thans for the link.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • BigBlairCock said...

    Since you bring up climatology:

    reid bryson is dead in the ground, he retired back in 1986. he is james inhofe's idea of an authority. in the 70s he predicted a global ice age, then for a while said climate change was for real.

    how about live, functioning, non dottering sources...that would exclude james inhofe, of course, but he is not a scientist. probably killed bugs for a living before being elected by the morons in oklahoma

    cold dead people dispute global warming. how ironic

    so, you have googled james inhofe and the same collections of clowns, but keep ignoring current research. hear no evil speak no evil see no evil & there must be no evil

    Aaron Burr Cock

  • Aaron Burr Cock said...

    reid bryson is dead in the ground, he retired back in 1986. he is james inhofe's idea of an authority. in the 70s he predicted a global ice age, then for a while said climate change was for real.

    how about live, functioning, non dottering sources...that would exclude james inhofe, of course, but he is not a scientist. probably killed bugs for a living before being elected by the morons in oklahoma

    cold dead people dispute global warming. how ironic

    so, you have googled james inhofe and the same collections of clowns, but keep ignoring current research. hear no evil speak no evil see no evil & there must be no evil

    As is typical, you ignored half of what was posted above. I am quite aware of Bryson's death.........I am also aware that the man who was known as the "Father of Climatology" said man-made global warming was a hoax before his death.

    You may also be interested in the link above that lists multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies that refute man-made global warming, as you are so interested in current research and real scientists.

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

    BigBlairCock

  • BigBlairCock said...

    You may also be interested in the link above that lists multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies that refute man-made global warming, as you are so interested in current research and real scientists.

    I haven't gone through the link yet, I will though when I have time. To say its current isn't exactly fair because the link is from May of 2007, meaning every article is at least that old, if not older.

    The first article linked used an estimate that a climate system returns to equilibrium 5 years after an extreme event. It used this estimate as a constant to show that doubling the CO2 concentration levels would cause temperature increases of approximately 1.1 degrees. My guess is that the 5 year time constant is way too low as it relates to CO2 concentrations. Most studies have shown it takes a long time for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to come down, particularly when we are still burning substantial amounts of fossil fuels. According to that author's estimate, our CO2 emissions from the time the article was written should have no effect on CO2 levels today. That doesn't sound right based on everything I have read.

    However, I will read through the link more thoroughly when I has time.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • Snoop Cock said...

    No crap. Ever heard of the little Ice Age?

    Look at how the temperatures vary over time and how there is a natural curve to the changes. Then let me know if the last 150 years look normal.

    attachmentattachment
    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre ●

  • BigBlairCock said...

    Here's a list.........you can look up each article if you like.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

    This seems to be a reasonable summary of the Schwartz article that this link points to early on.

    Why hasn't Earth warmed as much as expected? New report on climate change explores the reasons

    Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth's -- the amount of global temperature increase expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. In a new study, researchers examine the reasons for this discrepancy.

    www.sciencedaily.com

    EarthyTechnoPop

  • CockAtLaw said...

    I haven't gone through the link yet, I will though when I have time. To say its current isn't exactly fair because the link is from May of 2007, meaning every article is at least that old, if not older.

    The first article linked used an estimate that a climate system returns to equilibrium 5 years after an extreme event. It used this estimate as a constant to show that doubling the CO2 concentration levels would cause temperature increases of approximately 1.1 degrees. My guess is that the 5 year time constant is way too low as it relates to CO2 concentrations. Most studies have shown it takes a long time for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to come down, particularly when we are still burning substantial amounts of fossil fuels. According to that author's estimate, our CO2 emissions from the time the article was written should have no effect on CO2 levels today. That doesn't sound right based on everything I have read.

    However, I will read through the link more thoroughly when I has time.

    Just one interesting update I found. The first article linked that I discussed by Stephen Schwartz was updated in 2008. The original article used an estimate of 5 years as a time constant and found temperature variability based on a doubling of CO2 concentrations to be 1.1 degrees. The updated article, using more data than the author originally used, shows that the time constant is at least 8.5 years with a temperature variability of 1.9 degrees. This article was off by almost half the first time it was published.

    Below is the link to the updated article. My guess is that if data post 2008 was used, we will see that climate sensitivity is much closer to the 3-4.5 degrees that the current scientific concensus estimates.

    Unknown Titlke

    > endobj xref 65 57 0000000016 00000 n 0000001968 00000 n 0000002077 00000 n 0000002243 00000 n 0000002617 00000 n 0000002649 00000 n 0000003513 00000 n 0000003895 00000 n 0000005111 00000 n 0000005352 00000 n 0000005444 00000 n 0000036504 00000 n 0000036869 00000 n 0000037177 00000 n 0000037553 00000 n 0000037649 00000 n 0000037969 00000 n 0000038218 00000 n 0000039013 00000 n 0000039391 00000 n 0000039942 00000 n 0000040137 00000 n 0000040779 00000 n 0000041427 00000 n 0000042080 00000 n 0000042730 00000 n 0000044788 00000 n 0000045003 00000 n 0000045213 00000 n 0000045855 00000 n 0000046495 00000 n 0000048366 00000 n 0000048536 00000 n 0000048608 00000 n 0000048911 00000 n 0000049137 00000 n 0000049428 00000 n 0000051255 00000 n 0000053146 00000 n 0000054980 00000 n 0000056745 00000 n 0000057265 00000 n 0000057689 00000 n 0000059451 00000 n 0000061272 00000 n 0000068445 00000 n 0000068839 00000 n 0000069099 00000 n 0000077945 00000 n 0000087901 00000 n 0000090698 00000 n 0000091031 00000 n 0000092086 00000 n 0000092332 00000 n 0000092915 00000 n 0000093138 00000 n 0000001436 00000 n trailer

    www.ecd.bnl.gov
    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • EarthyTechnoPop said...

    This seems to be a reasonable summary of the Schwartz article that this link points to early on.

    This article is actually 3 years after the Schwartz article linked at the top of BBC's link. BBC's link contains a Schwartz article from 2007, which, as my post shows, was later modified in 2008 upward by almost double. It appears that from 2008 to 2010, Schwartz starts to recognize climate sensitivity to CO2 concentrations as being a real issue.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • CockAtLaw said...

    I haven't gone through the link yet, I will though when I have time. To say its current isn't exactly fair because the link is from May of 2007, meaning every article is at least that old, if not older.

    The first article linked used an estimate that a climate system returns to equilibrium 5 years after an extreme event. It used this estimate as a constant to show that doubling the CO2 concentration levels would cause temperature increases of approximately 1.1 degrees. My guess is that the 5 year time constant is way too low as it relates to CO2 concentrations. Most studies have shown it takes a long time for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to come down, particularly when we are still burning substantial amounts of fossil fuels. According to that author's estimate, our CO2 emissions from the time the article was written should have no effect on CO2 levels today. That doesn't sound right based on everything I have read.

    However, I will read through the link more thoroughly when I has time.

    It was a quick search. As I said, I haven't gone through it closely myself, so I have no arguments for or against the information contained within at this point.

    I simply saw that it was in line with what you wanted to see. As far as being accurate.......I haven't read enough to form an opinion.

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

    BigBlairCock

  • EarthyTechnoPop said...

    This seems to be a reasonable summary of the Schwartz article that this link points to early on.

    You know what is also bizarre, in BBC's link regarding the Schwartz article, they never actually ask Stephen Schwartz, the author of the article, what he thinks his findings mean. They get quotes from a few other guys: (i) Dr. Ian Wilson - no idea what his qualifications are; (ii) a physicist; and (iii) Joel Schwartz from the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank, not exactly the standard of independence).

    Why didn't they just ask the author what the findings mean? Interesting.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • BigBlairCock said...

    It was a quick search. As I said, I haven't gone through it closely myself, so I have no arguments for or against the information contained within at this point.

    I simply saw that it was in line with what you wanted to see. As far as being accurate.......I haven't read enough to form an opinion.

    I understand. I appreciate the info and the link. As I've said before, I keep up pretty closely with what peer-reviewed publications are saying, and if there is something that cuts the other way, I want to see it.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

South Carolina
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports