Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming 'on pause' but set to resume

global warming on pause resume oceans temperatures

  • Please log in to reply
183 replies to this topic

#181    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,831 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 07 August 2013 - 02:42 PM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 07 August 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

The met office? how many times they have been wrong in 20 years? lots. They can't even provide updated weather
Weather is far harder to predict than the progression of climate trends. Chaos is the dominant variable within weather but the statistics applied to climate smooth this variability out of the analysis.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#182    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,179 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 12 August 2013 - 01:51 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 04 August 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

How terribly informative.
You free market fundamentalists have your very own devil now :w00t:

Br Cornelius

It was informative. I agree. There is a concept called "viral memetic infection", a concept  created by an ex-moonie to explain why she got so caught up in the moonies. I think Gore is using this very sociological concept to further the "inconvenient truth" cult. He is coining phrases that people will use to argue or discuss this topic, regardless of the fact that many of his concepts are based on inaccurate science.
I once wrote to his org. for a website to find the information he was presenting. They replied, merely asking for money, but did not direct me to the science I asked for. I refused to pay money for his viral memtic infection that I simply did not want. The only way I could get that information was to PAY to view it. I simply wasn't going to do that. I don't BUY mind-sets.

Edited by regeneratia, 12 August 2013 - 01:52 AM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#183    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:00 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 07 August 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Weather is far harder to predict than the progression of climate trends. Chaos is the dominant variable within weather but the statistics applied to climate smooth this variability out of the analysis.

Like my mathematician son uses to say: Never trust a statistic that you did not fake yourself.

Just step back for a moment and let sink in what the Al Gore and his "global warming" crowd are talking about.

The earth atmosphere contains 0.038 % (o point o three eight percent) carbon dioxide. Of this, only approximately  4 % (four percent) are contributed by human activity. Which mean 0.00152 % (o point o o one five 2 percent). So, among the thousands of factors that all undoubtedly have some small effect on climate (including cow farts, by the way), the global warming crowd wants to convince us that by changing the percentage of 0.00152 % of a substance naturally occurring in the atmosphere, to, say, half of of it (0.00075 % or so), we can regulate the "global climate" like a friggin airconditioners.

And all that these 0.00075 % of CO2 content in atmosphere do, by the way, is help to *reflect* infrared light, not create it! Water vapor, by the way, has the same effect, only much stronger.

You don´t even need to go further than that. OF COURSE you can concoct mathematical models that correlate the 0.00075 % content of this or that in the atmosphere to this or that. My son can do that in a minute. So can I, for that matter.

If you want to look for the very definition of gullability, look no further than the people who swallow this b0ll0cks.

But of course the motivation for politicians has nothing to do with saving our oh-so-fragile planet, it is the opportunity to expand taxation and government.

"One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy".
(Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

Edited by Zaphod222, 12 August 2013 - 11:26 AM.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#184    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,685 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:32 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 12 August 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

The earth atmosphere contains 0.038 % (o point o three eight percent) carbon dioxide. Of this, only approximately  4 % (four percent) are contributed by human activity. Which mean 0.00152 % (o point o o one five 2 percent). So, among the thousands of factors that all undoubtedly have some small effect on climate (including cow farts, by the way), the global warming crowd wants to convince us that by changing the percentage of 0.00152 % of a substance naturally occurring in the atmosphere, to, say, half of of it (0.00075 % or so), we can regulate the "global climate" like a friggin airconditioners.

And all that these 0.00075 % of CO2 content in atmosphere do, by the way, is help to *reflect* infrared light, not create it! Water vapor, by the way, has the same effect, only much stronger.
Something about your numbers doesn't add up.  The atmosphere just passed the 400 ppm CO2 level (That's 0.040% CO2.).  The CO2 level in the atmosphere was 280 ppm during the Ice Age.  That's an increase of 120 ppm, or an increase of 42.4% attributable directly or indirectly to human activities.

If you fit the Keeling curve to a logistic with an asymptote added, the result is a baseline CO2 level of about 305 ppm of CO2.  That fits your assumptions a little better, but still leaves a long way to go.  OR:  the Keeling curve model might indicate that something happened before 1959 that we just don't know about.  Example:  I still can't explain that "bump" in 1937/1938.

I'm not questioning your statistics, just your arithmetic and your sources.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users