Global Warming Theory not looking hot anymore

[SQLserver]

No my friend, you are making the claims...YOU PROVE IT......thats how science works.

I have already proved my points without a doubt:

You have claimed that the data is "just internet graphs" and you've vaguely mentioned that the data is somehow being misinterpreted. If you want this claim to be taken seriously, you will back it up. Otherwise, please admit you lied about the data and that you don't know what you are talking about. You have two options here: look like an idiot, or defend your claim.

As far as I'm concerned, I've presented the empirical evidence for global warming in this thread, which is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. This is what I've came to do in this thread, and every rational person reading it has hopefully had their acceptance of the scientific community's consensus cemented. I've backed up every piece of data with a scientific source.

You've done nothing. You've contributed nothing, you've given not a single source, and you have yet to critique the data in a meaningful way.

Hey; it's your choice. I don't need you to try to be competent; heck, I "win" the debate if you don't.

[SQLserver]

If you've done any serious analysis of climatic data, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Else, it's simply a rant by someone who is not a climatologist and who directly contradicts the consensus of the scientific community.

[Moon Monkey]

I have already proved my points without a doubt:

You have claimed that the data is "just internet graphs" and you've vaguely mentioned that the data is somehow being misinterpreted. If you want this claim to be taken seriously, you will back it up. Otherwise, please admit you lied about the data and that you don't know what you are talking about. You have two options here: look like an idiot, or defend your claim.

As far as I'm concerned, I've presented the empirical evidence for global warming in this thread, which is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. This is what I've came to do in this thread, and every rational person reading it has hopefully had their acceptance of the scientific community's consensus cemented. I've backed up every piece of data with a scientific source.

You've done nothing. You've contributed nothing, you've given not a single source, and you have yet to critique the data in a meaningful way.

Hey; it's your choice. I don't need you to try to be competent; heck, I "win" the debate if you don't.

I have already told you why what you have said/presented is mickey mouse...stand by your posts if you wish just don't claim anything you have presented to be scientific proof of anything. I sense a big mouth, know it all undergrad. Give me the data from which your prove all graphs stemmed.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Moon Monkey]

If you've done any serious analysis of climatic data, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Else, it's simply a rant by someone who is not a climatologist and who directly contradicts the consensus of the scientific community.

If you have some data that I haven't already discussed on this site somewhere please present it. Data and facts not ideas and theories.

[SQLserver]

If you have some data that I haven't already discussed on this site somewhere please present it. Data and facts not ideas and theories.

Using "Theory" as a derogative only shows you have almost no understand whatsoever about how science works.

I'll give you a lecture on it to get you up to speed with the rest of us, ok?

Facts are in (red). Scientific Theories are in blue.

1. CO2 in the atmosphere causes an effect known as the greenhouse effect. This is a fact.

2. Throughout Earth's history, we see temperature rise when CO2 rises.

3. Thus, it is agreeable to conclude that CO2 affects temperature. This is called a scientific theory: an observed, explained mechanism which explains natural evidence. Scientific theories can(obviously) not be proven.

4. The purpose of science, in case you aren't familiar with it, is to create scientific theories. These are the goal and end product of scientific research.

5. Since humans have started using fossil fuels, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone up to a temperature higher than they've been in millions of years.

6. The temperature has also increased. The current mean temperature is higher than it has been for thousands of years.

7. When advanced computer models have factored in human carbon emissions, they have accurately predicted how the climate changes over a period of several years and fit perfectly with past data over a period of several decades.

8. When the same models do not factor the human influence, they fail to accurately predict how the climate changes.

9. Thus, it is a scientific theory(which is a scientific hypothesis accepted by the majority of the scientific community, backed with empirical data, and tested with experimentation), that the human emissions into the atmosphere have caused the temperature to increase. This is a scientific theory because a correlation can never be proven, and no correlation, in any field of study, ever will be.

Now, if you disagree with the scientific theory of global warming, you can either dispute the validity of the facts, or dispute the validity of the scientific theory itself.

If you disagree with neither, you accept the scientific theory itself.

I have already given sources for all of the facts I present above. However, if you want any again, just ask.

-SQLserver

[Lord Umbarger]

I was kind of on the fence about the whole glabal warming thing being human caused until I found out that Mars is warming too and by at least as much as the Earth, if not more. That sort of cinches up the issue for me. We may not be helping matters but, if it's going worse on planets without humans, then I don't think there's all that much we can do about it. I mean, if it's happening everywhere then, we, who AREN'T everywhere, can't be totally at fault. Unless the Martians like SUV's too, that is.

[Ufo Believer]

Let me ask something here. Doesn't the sun have it's own cycle? Which if it does, which I believe it does, then that would explain a whole lot.

Edit: On why it's hotter one year and it's even hotter the next and at some point it gets cool all of a sudden.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Ufo Believer

[Pseudo Intellectual]

The goal of this data is to show the increase in temperature caused by using fossil fuels in the last two hundred years.

Earth has been cooling for the past 11 years, despite increases in CO2 emissions. I think that perfectly disproves the AGW hypothesis.

[Michelle]

If you've done any serious analysis of climatic data, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Else, it's simply a rant by someone who is not a climatologist and who directly contradicts the consensus of the scientific community.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=165995&st=0&p=3119874&fromsearch=1entry3119874

I started a thread on what people are doing to thrwart global warming and can't help but see that you haven't posted anything. Could it be that you aren't taking any personal resposibility for any of it, if you believe it's true?

After all, we can't expect other people to do what we aren't willing to.

[Lord Umbarger]

3. Thus, it is agreeable to conclude that CO2 affects temperature. This is called a scientific theory: an observed, explained mechanism which explains natural evidence. Scientific theories can(obviously) not be proven.

Perhaps but, it could also indicate that the rise in temperture simply causes more CO2 as well. Water makes clouds just as much as clouds mke water. That sort of thing.

9. Thus, it is a scientific theory(which is a scientific hypothesis accepted by the majority of the scientific community, backed with empirical data, and tested with experimentation), that the human emissions into the atmosphere have caused the temperature to increase. This is a scientific theory because a correlation can never be proven, and no correlation, in any field of study, ever will be.

Who's causing the temperture to increase on Mars? The Moon? Who was causing the temperture to be higher in the dinosaur times? Did T-Rex drive a Hummer?

The truth is that science has gotten a lot of things right in history but, it has also gotten a lot wrong too. (Spontanious Generation, anyone?).

[Moon Monkey]

Using "Theory" as a derogative only shows you have almost no understand whatsoever about how science works.

I'll give you a lecture on it to get you up to speed with the rest of us, ok?

Facts are in (red). Scientific Theories are in blue.

1. CO2 in the atmosphere causes an effect known as the greenhouse effect. This is a fact.

2. Throughout Earth's history, we see temperature rise when CO2 rises.

3. Thus, it is agreeable to conclude that CO2 affects temperature. This is called a scientific theory: an observed, explained mechanism which explains natural evidence. Scientific theories can(obviously) not be proven.

4. The purpose of science, in case you aren't familiar with it, is to create scientific theories. These are the goal and end product of scientific research.

5. Since humans have started using fossil fuels, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone up to a temperature higher than they've been in millions of years.

6. The temperature has also increased. The current mean temperature is higher than it has been for thousands of years.

7. When advanced computer models have factored in human carbon emissions, they have accurately predicted how the climate changes over a period of several years and fit perfectly with past data over a period of several decades.

8. When the same models do not factor the human influence, they fail to accurately predict how the climate changes.

9. Thus, it is a scientific theory(which is a scientific hypothesis accepted by the majority of the scientific community, backed with empirical data, and tested with experimentation), that the human emissions into the atmosphere have caused the temperature to increase. This is a scientific theory because a correlation can never be proven, and no correlation, in any field of study, ever will be.

Now, if you disagree with the scientific theory of global warming, you can either dispute the validity of the facts, or dispute the validity of the scientific theory itself.

If you disagree with neither, you accept the scientific theory itself.

I have already given sources for all of the facts I present above. However, if you want any again, just ask.

-SQLserver

Trust me, I know the diference between 'a theory; and ' a proof'. All you have done is plonk down the same old crap that has been plonked down here a thousand times before. I have argued every point that I read (I must admit I gave up pretty fast, about number 4) many times before, I see no new anything here, I just see someone trying to sound cleverer than they really are. All I will say is rather than spout the same old party line provide evidence/data to back up anything (preferably all) you have said, links to pretty pictures just don't cut it (you should know that being so knowledgeable and active in the wiki-scientific field).

The purpose of science is to create theories....or to have a good guess. Lol.

BTW I saw the word 'models' and I beg you to go down the climate model route...please. I presume there will be proof rather than waffle next time I look at this thread.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Ufo Believer]

Lord Umbarger:

Is the answer...the sun?

[questionmark]

Earth has been cooling for the past 11 years, despite increases in CO2 emissions. I think that perfectly disproves the AGW hypothesis.

It has?

Somebody better tell that to NASA, cause they just put out this graph:

.

Source

Edited October 14, 2009 by questionmark

[Ufo Believer]

Do you even know what that means?

[Ufo Believer]

And that map is for 2008. Look at the sorce.

Questionmark, you want to put anything done...I'm waiting.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Ufo Believer

[questionmark]

Earth has been cooling for the past 11 years, despite increases in CO2 emissions. I think that perfectly disproves the AGW hypothesis.

And that map is for 2008. Look at the sorce.

and it is not relevant to the answer because of...?

[Ufo Believer]

Because it's not a new map that was "just" put out by NASA. It's from 2008.

[questionmark]

Because it's not a new map that was "just" put out by NASA. It's from 2008.

11 years ago was 1998... but I see you refuse to read.

[Ufo Believer]

You are talking about the map that you put down for source, right? Everytime I click on the source, it comes up as 2008 Global Temps. The date on the side of the source you put up goes down to 1999. Where are you getting 1998...no idea? What are you saying? I don't get it.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Ufo Believer

[questionmark]

You are talking about the map that you put down for source, right? Everytime I click on the source, it comes up as 2008 Global Temps. The date on the side goes down to 1999.

And why is that not relevant to the statement that the temperature has been falling for the last 11 years... besides, there will be no 2009 map until at least Jan, 01, 2010. They don't have all the data yet.

[Ufo Believer]

Ok...I just didn't get it and now I do.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

9. Thus, it is a scientific theory(which is a scientific hypothesis accepted by the majority of the scientific community

I can't believe I didn't notice this before. The majority of the scientific community accepts the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis? Really? I assume by "scientific community", you mean the IPCC, which has, what, less than 3000 members? Well, let's take a look at the number of scientists who don't accept the hypothesis: Click here, here, and here. That's over 31,000 scientists.

By the way, take a look at this baby.

[questionmark]

I can't believe I didn't notice this before. The majority of the scientific community accepts the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis? Really? I assume by "scientific community", you mean the IPCC, which has, what, less than 3000 members? Well, let's take a look at the number of scientists who don't accept the hypothesis: Click here, here, and here. That's over 31,000 scientists.

By the way, take a look at this baby.

right, one of them is even a professor in geology!

[Pseudo Intellectual]

It has?

Somebody better tell that to NASA, cause they just put out this graph:

.

Source

My God, man! Your really don't know the planet's been cooling since 1998? Do you live under a rock? Even the BBC admitted it!

[questionmark]

My God, man! Your really don't know the planet's been cooling since 1998? Do you live under a rock? Even the BBC admitted it!

It does not matter what I know, it matters what those know who measure the temperatures...like NASA and they seez it heated.