still denying global warming?

Beowulf said:
Uh-oh. Now we are going to hear about Al Gore again. Yeesh.
Click to expand...
Did someone call for me?

2rgdwdi.jpg
 
Whoops, I replied before I saw the pic of Gore. :lol:
I would say something similar whenever someone complained about the feedback from my hearing aid. Heh.
 
Correlation does not equal causation.

Interesting to note is that on the time scale it has been found that CO2 respond to changes on increase in temperature. There is a lag time of several hundred years in this case. Just because it seemingly looks to be a "positive correlation" and that CO2 seems to cause temperature to go up you'd have to look deeper on the time scale issue first to understand the lag time issue and once you get that then will you realize that changes to CO2 respond to changes to temperature.
http://www.john-daly.com/press/lag-time.gif

Graphs that show this "positive correlation" of increasing CO2 with that of temperature has a Coefficient Determination R^2 of around 0.44 (or a positive correlation value of R = 0.66) which means it's not a very good "positive correlation" to begin with. It's a step above from a weak positive correlation (i.e. R = 0.5). To say it's a "positive correlation" is at best misleading for those who do not understand the meaning. What people need to hear is the value R^2 or R. Just saying "positive correlation" doesn't mean anything unless you have some numbers which nobody offered at all...except me.


daleo-co2-ushnc2.png


But here's a very strong positive correlation between changes in Cosmic Rays and temperature by Svensmark. The graphs show strong relationship compared to the CO2 and temperature change:
heiss223.gif


Svensmark established a strong relation between 13C (biological activities) and 18O in ocean sediments (temperature proxies). Svensmark was able to trace this relationship back 3,600 million years with cycles of strong Solar and cosmic ray activity with concurrent cold times and extensive periods of low cosmic radiation and Solar activities with warm periods, in total 13 periods of about 400 million years each – with a correlation of 92%. Not bad
Click to expand...
DIMaGB.de - Infobereich: Kommentar zum Artikel „Der große Schwindel“

Again, correlation does not equal causation.
 
netrox said:
No, I am actually asking if IPCC ever said that it will vanish within 5 years. Not once do I recall IPCC making that claim. You keep associating Al Gore with IPCC.
Click to expand...

im sorry.. I stopped reading your post right after this last sentence.

First: Where did I ever say Al Gore?

Second: in your first post in this thread you used the word "suggest". We both know that it doesn't mean "confirmed". That was all I was getting at. No need for the Al Gore rant. :)

Until something is confirmed for a FACT, I'll be shooting all of these down.
 
Graphs have lost all credibility since they cannot cover all the variabilities in a setting. CO2 is the lightweight of greenhouse gases, so I don't understand the insistence on it garnering sole focus. What about methane? What about weather warfare? Solar flares? There are so many variables but I have one thing that graphs do not--instinct. I KNOW beyond a shadow of any doubt that mankind is contributing in SOME way to global weather change, and my guts very rarely steer me wrong.
 
netrox said:
You know that you can have a LOT of ice and still be warming?

To help you understand how it's possible, imagine that the temperature is 5 degrees. Naturally, water becomes ice. Now, with global warming, the temperature increases by 1 degree. What does that mean? It will have 6 degrees. And that's still cold enough to freeze water!

Global warming is about money, wealth redistribution, and punishing the United States.
Click to expand...

Fixed for accuracy.

Yes, the Earth has warmed, but for almost a decade it has been cooling. That's why when they quote statistics it isn't current.

The question shouldn't be has the planet warmed, it should be is it a crisis? The answer to that question is a resounding No, it isn't a crisis.

If you think it is, you are a lazy sheep IMO.

It doesn't take guts to accept the Global Warming Chicken Littles. That's where the money is, that's where the grants are, that's where the hipster doofus' are.

But the GW alarmists just simple say that if you are a denier, you are on some oil companies payroll and mental midgets just accept it.

And by denier, I mean people that say it isn't a crisis. Because there aren't many that would deny that the Earth warmed over that period. It was 1 degree in 100 years and it has since cooled about half that in the last 7 or 8 years.

And then we have the proof of the deceit by the release of the emails of the co-conspirators.

But you believe what you want. We are already passed the tipping point of sanity. The half-wits are running the asylum now and it's just a matter of time until America implodes on itself.
 
jillio said:
Theories are not proven. They are accepted when the hypothesis has been supported over time. You really need to update your information on experimentation, research, and data.
Click to expand...

Interesting you mention updating information.

Since the researchers that say the sky is falling due to GW aren't using recent years. They aren't "updating information". IOW, they are stuck on stupid.

That's why thousands of real scientists have broken ranks from the non-scientists that signed the original documents declaring that GW was dire and that it was a crisis.
 
jillio said:
Again, it is a hypothesis, not a theory. Perhaps Foxrac can loan you his dictionary.
Click to expand...

Ahem


Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do
Date: circa 1656
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

synonyms hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
jillio said:
Very true.
Click to expand...

So, if someone can prove that mass extinctions are not happening, droughts, early frosts are nothing to be afraid of, prolonged monsoons, more-than-usual heavy snowfalls are not hazardous to humans... the fears won't go away.

In short, if you can prove to the people of the world that the things we have now won't disappear tomorrow, then people won't be so fearful about some of stuff that are coming out of the environmental sciences.
 
This topic is now gonna be going places. :Owned:
 
Jeff Harris said:
Fixed for accuracy.

Yes, the Earth has warmed, but for almost a decade it has been cooling. That's why when they quote statistics it isn't current.

The question shouldn't be has the planet warmed, it should be is it a crisis? The answer to that question is a resounding No, it isn't a crisis.

If you think it is, you are a lazy sheep IMO.

It doesn't take guts to accept the Global Warming Chicken Littles. That's where the money is, that's where the grants are, that's where the hipster doofus' are.

But the GW alarmists just simple say that if you are a denier, you are on some oil companies payroll and mental midgets just accept it.

And by denier, I mean people that say it isn't a crisis. Because there aren't many that would deny that the Earth warmed over that period. It was 1 degree in 100 years and it has since cooled about half that in the last 7 or 8 years.

And then we have the proof of the deceit by the release of the emails of the co-conspirators.

But you believe what you want. We are already passed the tipping point of sanity. The half-wits are running the asylum now and it's just a matter of time until America implodes on itself.
Click to expand...

You said it, we didn't. :lol:

Welcome to AD and enjoy your stay. :wave:
 
Massive ice island breaks off Greenland

(CNN) -- A piece of ice four times the size of Manhattan island has broken away from an ice shelf in Greenland, according to scientists in the U.S.

The 260 square-kilometer (100 square miles) ice island separated from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland early on Thursday, researchers based at the University of Delaware said.

The ice island, which is about half the height of the Empire State Building, is the biggest piece of ice to break away from the Arctic icecap since 1962 and amounts to a quarter of the Petermann 70-kilometer floating ice shelf, according to research leader Andreas Muenchow.

"The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days," Muenchow said.

Muenchow's team is studying ice in the Nares Strait separating Greenland from Canada, about 1,000 kilometers south of the North Pole.

Satellite data from NASA's MODIS-Aqua satellite revealed the initial rupture which was confirmed within hours by Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service, according to the University of Delaware website.

Muenchow said the island could block the Nares Strait as it drifts south, or break into smaller islands and continue towards the open waters of the Atlantic.

"In Nares Strait, the ice island will encounter real islands that are all much smaller in size," he said.

"The newly born ice island may become land-fast, block the channel, or it may break into smaller pieces as it is propelled south by the prevailing ocean currents. From there, it will likely follow along the coasts of Baffin Island and Labrador, to reach the Atlantic within the next two years."

Environmentalists say ice melt is being caused by global warming with Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reaching their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, according to a study published in 2009.

Current trends could see the Arctic Ocean become ice free in summer months within decades, researchers predict.

Massive ice island breaks off Greenland - CNN.com
 
Back
Top