General [M]ayhem

General [M]ayhem (http://www.genmay.com/index.php)
-   The Pit (http://www.genmay.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Still no proof of Global Warming (http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295)

MC 03-19-2008 02:59 PM

Still no proof of Global Warming
 
[url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025[/url]

[quote]In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. [...] Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.[/quote]

They try and spin it in the article (it is NPR, afterall) but fail miserably.

The conclusion? Greenhouse gasses aren't playing as big a role as previously thought

wingedbuttmonkey 03-19-2008 03:03 PM

THE SUN IS EXPANDING BRO!

PopeKevinI 03-19-2008 03:44 PM

When slashdot ran an article that last year's data showed global temperatures dropping, the immediate response was to say that global warming was responsible.

Getting hotter: global warming
Getting cooler: global warming
No change: fluke?

1337rider 03-19-2008 03:46 PM

[QUOTE=PopeKevinI;22449609]When slashdot ran an article that last year's data showed global temperatures dropping, the immediate response was to say that global warming was responsible.

Getting hotter: global warming
Getting cooler: global warming
No change: global warming[/QUOTE]

fixt for truth

PopeKevinI 03-19-2008 04:40 PM

[QUOTE=1337rider;22449621]fixt for truth[/QUOTE]

I almost did that :)

What troubles me about the current state of climate science is that it seems like no matter what the new data is, they look for a way to make it fit with the current model, rather than revising the model to fit the data. That's not how science is supposed to work. That coupled with the absolute refusal to even consider other models starts to sound a lot like religion.

jubjub 03-19-2008 07:03 PM

[QUOTE=PopeKevinI;22449874]I almost did that :)

What troubles me about the current state of climate science is that it seems like no matter what the new data is, they look for a way to make it fit with the current model, rather than revising the model to fit the data. That's not how science is supposed to work. That coupled with the absolute refusal to even consider other models starts to sound a lot like religion.[/QUOTE]

seems the pennies are being lifted from some lifeless eyes.

sMiLeYz 03-19-2008 07:22 PM

people still deny the holocaust and evolution too

Fuckyouformakingmeregister 03-19-2008 07:23 PM

Temperatures dropping in 1 year (even 5 years) doesn't disprove global warming. It's the long term trends, not the short term variations that are important. Like this:

[IMG]http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/graph287.jpg[/IMG]
Source: [url]http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/gr-ar4-wg1.htm[/url]

I'm sure if you morons had been around in the early 1980s during the brief dip you'd all be saying the same shit. And you'd have been wrong.

MisterKinish 03-19-2008 07:28 PM

Scientists who appeared in BBC program analyzed data presented in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". They found that his comparison chart of a rise in the world's temperature aligning with an increase in CO2 was off by at least 800 years. The increase in CO2 was not in sync with global warming as was implied by Gore but actually lagging behind it significantly. What this showed was that global warming is in fact the cause for the increase in CO2, not the other way around as we've been led to believe.

Fuckyouformakingmeregister 03-19-2008 07:38 PM

[QUOTE=pra3t0r;22450927]What this showed was that global warming is in fact the cause for the increase in CO2, not the other way around as we've been led to believe.[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't show that. You can't look at one graph like that and say that correlation = causation. Significantly more evidence is required for any such statement (whether it be for or against global warming).

jubjub 03-19-2008 08:07 PM

[QUOTE=LongHandle] Significantly more evidence is required for any such statement (whether it be for or against global warming).[/QUOTE]

that , in a nutshell is the main flaw in the pseudo-science/religion that is the "Global Warming" movement...[FONT="Arial Black"][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Yellow"]THERE AIN'T ENUF DATA TOO PROVE/DISPROVE THE HYPOTHESIS.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Fuckyouformakingmeregister 03-19-2008 08:22 PM

[QUOTE=jubjub;22451136]that , in a nutshell is the main flaw in the pseudo-science/religion that is the "Global Warming" movement...[FONT="Arial Black"][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Yellow"]THERE AIN'T ENUF DATA TOO PROVE/DISPROVE THE HYPOTHESIS.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

There is actually a fair amount of data in support of the global warming theory. The IPCC website is a good place to start.

While there might be room to question its cause, it's quite clear there has been a warming trend.

jubjub 03-19-2008 08:29 PM

[QUOTE=LongSig]There is actually a fair amount of data in support of the global warming theory. The IPCC website is a good place to start.[/QUOTE]

iirc , the "HOCKEY STICK" guys analyze (and cook) data going back only 200 years or so....

seems to me that reliable data from at least several 10's of thousands of years would be needed to make reliable forecasts regarding the future of the planet's climate.

MisterKinish 03-19-2008 08:34 PM

[quote=Fuckyouformakingmeregister;22451237]There is actually a fair amount of data in support of the global warming theory. The IPCC website is a good place to start.

While there might be room to question its cause, it's quite clear there has been a warming trend.[/quote]
You know that the IPCC was created and supported by politicians, not scientists. In fact, this supposed IPCC coalition of scientists supporting the global warming theory if you interviewed them individually they don't even believe in it. Their names are being used without their permission and many cases without their knowledge to support global warming theory. The IPCC is made up primarily of politicians.

sir tex 03-19-2008 08:45 PM

[QUOTE=Fuckyouformakingmeregister;22450900]Temperatures dropping in 1 year (even 5 years) doesn't disprove global warming. It's the long term trends, not the short term variations that are important. Like this:

[IMG]http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/graph287.jpg[/IMG]
Source: [url]http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/gr-ar4-wg1.htm[/url]

I'm sure if you morons had been around in the early 1980s during the brief dip you'd all be saying the same shit. And you'd have been wrong.[/QUOTE]
you should expand that graph a couple hundred thousand years. ;)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2002-2015 CrowdGather, Inc.