Just because you put quotation marks around a claim doesn't make it correct. Andrew Bolt or FoxNews don't count as credible sources.
Science/Environment IPCC issues stark warning over global warming
- Thread starter Dont be a lemon
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Just because you put quotation marks around a claim doesn't make it correct. Andrew Bolt or FoxNews don't count as credible sources.
alchemy333
Senior List
Define credible. Or are you going down the ad hominem route?
telsor
Hall of Famer
You have children? Well then, your carbon debt exceeds anything I could do.
Yes, that's not particularly relevant, but hey, you clearly can't respond to my actual argument.
When you need some facts on this issue always be sure to use scientific organization who already has runs on the board
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
alchemy333
Senior List
alchemy333
Senior List
LOL. Such a small time scale so stretched out for the temperature! Why was that period chosen as the average? As someone who knows a thing or two about stats I would suggest that you look at dy/dx = 0 and draw linear relationships between maximums for one line and minimums for the other.
Also do you notice anything about your ice graph? It is talking about ice surface area. Can you see the months that it's peaking? That's right in the southern hemisphere's winter ... mmmm wonder why? Is that inconsistent with the standard climate change theory?
Also do you notice anything about your ice graph? It is talking about ice surface area. Can you see the months that it's peaking? That's right in the southern hemisphere's winter ... mmmm wonder why? Is that inconsistent with the standard climate change theory?
alchemy333
Senior List
Lol! Seriously? Because 1979 was the first year of satellite temperature observations. *face-palm*
Oh you think that needs a response. Ok I will break it down for you. The response of the climate system to CO2 is well known. We can measure the amount of energy arriving earth and the amount leaving. Through spectrometers we can also get the wave lengths reflected or absorbed. The amount of energy absorbed by the earth as a result of CO2 is exactly what is expected.
Unfortunately there are some dimwits around who don't realise that the mean temperature won't respond in a linear fashion. It has to take into account many mixing systems on earth. However, the energy is here and it will continue to heat the globe.
What is the biggest worry of all is the amount of methane that will be released from permafrost and then the oceans absorbing of CO2 slowing down. At that point there is a run away effect in the warming. If you want to picture what I think will happen with the mean temp think of a noisy signal around an arctan type function.
alchemy333
Senior List
You mean to say the ice extent is growing during winter? I'm shocked!
But isn't the planet supposed to be ice free by now...?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/top-5-failed-snow-free-and-ice-free-predictions/
The modelling and understanding of physical processes expects there to be different things happening at either pole. The arctic is heating up disproportionately quickly due its regional geography. There has always been an expectation of increased precipitation at the Antarctic so as you can see with the heavy bias of southern winter in the signal, this should actually be leading towards an increase in surface ice across the year. It's a bit worrying that it's showing a fairly steady state, but I'm not sure I can trust your choice in axis.
Of course this doesn't deal with the real measure of ice, volume. That is a bigger indication of the stability of glaciers (combined with movement).
Of course this doesn't deal with the real measure of ice, volume. That is a bigger indication of the stability of glaciers (combined with movement).
global warming. no global warming.
doesn't seem like it matters. The real problem is we're going to run out of fossil fuels anyway, but oh no, nobody wants to talk about that. We just want more limp wristed taxes, empty threats of apocalyptic rains and droughts, and banal rhetoric from politicians.
It doesn't matter whether it's getting hot or cold, putting insane amounts of Co2 in the sky is dumb and at the very least ruins our view of the stars, at the very most will bring down mankind. But the way to fix it is not bickering about .01 of a degree here and 20cm of ice there, but actually implementing renewable energy; which we have to do anyway at some point in the next 50 years.
doesn't seem like it matters. The real problem is we're going to run out of fossil fuels anyway, but oh no, nobody wants to talk about that. We just want more limp wristed taxes, empty threats of apocalyptic rains and droughts, and banal rhetoric from politicians.
It doesn't matter whether it's getting hot or cold, putting insane amounts of Co2 in the sky is dumb and at the very least ruins our view of the stars, at the very most will bring down mankind. But the way to fix it is not bickering about .01 of a degree here and 20cm of ice there, but actually implementing renewable energy; which we have to do anyway at some point in the next 50 years.
alchemy333
Senior List
Carbon Dioxide ruins your view of the stars?? (Invisible, odorless gas).
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
perhaps it makes the tree grow taller in his backyard, thus obscuring his view.
alchemy333
Senior List
Ah, that pesky plant food, at it again. Destroyer of views!
Do you know how much warmer the world would get if humans burnt all the fossil fuels they can currently mine? There are also other reserves that are just out of reach but tech could improve to allow us to get them ... care to guess how warm we could make the world .... not that our civilisation would survive through it.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Well we are going to find out one way or another. There is no reason to believe that all those oil reserves aent going to be burnt for fuel.
The real fun is going to start when the methane starts being released.
And when it is too late, the same morons will stand on rooftops shrieking "we should have been told!!!"
You were and you are.
- Banned
- #270
The pollution and destruction of the planet bothers me more then anything
Conscience ironically has science embedded in it....both something "sceptics" appear to find irrelevant
Conscience ironically has science embedded in it....both something "sceptics" appear to find irrelevant
Ugh, I'm not saying we should do that.
I'm saying all the bickering about whether it's getting hotter or colder is just obstructive. We can't get to actually fixing the problem and putting in place proper renewable energy solutions because everyones too busy looking at temperature charts.
James Hansen, death trains and a dodgy calculator.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/nasa_weather_error/
The problem was caught when blogger, Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit, crunched the numbers from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for himself. McIntyre found that apparently an error was affecting the data for the years 2000 through 2006
The data correction reduced the mean US temperature by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000 through 2006, for an average of 0.66 ºC.
I will take the NASA number crunchers any day over some random blogger hack
Did not NASA admit their mistake? Or was Hansen too busy getting arrested again?
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
The Goddard Institute thanked McIntyre for pointing out their error. Hansen probably tried to sue him.
Similar threads
- Poll
