while some say it is a myth, something is happening
http://news.yahoo.com/8-ways-global-warming-already-changing-world-194205628.html
http://news.yahoo.com/8-ways-global-warming-already-changing-world-194205628.html
more on the global warming front
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Nobody is saying it's a myth. The argument centres around the causes, is it man made or natural? Although there are many scientists who now believe that the warming stopped in 1998.
link?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
There are many articles on the subject, Google is your friend! Here are two to get you started!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergl...fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/01/global-warming-lynas-climate
Last edited:
Nice try. Next time, read the article before you link to it.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I just threw that one in to see if you would read it, well done!
LOL what a douchebag
What? How is that called for?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones:Yes, but only just.
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones:Yes, but only just.
Why would you need a link to the obvious.......
The climate/temperature of the earth has been continually changing since there has been an earth......everyone that can read knows it.......
From "Tom"'s link, http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergl...fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
What about the last 15 years? This claim, too, is false, in two important ways: First, it actually has warmed over the past 15 years, and second, the past 15 years are themselves among the warmest in the past 130 years.
But even these selections of time periods are cherry picking. What about the entire instrumental record going back 130 years – the period of time when scientists know that growing concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere have been piling up? Well, you look at the graph. The warming is unmistakable, despite the year-to-year ups-and-downs.
130 years of global temperature changesWhat if we look decade by decade in order to smooth out some of the year-to-year natural variability? OK, here you go. The last decade had less warming than the one before (because of these natural variations I’ve mentioned), but is it cooling? No. Instead we see a continuation of the bad news.
Decadal changes in global temperaturesFinally even this is cherry-picking, because it turns out that the heat imbalance of the planet is not only measured by rising surface temperatures. Scientists now know that a massive amount of the extra heating effect is also going into melting ice (in the Arctic and Greenland and mountain glaciers) and also heating the oceans, and that even when surface heating slows, ocean heating continues. This next figure based on data from a 2011 paper by Church et al. shows that most of the heat actually goes into the oceans, not into rising surface temperatures.
Total heating of the oceans, ice, and surface, showing that most heating is going into the oceans.[A technical comment for those interested: anyone who understands the statistics of long time-series with internal natural variability also understands that we can see periods of time as long as 10 or 15 years with modest warming, followed by periods with higher-than-average warming – a dynamic confirmed by both models and by actual observations.]
The next time you hear someone say it isn’t warming, or it hasn’t warmed for “xx” years, or “it’s actually cooling,” remember: someone is trying to deceive you with cherry-picked numbers.
The climate drives the weather. People care about the weather – what happens day to day – our weather can bring us joy or misery. It is time to care about the climate as well, because our decisions and actions today will reverberate in our weather for centuries to come. The famous quote from a century ago, attributed to Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner (“everybody talks about the weather but nobody seems to do anything about it”) may have been true once. But it isn’t true anymore.
Peter Gleick
OOh, I guess you are full of shit then, eh Tinfoil Hat? Or is "Tom"? Either way, NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN PROVEN ON THE INTERNET,
so climb down from your high horse, retard.
Now let's look at the second link "Tom" put up in rebuttal of the OP: http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/01/global-warming-lynas-climate
I’ll deal with this editorial question later. First let’s ask whether Whitehouse is wholly or partially correct in his analysis. To quote:
"The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average. Although CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing each year, no-one ever argued that temperatures would do likewise. Why? Because the planet’s atmosphere is a chaotic system, which expresses a great deal of interannual variability due to the interplay of many complex and interconnected variables. Some years are warmer and cooler than others. 1998, for example, was a very warm year because an El Nino event in the Pacific released a lot of heat from the ocean. 2001, by contrast, was somewhat cooler, though still a long way above the long-term average. 1992 was particularly cool, because of the eruption of a large volcano in the Philippines called Mount Pinatubo.
Oops again! What was "Tom" thinking? Maybe he is not a BP shill after all? Or could it be that as a scientist his interest in the truth outweighs his obligation to his paymaster? Only "Tom" really knows, and he isn't telling.
I’ll deal with this editorial question later. First let’s ask whether Whitehouse is wholly or partially correct in his analysis. To quote:
"The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average. Although CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing each year, no-one ever argued that temperatures would do likewise. Why? Because the planet’s atmosphere is a chaotic system, which expresses a great deal of interannual variability due to the interplay of many complex and interconnected variables. Some years are warmer and cooler than others. 1998, for example, was a very warm year because an El Nino event in the Pacific released a lot of heat from the ocean. 2001, by contrast, was somewhat cooler, though still a long way above the long-term average. 1992 was particularly cool, because of the eruption of a large volcano in the Philippines called Mount Pinatubo.
Oops again! What was "Tom" thinking? Maybe he is not a BP shill after all? Or could it be that as a scientist his interest in the truth outweighs his obligation to his paymaster? Only "Tom" really knows, and he isn't telling.
as if there wasn't enough flamboyant stupidity in this thread already
If you could freakin' comprehend what is actually posted, you'd see your post is flamboyantly stupid......
One clown needs a link to what is common knowledge and not deniable or debatable.....
Two more posters point that fact out.....
and one idiot like chimes in (U) with a personal attack to prove to all of us, you're a asshole.....
something we already know about you.
I guess you didn't read the links either, moron. The links Tom provided actually prove that not only is it debatable
it is simply untrue.
Additionally, myopic man, it was Tin Foil Hat that attacked, not me, but then, the truth never matters to you anyway, does it Bravo?
Poor Blabo.
If I was responding to some link, I would make that clear.....I responded to the posts that I fuckin' quoted......catch up you fool....
Poor AssWipe#3
Right, why bother with facts, when you can use opinions as proof?
And yes, fool.....its was Tinfoil that attacked DQ, while you choose to attack ME.....
I don't know if the truth escapes your attention or you're just too fuckin dumb to read and understand who is posting what.
Poor AssWipe3