BUZZ ALDRIN REJECTS GLOBAL WARMING FEARS

[Blondie]

Beelzebub, you've dashed my hopes. You were so confident, I thought you must have something. What you describe is warming. No argument there. And you describe a rise in CO2. No problem. What you've established is that CO2 has risen, and temperatures have risen. That's it. Where's the causal link?
Temperatures rose from about 1880 till 1948. Yet the rise of CO2 was absolutely miniscule. There was NO link. Then for the next 20 years, CO2 rose more quickly. But temperatures fell. Again there was no link.
Since then, CO2 has risen quickly, and temperatures have risen.
So there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two. Why should we link the two for the last thirty odd years?

What you are doing, is what christians do all the time. You are explaining any warming with CO2. It's like the god of the gaps. Any unexplained warming must be down to manmade CO2. Like anything we can't explain must be done by a god.

I want evidence for a god, and evidence for AGW. Not just something unexplained. All climate change has been unexplained up till now. Yet suddenly we're expected to accept it's fully understood.
Understanding might be improving, but it's not there yet by a long shot.

What is your source? I see lots of assrtions, but little in the way of referemces.
Here are the facts - CO2 levels have been rising since the 18th century! (See here and here. This is the paper referenced).
The rise in CO2 levels, and the rise in temperature is called a Correlation - we know, for a fact, that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, so a rise in CO2 levels should lead to a rise in temperatures - and guess what? This is exactly what we do see - this is just basic, basic physics.

You say that "there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two" - this is plainly untrue, Reality says this is untrue! The facts say this is untrue!, the evidence says this is untrue!

You claim that my position is like that of "christians"? What the heck are you on about? If you mean the anti-evolution creationists, then your position is way closer to them than mine. Note the similarities...

Creationists assert without evidence (Because they have none)
You assert without evidence (I have asked you before, but you have yet to put up anything - perhaps, like the creationists, you have none?)

Temperatures have risen before. Faster and to a greater degree. See Vostok icecore data. Denying global warming is stupid - denying AGW is not.

Do you even know the difference between the two?

Again see Vostok icecore data - graphs for 400kbp which show CO2 and temp.

[Beelzebub]

Beelzebub, you've dashed my hopes. You were so confident, I thought you must have something. What you describe is warming. No argument there. And you describe a rise in CO2. No problem. What you've established is that CO2 has risen, and temperatures have risen. That's it. Where's the causal link?
Temperatures rose from about 1880 till 1948. Yet the rise of CO2 was absolutely miniscule. There was NO link. Then for the next 20 years, CO2 rose more quickly. But temperatures fell. Again there was no link.
Since then, CO2 has risen quickly, and temperatures have risen.
So there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two. Why should we link the two for the last thirty odd years?

What you are doing, is what christians do all the time. You are explaining any warming with CO2. It's like the god of the gaps. Any unexplained warming must be down to manmade CO2. Like anything we can't explain must be done by a god.

I want evidence for a god, and evidence for AGW. Not just something unexplained. All climate change has been unexplained up till now. Yet suddenly we're expected to accept it's fully understood.
Understanding might be improving, but it's not there yet by a long shot.

What is your source? I see lots of assrtions, but little in the way of referemces.
Here are the facts - CO2 levels have been rising since the 18th century! (See here and here. This is the paper referenced).
The rise in CO2 levels, and the rise in temperature is called a Correlation - we know, for a fact, that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, so a rise in CO2 levels should lead to a rise in temperatures - and guess what? This is exactly what we do see - this is just basic, basic physics.

You say that "there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two" - this is plainly untrue, Reality says this is untrue! The facts say this is untrue!, the evidence says this is untrue!

You claim that my position is like that of "christians"? What the heck are you on about? If you mean the anti-evolution creationists, then your position is way closer to them than mine. Note the similarities...

Creationists assert without evidence (Because they have none)
You assert without evidence (I have asked you before, but you have yet to put up anything - perhaps, like the creationists, you have none?)

Temperatures have risen before. Faster and to a greater degree. See Vostok icecore data. Denying global warming is stupid - denying AGW is not.

Do you even know the difference between the two?

Again see Vostok icecore data - graphs for 400kbp which show CO2 and temp.

This is a complete non-sequiter! We are talking about what is happening to the climate now, and for the past 200 years. Whatever happened in the distant past, it has no immediate bearing on the current situation.
The long term climate shifts, as noted in the Vostok cores (and other proxies), are largely influenced by the Earth's orbital and rotational shifts - this occurs over long periods of time, of the order of 100,000 years peak to peak. What we are observing today, is not a rise over thousands of years, but a rise over 200 years! It is also of interest to note that during the entire 420 thousand year Vostok record, CO2 levels never went much above ~300ppm - and this occured only once, 323,000 years ago.
The 'normal' interglacial CO2 levels were of the order of some 200ppm. This is what we find in the pre-industrial record, but since the industrial revolution got underway, and we began to burn fossil fuels, the CO2 level has risen to 390ppm!! This is unprecedented!

If, as many climate-deniers claim, this current warming was due to natural variability (as seen in the Vostok cores), then the rise in temperature should have no corresponding CO2 rise (Which, according to the natural variability, should lag temperature rise by several (~800) years), and should be happening over thousands of years. This is not what we observe, therefore the Vostok core data is not relevent to todays situation.

With regard to the current warming, would you like to put up some evidence that shows that the apparently tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is not really true? And by evidence, I don't mean evidence-free assertions, nor opinion-based websites, but credible stuff like peer-reviewed papers, research documents etc? Please?

[PsychoSerenity]

Why don't you accept this challenge: Explain how feedback loops work and explain why the vostok icecore data shows global temperature increasing while CO2 is rapidly decreasing at times?

No links, if you please. Write it out yourself, references for your work would be good and appreciated. MLA style if you please.

Why don't I?

1) Because I have nothing to prove; I'm not the one disagreeing with the scientific consensus.

2) Because it's not a challenge; positive feedback loops are bloody obvious, and commonly know as 'vicious circles', and since CO2 is not the only thing that affects global temperature, and global temperature is not the only thing that affects CO2 levels, nobody would ever expect them to always correlate.

[Blondie]

Beelzebub, you've dashed my hopes. You were so confident, I thought you must have something. What you describe is warming. No argument there. And you describe a rise in CO2. No problem. What you've established is that CO2 has risen, and temperatures have risen. That's it. Where's the causal link?
Temperatures rose from about 1880 till 1948. Yet the rise of CO2 was absolutely miniscule. There was NO link. Then for the next 20 years, CO2 rose more quickly. But temperatures fell. Again there was no link.
Since then, CO2 has risen quickly, and temperatures have risen.
So there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two. Why should we link the two for the last thirty odd years?

What you are doing, is what christians do all the time. You are explaining any warming with CO2. It's like the god of the gaps. Any unexplained warming must be down to manmade CO2. Like anything we can't explain must be done by a god.

I want evidence for a god, and evidence for AGW. Not just something unexplained. All climate change has been unexplained up till now. Yet suddenly we're expected to accept it's fully understood.
Understanding might be improving, but it's not there yet by a long shot.

What is your source? I see lots of assrtions, but little in the way of referemces.
Here are the facts - CO2 levels have been rising since the 18th century! (See here and here. This is the paper referenced).
The rise in CO2 levels, and the rise in temperature is called a Correlation - we know, for a fact, that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, so a rise in CO2 levels should lead to a rise in temperatures - and guess what? This is exactly what we do see - this is just basic, basic physics.

You say that "there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two" - this is plainly untrue, Reality says this is untrue! The facts say this is untrue!, the evidence says this is untrue!

You claim that my position is like that of "christians"? What the heck are you on about? If you mean the anti-evolution creationists, then your position is way closer to them than mine. Note the similarities...

Creationists assert without evidence (Because they have none)
You assert without evidence (I have asked you before, but you have yet to put up anything - perhaps, like the creationists, you have none?)

Temperatures have risen before. Faster and to a greater degree. See Vostok icecore data. Denying global warming is stupid - denying AGW is not.

Do you even know the difference between the two?

Again see Vostok icecore data - graphs for 400kbp which show CO2 and temp.

This is a complete non-sequiter! We are talking about what is happening to the climate now, and for the past 200 years. Whatever happened in the distant past, it has no immediate bearing on the current situation.
The long term climate shifts, as noted in the Vostok cores (and other proxies), are largely influenced by the Earth's orbital and rotational shifts - this occurs over long periods of time, of the order of 100,000 years peak to peak. What we are observing today, is not a rise over thousands of years, but a rise over 200 years! It is also of interest to note that during the entire 420 thousand year Vostok record, CO2 levels never went much above ~300ppm - and this occured only once, 323,000 years ago.
The 'normal' interglacial CO2 levels were of the order of some 200ppm. This is what we find in the pre-industrial record, but since the industrial revolution got underway, and we began to burn fossil fuels, the CO2 level has risen to 390ppm!! This is unprecedented!

If, as many climate-deniers claim, this current warming was due to natural variability (as seen in the Vostok cores), then the rise in temperature should have no corresponding CO2 rise (Which, according to the natural variability, should lag temperature rise by several (~800) years), and should be happening over thousands of years. This is not what we observe, therefore the Vostok core data is not relevent to todays situation.

With regard to the current warming, would you like to put up some evidence that shows that the apparently tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is not really true? And by evidence, I don't mean evidence-free assertions, nor opinion-based websites, but credible stuff like peer-reviewed papers, research documents etc? Please?

Are you fucking retarded?

Will respond to this later, point by point, when I'm not on my phone.

[Blondie]

Why don't you accept this challenge: Explain how feedback loops work and explain why the vostok icecore data shows global temperature increasing while CO2 is rapidly decreasing at times?

No links, if you please. Write it out yourself, references for your work would be good and appreciated. MLA style if you please.

Why don't I?

1) Because I have nothing to prove; I'm not the one disagreeing with the scientific consensus.

2) Because it's not a challenge; positive feedback loops are bloody obvious, and commonly know as 'vicious circles', and since CO2 is not the only thing that affects global temperature, and global temperature is not the only thing that affects CO2 levels, nobody would ever expect them to always correlate.

Oh shut the fuck up.

1) Science aint about fucking consensus. The consensus once was that flogiston was responsible for things burning.

2) Yeah. Try again - in English.

It seems to me you're the one who doesn't understand how positive feedback loops could apply here. Wanna try again?

[Tero]

"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years," Aldrin, the second person to walk on the Moon, said.

This is brilliant, the climate changes all on its own, so therefore we can't be adding to it.

[Blondie]

"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years," Aldrin, the second person to walk on the Moon, said.

This is brilliant, the climate changes all on its own, so therefore we can't be adding to it.

What he said there is 100% correct. If you disagree with him you're a fucking retard.

[PsychoSerenity]

Oh shut the fuck up.

1) Science aint about fucking consensus. The consensus once was that flogiston was responsible for things burning.

And them some scientists found evidence proving it wrong. Do you have any evidence that proves anthropogenic global warming wrong?

2) Yeah. Try again - in English.

It seems to me you're the one who doesn't understand how positive feedback loops could apply here. Wanna try again?

Well by all means please do enlighten me, I'm pulling out my fingernails with anticipation here, I just can not wait to find out what you've got to say.

[Blondie]

I'm asking you fumb duck. Answer the question.

[Robert_S]

I'm asking you fumb duck. Answer the question.

I highly respect the style and tone of this thread.

[Blondie]

It's in true rationalia style.

Want a stuffy, log-jammed-up-your-ass tone check out ratskep

[Tero]

Aldrin has added no useful information to this topic.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's in true rationalia style.

Want a stuffy, log-jammed-up-your-ass tone check out ratskep

Sorry, but directly insulting another member, whatever your view of them, is not in rationalia style. Kindly take this as a reminder of our rules on personal attacks. They are few but they mean a lot to us.

[Robert_S]

It's in true rationalia style.

Want a stuffy, log-jammed-up-your-ass tone check out ratskep

Fun and informal =/= bombastic and pointlessly shitty.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's in true rationalia style.

Want a stuffy, log-jammed-up-your-ass tone check out ratskep

Fun and informal =/= bombastic and pointlessly shitty.

And two wrongs =/= one right! Please drop the insults, both of you. Heated discussions don't require personal attacks to demonstrate the depth of feeling on either side.