Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Global Warming Theory not looking hot anymore


Ufo Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Questionmark... you've turned into a bedwetter...

No yadda please, data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    24

  • questionmark

    33

  • SQLserver

    22

  • danielost

    22

No yadda please, data.

You are asking me to prove a negative?

I replied to your article... called BS on it because it implies AGW is the result of their measures.

Where is your hard data?

Edited by Kismit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are asking me to prove a negative?

I replied to your article... called BS on it because it implies AGW is the result of their measures.

Where is your hard data, bedwetter?

No, I am asking you to prove that September was not the second hottest month recorded, or did you want to say something else?

Edited by Kismit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No yadda please, data.

QM, it is not that simple. Warming in fact contradicts physical laws, as any increase of temperature must immediately increase the convection and evaporation. Both these processes assist heat exchange within troposphere and thus remove the excess of heat from the surface. I was trying to explain that the Earth is a system in the state of equilibrium, and it takes much more than few tons of lousy CO2 to destroy this equilibrium. Your long-span graphs shows that the temperature on the planet oscillates within quite narrow limits of few degrees only, and at the current point we are not even reaching the border lines. It is a hoax, no more. We are now supposed to warm up, and we may be warming up. Some people are trying to make money out of this natural warming, because they know it takes thousands of years and no one would be able to blame them. And then we would be cooling down, when the Sun activity starts to decline. We should not worry about this all, specially we should not consider ourselves so mighty that we can overnight change the climate on the planet - today's warming is global, but not anyhow related to our activity, look at those graphs you and SQL were posting here! It is a CYCLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QM, it is not that simple. Warming in fact contradicts physical laws, as any increase of temperature must immediately increase the convection and evaporation. Both these processes assist heat exchange within troposphere and thus remove the excess of heat from the surface. I was trying to explain that the Earth is a system in the state of equilibrium, and it takes much more than few tons of lousy CO2 to destroy this equilibrium. Your long-span graphs shows that the temperature on the planet oscillates within quite narrow limits of few degrees only, and at the current point we are not even reaching the border lines. It is a hoax, no more. We are now supposed to warm up, and we may be warming up. Some people are trying to make money out of this natural warming, because they know it takes thousands of years and no one would be able to blame them. And then we would be cooling down, when the Sun activity starts to decline. We should not worry about this all, specially we should not consider ourselves so mighty that we can overnight change the climate on the planet - today's warming is global, but not anyhow related to our activity, look at those graphs you and SQL were posting here! It is a CYCLE.

I don't care what "laws" you say are contradicted unless you can show me that the recorded numbers are wrong and why they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

For the amount of times I have to repeat these particular rules I may just one day start giving time outs to the grown ups before giving them a chance to settle down and rectify the situation themselves.

3. Behaviour

Any of the following constitutes unacceptable behaviour:

3a. Racism or hatred: Do not post racist or hate-driven material or views which express hatred towards or discriminate against any specific race, religion, country, gender, individual or group.

3b. Harassment: Do not harrass, defame, threaten, bully or victimise other members, this includes but is not limited to sending harassing private messages or harassing members via posts, threads or profile comments.

3c. Profanity: Do not use profanity, crude, vulgar language or attempt to intentionally bypass the profanity filter.

3d. Trolling: Trolling is strictly disallowed. We define a 'troll' as someone who's purpose on the site is to create as much disruption as possible, offend as many people as possible or otherwise cause disruption intentionally for personal amusement. Behaviour that can be defined as "trolling" generally involves the posting of knowingly false or offensive comments or views designed to provoke, bait and annoy other members.

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care what "laws" you say are contradicted unless you can show me that the recorded numbers are wrong and why they are.

you told me that historic numbers didn't count so recorded numbers don't count. and i don't know where they get their info from these scientist's but it was colder here in waco this year. i don't feel cold but i had to turn the heater on a couple of times last month and this month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care what "laws" you say are contradicted unless you can show me that the recorded numbers are wrong and why they are.

Well, it is not excessively smart to admit not knowing simple physical laws right before casually making expert statements on the models, recalling these very laws! The graph! The graph you and SQL provided - about Vostok drilling results. This graph alone debunks all man-made Global Warming by insisting that the CO2 content FOLLOWS the rise of temperature with offset of at least few hundred years. Also it shows that we are now on about 3/4 or 2/3 BEFORE we are supposed to reach the temperature maximum of this our cycle. Also it shows that warming/cooling cycles are forming peaks and valleys of smaller, "local" magnitude, and we are closer to the top of one of these small peaks OR at the bottom of a higher peak, after which the Global Cooling must start (as per previous similar cycles for the last 400,000 years).

But this is a free world, and you certainly have your entitlement to the beliefs you choose. Same way the governments have their right not to pay tithe to Global Warming Church, despite UK is going to be flooded and burnt by the sun as their PM suggests. You are scared of warming? - build yourself a large underground freezer! Or if you want to persuade the others in the validity of this predictions - then provide the proof that temperature data is anyhow different from those shown on that very Vostok graph. Simple! If it is different - why don't you want to point to this difference and instead operate with the short span graphs covering some lousy 2000 years of which temperature globally was measured only for the last 30 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

co2-vs-temp.jpg

the temperature graph clearly shows we are now 1-2 degrees BELOW of what we were in the last cycles - so there is a room to go. When/if in the next couple of thousand years they get ABOVE, then there would be something to think on, good luck to them!

It is also well-possible from this graph, that we have PASSED the actual peak already about 8000 years ago, and from now on would be only cooling down, as we are sure 1 degree below the point in the past (~8000 years ago).

Edited by marabod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, instead of CO2 graph it could well be Gordon Brown's blood pressure graph - in fact it looks like by increasing CO2 we actually provoke Global Cooling, most likely because of the dust from combustion - it must increase the albedo of the planet, as the finest particles are going to the top levels of troposphere (10-17 km altitude). But I hope it won't be the case too, as the dust tends to settle, like this Kyoto protocol settled. No more idiots on the planet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person can show error after error in the AGW debate yet the 'believer's' don't believe what we show them.... It destroys the whole ideology behind it.

Its a religion to atheists.... they believe its a religion of science... it may as well be called scientology but is not because it is not science.

It also has all the characteristics of religion beliefs.... the overlaying part being if the person doesn't conform to the belief than the person will be damned.

Its pseudo-based on a hypothesis of what could happen without proving as a FACT if it is even responsible to begin with.

Even more its being driven down our throats now like their studies can predict what will happen in the future without even proving what it is doing right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person can show error after error in the AGW debate yet the 'believer's' don't believe what we show them.... It destroys the whole ideology behind it.

Its a religion to atheists.... they believe its a religion of science... it may as well be called scientology but is not because it is not science.

It also has all the characteristics of religion beliefs.... the overlaying part being if the person doesn't conform to the belief than the person will be damned.

Its pseudo-based on a hypothesis of what could happen without proving as a FACT if it is even responsible to begin with.

Even more its being driven down our throats now like their studies can predict what will happen in the future without even proving what it is doing right now.

You know - we should care less! If they bothered to bribe us to "believe" this crap, it would be one case. But they want our support FOR FREE, and this means we voluntarily must agree with something obviously wrong. This is the same as to go on a central square and start chanting "I am an idiot". I would say they need to hire yet another few hundred monkeys for them to create something more persuasive than the entire planet boiling because of 10 ppm excess CO2. Someone there on their top forgot that today is not 15th century and people have education of better type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

co2-vs-temp.jpg

the temperature graph clearly shows we are now 1-2 degrees BELOW of what we were in the last cycles - so there is a room to go. When/if in the next couple of thousand years they get ABOVE, then there would be something to think on, good luck to them!

It is also well-possible from this graph, that we have PASSED the actual peak already about 8000 years ago, and from now on would be only cooling down, as we are sure 1 degree below the point in the past (~8000 years ago).

Nice graphs, you surely must have noted something "different" about the peak at the end...in fact that it is not to the contrary of all previous cycles. Now you would not have an explanation about that too, would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice graphs, you surely must have noted something "different" about the peak at the end...in fact that it is not to the contrary of all previous cycles. Now you would not have an explanation about that too, would you?

There is absolutely nothing different in the end of the graph, which cannot be explained by simple common sense! Left part of both graphs is more smooth than the right one - but do not forget this left part apriori lacks any precision, as it is the data for 400,000 years ago. Or maybe you think CO2 is preserved in ice once and forever and is not a subject of diffusion? The closer to our time, the more precise is the data, so it shows the secondary peaks and valleys. It was hard to expect anything else.

Meanwhile, you did not actually specify what "different" was I suppose to notice - maybe this was something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in related news:

Freakonomics without the facts

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's bogus claims on climate change have riled up scientists. Maybe that was the point.

I thought I had read enough about Superfreakonomics and its horrifyingly ignorant chapter on climate change to prepare myself for the actual text. But nothing could prepare me for the assault on science, logic and the English language that is this excerpt.

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner managed to pull together just over 43 pages on science they clearly don't understand, with contradictory assumptions, clichés and gimmicky analogies. The chapter reads like a student term paper, a compilation of various factoids accumulated over the semester but displaying no real grasp of the subject matter. The logical leaps between sentences and at times bizarre sentence structure make me wonder if they actually farmed this chapter out to an undergraduate.

The scientific flaws are numerous, starting with the claim that the majority of scientists worried about global cooling just a few decades ago. This idea, based largely on a 1975 Newsweek story, is categorically false. It was never a widely accepted idea, and besides, the magazine has since acknowledged that the projections in the story cited so often in this chapter were "spectacularly wrong".

Read more ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very emotional article... Something must have hit the fan.

The article was a great example of ad hominem.

No substance... all ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much has been written elsewhere about the shortcomings of the climate chapter in Superfreakonomics. As far as I can tell, it's been nearly universally panned by anybody who's been able to read it.

By the way, in his defense of the chapter, Levitt notes:

Like those who are criticizing us, we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve. Where we differ from the critics is in our view of the most effective solutions to this problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. A while ago, the majority of "scientists" knew for a fact Earth was flat.

That isn't even factual.

The idea that "everyone thought the Earth was flat" several hundred years ago is a myth that originates with Washington Irving.

But, even if it were true (and it's not,) no "scientist" ever thought this. The occupation of "scientist" came about after explorers had already sailed around the world.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.