Hey Dude - Where's my Global Warming?

reply to post by Essan


what he is saying is that in REALITY, and SCIENCE. you don't come out with a theory and tell people to disprove it by doing, blah blah and blah....

you make a theory, and then YOU prove or disprove it. that is how science works, im sorry that you don't understand that. but everything you said about affecting the climate has never been confirmed to in fact affect anything.

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Interesting. I have to disagree with the assertion that there has been no increase in Tornado activity though. I didn't see that even tracked on his charts. I remember someone posting a chart on ATS recently that showed the Tornado activity increase in the US this year and it is off the charts.

I would have to see the data on tornadoes. Personally speaking here in Michigan, tornadoes are down from my childhood recollections. A lot of the increase in reports of tornadoes is due to better radar coverage and a more spread out population, if indeed there are more tornadoes reported now. It's more a matter of more Reports of tornadoes not more tornadoes.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Essan

 

what he is saying is that in REALITY, and SCIENCE. you don't come out with a theory and tell people to disprove it by doing, blah blah and blah....

you make a theory, and then YOU prove or disprove it. that is how science works, im sorry that you don't understand that. but everything you said about affecting the climate has never been confirmed to in fact affect anything.

Really?

So albedo has no effect on the energy balance of a planetary object?

en.wikipedia.org...

www.open.ou.nl...

We're talking about major scientific principles here! And you dismiss them out of hand because you know better?

I have almost no interest in garbage like this - do you know who Andrew bolt is ?

Here are two FACTS released this year - there will be NO SEA ICE IN THE NORTH POLE BY NEXT YEAR DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING

www.independent.co.uk...

www.cnn.com...

news.yahoo.com...

www.foxnews.com...

etc etc etc

Ansd second of all it has been categorically proven that the declines were due to the different methods of measuring being integrated - the Americans were using "in water" gauges to measure ocean temperatures while the british were using on board calculations - the discrepancy was corrected however the data has been consistently used to misrepresent the facts - as it is here.

Basically you could not drag up a less reputable, thoroughly discredited source as Andrew Bolt.

This argument is intellectually lower than Intelligent Design and is generally put forward by these types - who ever the original poster was, or anyone who agrees with him must feel proud to be amongst such thoroughly discredited and intellectually flawed group of people.

This type of stupidity (as there is no other way of describing it) is not simply thoroughly dishonest posturing but dangerous and contemptible in every way - why we have to suffer such profoundly unconsidered propositions baffles even the most basically educated simpleton.


This is an argument where the facts are freely available - there is an abundance of information on this subject which points unequivocally towards global warming through man made activity - the arguments to the contrary are incredibly obtuse at the very best - resting on such asinine positions such as "there are some scientists who disagree" - when thousands, upon thousands upon thousands don't.

Further ANY other argument such as sun spots, and these moronic posts have been so thoroughly discredited, by inumerable studies that simply dragging up old theories WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCRETED in the expectation to that we will reproduce the arguments and eveidence, over nd over and over again is simply pathetic....open you mind and read both sides of this argument. You have an obligation to yourself, to humanity, to the future of this civilisation to seek out both sides adn not simply re-submit the same old drivel, to simply scour the internet for any insignificant piece of trivia by any FOOL (Andrew Bolt ) is profoundly disingenuous and wreaks of agenda driven bias.

New Scientist and Scientific America have an article almost every edition dealing with these types of asinine issues, publishing good solid data discrediting the dodgy ideas of corporate stooges, denialists, and general fools. We have limited time left please let us get with the job of fixing this mess rather than pandering to your inability to see the broader picture.

Andrew Bolt - are you freaking joking - you might as well site an article by Hitler in defence of WW2

As far as the carbon emission aspect of AGW goes, this is one of the oldest aspects to be studied - though I'm sure Arrhenius was paid a huge sum of money by Al Gore in the 19th century to come up with a theory which has yet to be fully refuted

Some bedtime reading for those who think AGW was invented by Gore and his cronies:

www.aip.org...

www.lenntech.com...

Gore jumped on the bandwagon. And, based on his 'film' he did so without doing much research - and as a result has done much damage to climate science. IMHO.

However, as I consistently state: warming due to carbon emissions (and other GHGs) is but one aspect of AGW. It's the most controversial one and the one most people have heard of - but in part this is because other aspects are not subject to doubt (though the extent to which other activities causing warming is, of course, still subject to much research).

None of which means that natural factors are not also involved and that these may at times have a stronger influence than any anthropogenic factor.

We can have a new ice age and still have AGW



[edit on 22-7-2008 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan


so are you going to totally ignore the fact that it has been proven that not only our planet but just about evey other planet in the solar system is going through the same stuff we are.

are you going to ignore a little something called "solar cycles" which occur all the time. where the sun will heat up and cool down over the course of X amount of years (i use X because i don't have the articles right in front of my right now.)

basically to say that GW is happening and we are causing it, would mean that you are totally ignoring the research done, that showed other planet in the solar system are going through the same cycles (not the word cycles, meaning it's happened before and will happen again.)

reply to post by Essan


ugh, i got Dp'ed

[edit on 7/22/08 by SRTkid86]

reply to post by budski


hi..

global warming or global governance?

Google Video Link

This is pure and unadultered disinformation.

Underground water levels are dipping and land is drier due to Chemtrails.

Sheeple will readily believe anything the disinformation barons will say.

I've always believed the weird weather patterns and temperature oddities are all part of a global cycle, not some massive conspiracy cooked up by the far left and Al Gore.

Check out this article which seeks to scare the reader about the possibility of the lack of ice in the North Pole this year:
www.telegraph.co.uk.../earth/2008/06/27/eaice127.xml

Yet if you read through the story, you will catch this one, VERY important sentence:

As far as we can tell this has not happened for at least 20,000 years. The real shock is that it has happened so quickly with ice formed in the winter melting by the summer.

So what happened 20,000 years ago? We had no factories. No cars. No hairspray to tear up the ozone layer. What - did we have an excess of livestock all over the world with severe flatulence? If that statement about 20,000 years is true, the only possible explanation is a cyclic weather pattern.

Anyone who's ever sat through even a couple of hours of a statistics course can see how hilariously those graphs have been stretched to put across the intended message.

• The x-axes range from 8 to 1600 years in length
  
• Ridiculously thick lines give crap precision
  
• Some claims don't actually make SENSE ('the seas are falling' when the graph shows they've clearly been rising over the past 8 years - how recent a rise would you like!?)
  
• Clearly peridoic fluctuations are claimed to be outrght trends - that ice spread peak could easily be an anomaly
  
• Important measures of climate change are missed, and some misinterpreted - 'cyclones' is rather specific, not including other meteorological activity, and specifics always imply fiddled figures. Rain was forecast to INCREASE during warming which - surprise - it seems to be doing from the graph titled "it still rains"
  

I'm all for skepticism over climate change since schoolteachers only a few years ago were telling the kids that we were headed into another ice age, but you won't prove anything with graphs like that...

I'd also like to point out that, even should global warming turn out to be a great steaming pile of polar bear leavings, the threat of it is helping us reduce oil and gas dependency, reducing the contaminants in the atmosphere which are poisoning us even if not the environment as a whole, cut pollution as a whole and generally make the world a sparklier place.

Governments are out there to take your money anyway, and isnt it better that we ditch fossil fuels gradually now rather than get plunged into (more) chaos later. Of course this could all be part of some fiendish plot, what could'nt?

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Essan

 

so are you going to totally ignore the fact that it has been proven that not only our planet but just about evey other planet in the solar system is going through the same stuff we are.

Yes. because it hasn't.

are you going to ignore a little something called "solar cycles" which occur all the time. where the sun will heat up and cool down over the course of X amount of years (i use X because i don't have the articles right in front of my right now.)

No, because natural factors are still important - but just because they exist does not mean that nothing humans do has any effect whatsoever.

If natural factors warm the world by 1c and human factors by 0.1c - there is still AGW. If natural factors cool the world by 1c but human factors reduce that to 0.9c there is still AGW.


Meanwhile: are you go to ignore the fact that it is proven without any doubt that a planet's temperature is partly affected by albedo? And that human activity has affected Earth's albedo?

(note: human activity can both increase and decrease albedo)

[edit on 22-7-2008 by Essan]

I don't know that article seems pretty opinionated... and if you note the graph that shows the warming over the 2000 year period the recent years have been going up. And we're only a little more than halfway into this year... As for the weather not being more severe I beg to differ. We had tornado's in my city (along the Colorado front range) which is EXTREMELY rare. In the 10 years I've lived here there hadn't been one that's touched down, but we had two or three touch down in our city this year. So... I think there is a lot of truth to it. Anyway you look at it the truth is we shouldn't be polluting our atmosphere and depleting the ozone, or there will probably be huge consequences.

[edit on 22-7-2008 by asmall89]

[edit on 22-7-2008 by asmall89]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


The sad thing is, if this is true (no warming which I'm still on the fence about), you WILL have to change your life. The government will begin to pass 'global warming' taxes on people who drive their cars (diesal tax here the U.S. anyone?) and so on. If you use too much water in your house or if you use too much electricity then you will be taxed on the 'global warming' tax.

It will affect your lifestyle if the government gets its way.

Originally posted by asmall89
I don't know that article seems pretty opinionated... and if you note the graph that shows the warming over the 2000 year period the recent years have been going up. And we're only a little more than halfway into this year... As for the weather not being more severe I beg to differ. We had tornado's in my city (along the Colorado front range) which is EXTREMELY rare. In the 10 years I've lived here there hadn't been one that's touched down, but we had two or three touch down in our city this year. So... I think there is a lot of truth to it. Anyway you look at it the truth is we shouldn't be polluting our atmosphere and depleting the ozone, or there will probably be huge consequences.

[edit on 22-7-2008 by asmall89]

[edit on 22-7-2008 by asmall89]

I agree that would shouldn't go out of our way to do anything that impacts the environment. However, we are trained to ignore our impact. The amount of garbage we throw away each week makes me shake my head. It's crazy.

However, to the point of your argument about the impact we have on the environment. I seem to have read somewhere, and I will try to find the document on it, that a volcanic eruption, just one, will put out more carbon into the atmosphere than all of the carbon released by mankind in their entire existence on this planet.

Kind of puts things in perspective if that is true. We still, to this day, even though it is bad, do not impact this planet as much as it impacts itself.

zfacts.com...
zfacts.com...

Recorded history is full of climate shifts. I don't like the term Global Warming used in this way. It's just a specific consequence of a climate shift or change.

IMO on the Graphs:

Graphs 1 & 2) Regional temperature extremes will cancel each other out in the mean. If the poles are colder and the equatorial regions and continental interiors are warmer, etc.

Also looks increasingly erratic.

Graph 3) Looks like a trend toward a rise to me.


Graph 4) This looks like it shows what the heading says it shows. But note again the widening range.

Graph 5) Just Australia.
That is CHANGE.

Graph 6) Huh? Global Warming doesn't stop rain.

Graph 7.) See comments on Graphs 1 & 2 and intro.

Couple sources:
zfacts.com...
zfacts.com...

reply to post by Essan


You blew what budski said out of proportion, of course that is what all gw theorist do, if you can prove someone wrong then degrade them. You should be ashamed of yourself, your tatics are low.

reply to post by dariousg


That's crazy, I actually think I've heard that before as well. But is that a Mt. St. Helen's type of eruption, or just any volcano? Either way it still shows how we don't have a lot of control over what happens on Earth. There's a lot of debate about what's really causing GW I guess Carbon emissions is just the most accepted. I don't know GW could just be natural, but either way I think something is going on.

the modells the use to predict the global warming wassent including the sun's activity...

om mars and other planets the climates is also different now.... ore the mars rovers had pelutted the almosfere there ore the sun is the main factor..

medium temp on earth is droped last year with 0.7 degrees..now on the level as it was on plus/minus 1929/1930......
hmm looking that date's.... was there no stockmarket crasch also ???
food for the members to look on cycles..

p/s when the temp drop... oure gouvrnments ..will say... see you! it works! you can buy climate..... hihihi

Originally posted by AccessDenied
Global warming my butt!
I live in Ontario Canada, and we've barely had a summer here yet.
Nothing but 6 days of rain for one day of sun,

I'm in Anchorage Alaska and the same is true here. Coldest spring and summer I can remember. Most days are a full 5 degrees (Fahrenheit) below normal. Normally we get 5 sunny days and two rainy days a week. This year it is more like one sunny day for every ten cloudy days. We have only had one day at normal temp in the last two weeks and no sun.

Now they are lying about the Polar Bears. I have friends who work on the Slope and they all tell me the Polar Bear population is increasing and they now have to post armed guards just to work. They have never had to do that before.

I also hear that Polar Bears have started coming into towns in Canada; is that true?