Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'German Physicists Trash Global Warming


ExpandMyMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

 
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    36

  • Startraveler

    20

  • Mattshark

    22

  • MARAB0D

    23

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On Vostok graph for the last 400,000 years the relationship between temperature and CO2 is not logarithmic, it is linear. With some minor delay on time scale - temperature changes and few hundred years later CO2 changes the same way.

I was only saying what the general relationship is between CO2 and temp, not what Vostock data shows. I said I would calculate that for him, if he sent me formatted data.

Have you checked to see it there is a linear or log relationship? You can't just say there is by looking at a graph.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only saying what the general relationship is between CO2 and temp, not what Vostock data shows. I said I would calculate that for him, if he sent me formatted data.

Have you checked to see it there is a linear or log relationship? You can't just say there is by looking at a graph.

* snip *

Edited by Saru
Removed flame, personal attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

* snip *

So basically you are making claims based on looking at a graph.

Right. That is not scientific in the slightest.

Nice to see when challenged you fail to be civil too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Thread cleaned

Can we keep the replies civil and sensible please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only saying what the general relationship is between CO2 and temp, not what Vostock data shows. I said I would calculate that for him, if he sent me formatted data.Have you checked to see it there is a linear or log relationship? You can't just say there is by looking at a graph.

Why would you need to calculate it for me ? Why not simply copy and paste it from one of your 'multiple sources'?

If I wanted a personal estimation from the data I would simply calculate it myself, but I don't, I want the equation you claimed you had from day one that describes the relationship. The need to calculate it implies you have been BS-ing all along. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you need to calculate it for me ? Why not simply copy and paste it from one of your 'multiple sources'?

If I wanted a personal estimation from the data I would simply calculate it myself, but I don't, I want the equation you claimed you had from day one that describes the relationship. The need to calculate it implies you have been BS-ing all along. :yes:

I have put a link saying such a thing, that is evidencing it, that how you do it papers, that is how you do it in science. You ignored it.

I never claimed to have an equation. I told you what the relationship was as accepted in the scientific community.

You are being ridiculous.

You are dishonest and you approach is the what has been unscientific, calling me a bs-er is pure hypocrasy.

You are going on ignore because

I put up papers: you ignore them

I tell what an accepted relationship is: You dismiss my links with out reason and then then lie about what I have said.

You accept papers that support you view with out question but won't with ones from a different view.

You are simply not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You put up one abstract once ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.V41H..03R ), thats it, and nothing else apart from bluster. That paper or any of the authors previous and subsequent works do not contain said equation.

Cheerio BS-er.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only saying what the general relationship is between CO2 and temp, not what Vostock data shows. I said I would calculate that for him, if he sent me formatted data.

Have you checked to see it there is a linear or log relationship? You can't just say there is by looking at a graph.

What is the general relationship between CO2 and temperature? I am reading a book that sources a graph (as posted below) which shows that in the past both CO2 and temp having been doing differnt things in the past. Are the laws of physics constantly changing?

post-79582-126300720044_thumb.gif

My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the general relationship between CO2 and temperature? I am reading a book that sources a graph (as posted below) which shows that in the past both CO2 and temp having been doing differnt things in the past. Are the laws of physics constantly changing?

post-79582-126300720044_thumb.gif

My link

Glenboy, the funniest part of what is happening now is that it may well be that us burning fossil fuels really changes the climate. CO2 to me seems irrelevant too, but the incineration produces airborne dust, the result of incomplete combustion, and this dust is black in colour. The dust eventually comes down with rainfalls and snowfalls, and accumulates in the annual ice layers in the ice caps and ice fields. This makes the exposed surface of the ice to absorb the sun radiation and melts the surface layer of the ice, thus exposing the dust from the previous layers. As a result in North hemisphere the balance between salt and fresh water in the ocean changes and this slows down such currents as Gulf Stream, so Europe respectively cools down. Also, when the ice melts in polar areas, this causes heat absorbtion, so the climate eventually becomes colder. While the dust is still in atmosphere it also intercepts or reflects out some portion of sun radiation...

The same time at this historical moment we are anyway at the top of the local climatic cycle optimum, i.e. the global warming does exist naturally; the industrial emission of dust counters it to the degree by making the planet colder, but the price to this may be ice Age in some areas and the sea level rise, if it gets to serious ice caps like in Antarctic.

The graph you posted looks true, but it has too large scale, and the simultaneous fluctuations of CO2 and temperature on it cannot be seen. CO2 is surely temperature-dependent as it is a product of life, and life becomes more active with temperature rise. On the other hand during these millions of years the heat balance of the planet is changing, as the tectonic activity comes down and the planet starts to rely on the sun heat only, so it is not surprising what happens in its left part; on the other hand it highlights the trend and mechanisms of how our planet is going to die - it will be eventually cooling down and become like Mars, this is what the right part of it tells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.