first of all, it's theories, not theorys.[b said:Quote[/b] ]what is more interesting to me is why you would automatically dismiss that article as right-wing propaganda, because it disagrees with your theorys,
and yet all your "facts" you believe are truth right?
I made those graphs..[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ May 16 2005,3:32)]oh please. That graph you showed us (twice... in the same page) had no scientific value at all. if you think that graph is not propaganda, then... well i'm sorry for you.
April,[b said:Quote[/b] (aprilh @ May 16 2005,3:35)]Well, Scotty, I'm quite a bit less naive and more cynical than you could ever hope to be but.....
Yep. All these scientists are lying. Every last darn one of them. The "global cooling" phenomenon and "global warming" phenomenon are linked. Makes quite a bit of sense, actually. But you won't read that on conservative websites.
We should just go on fouling the air and the earth like nothing's wrong with doing so, right? Industry and profit margin uber Alles, right?
Global warming and cooling ARE natural cycles..and no one I know denies that. They are NOT natural when exacerbated by the reckless activities of human beings. AprilH
Your side just cares about the oil companies and don't want to reduce pollution and go to other energy sources. My side just cares about the environment and science even though it may be bad for the economy.[b said:Quote[/b] ]the whole global warming myth has nothing to do with the environment anyway..its all political.
if you dont believe that you are very naive..
then it comes back and says:[b said:Quote[/b] ]For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.
ok... so they first say there's not a shred of evidence and then they say there is... ok?[b said:Quote[/b] ]It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain......The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.
it's not about the atmospheric temperature, it's about the surface temperature.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
right... there we go into ignoring facts. it's always bad to mess with nature, and:[b said:Quote[/b] ]A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.
exactly what I said. propaganda (just meant to make a point by not being accurate).[b said:Quote[/b] ]they arent intended to literally accurate..
they are intended to make a point, which you have apparently utterly failed to get..
(or..more likely, are choosing to ignore)
I can say the same about you.[b said:Quote[/b] ]aw man..that was dissapointing..but expected.
ignoring questions is par for the course..ah well..
again, oh please. apparently you didn't see the graph the first time. I guess you do things to others that would make you understand it better so here it goes:[b said:Quote[/b] ]3 months of an upward trend is JUST as statistically meaningless as 300 years of an upward trend..
using 300 years of a warming climate as "proof" of global warming is just as pointless of using 3 months of my driveway data as "proof" of global warming
great, me too.[b said:Quote[/b] ].s.
when it comes to oil companies, im on your side.
I hate them..
I think we should all go 100% solar/wind/water power..
I wish the whole world would run out of oil right now.
yes, im serious.
actually, my supreme wish is for humans to go totally extinct..
it would be the greatest thing that could happen to life on Earth..
it's the surface that matters. we're on the surface.[b said:Quote[/b] ]I have been collecting SURFACE temperature data
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Averaging temperatures
In a well-behaved system an estimate of a global average can be obtained by sampling. As we see in the discussion of averages, the variance of the estimate will be inversely proportional to the size of the sample, and the standard deviation proportional to the square root of this.
The global thermal system, however, is not well behaved. It is non-linear. It is highly non-stationary, as is shown by the occurrence of ice ages. In more recent history, we have had the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, which are well attested by art, history, literature, archaeology, dendrology, entomology etc. Another complication is the activities of mankind. While they are insufficient to disturb the Greenhouse Effect, which provides the warmth for life to exist on Earth, man-made Urban Heat Islands interfere with the sampling process. It is an unfortunate fact, for example, that the longest continuous temperature record, Central England, is situated in one of the most populous and industrialised places on Earth.
The global average temperature exists as a theoretical concept. If we were able to place a large number of sensors around the world at regular spacings, we would be able to establish a meaningful estimate of the instantaneous average, which could then in turn be averaged over a year to produce a number that is a reasonable representation of the thermal state of the surface of the planet. Unfortunately, such a ground station network does not exist. Not only are the existing sensors poorly distributed, many are placed in thermally atypical sites such as cities and airports, others are in primitive rural areas where they are poorly maintained. Ironically though, it is over the oceans that the most discrepant surface measurements occur. Thus surface weather stations provide a very poor basis for determining average global temperature.
Fortunately there is an alternative, which is satellite surveillance. Microwave radiation from oxygen in the atmosphere is temperature dependent and therefore provides a convenient remote thermometer. Because the satellite orbit is continuously scanning the Earth’s surface like a television raster, it is equivalent to a very large number of well-distributed thermometers. As a result it produces a credible estimate of a global average temperature. The results cross calibrate well with data collected by balloons.
Less fortunately, the satellite record is relatively short, as the technology has not been around for very long. It shows a slight cooling trend, but all finite data sets show trends that are not necessarily properties of the parent distribution. All the satellite data tell us at the moment is that there are no dramatic changes of temperature occurring.
John Brignell
April 2004
can you give us your source? is it a scientific pee-reviewed paper?[b said:Quote[/b] ]Because some parts of some cities may be several degrees hotter than their surroundings, a difference double or triple the warming observed over the historical temperature record, there is a risk that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. However, the fact that the UHI is so large is, paradoxically, evidence that it largely absent from the record, otherwise warming would be shown as much larger in the record. The 'heat island' warming does unquestionably affect cities and the people who live in them, but it is not at all clear that it biases the historical temperature record: for example, urban and rural trends are very similar.
The IPCC says:
However, over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant. [8] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221)
Note that not all cities show a warming relative to their rural surroundings. For example, Hansen et al. (JGR, 2001) adjusted trends in urban stations around the world to match rural stations in their regions, in an effort to homogenise the temperature record. Of these adjustments, 42% warmed the urban trends: which is to say that in 42% of cases, the cities were getting cooler relative to their surroundings rather than warmer. One reason is that urban areas are heterogeneous, and weather stations are often sited in "cool islands" - parks, for example - within urban areas.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has issued several influential reports on climate trends, says that the effects of urban heat islands on the recorded temperature "do not exceed about 0.05°C over the period 1900 to 1990."
....A study by David Parker published in Nature in November 2004 attempts to test the urban heat island theory, by comparing tempature readings taken on calm nights with those taken on windy nights. If the urban heat island theory is correct then instruments should have recorded a bigger temperature rise for calm nights than for windy ones, because wind blows excess heat away from cities and away from the measuring instruments. There was no difference between the calm and windy nights, and the author says: we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development
...Another view, often held by skeptics of global warming, is that the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers. However, these views are only aired in the "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view
exactly. it's weather baloons, boueys, satellites, ground stations, etc measuring today's temperature and tree rings, sediments, glaciers, the poles, etc. measuring past temperatures/greenhouse gases.[b said:Quote[/b] ]The results cross calibrate well with data collected by balloons.
not according to:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/[b said:Quote[/b] ]It shows a slight cooling trend, but all finite data sets show trends that are not necessarily properties of the parent distribution. All the satellite data tell us at the moment is that there are no dramatic changes of temperature occurring.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Researchers led by NASA’s James Hansen used the improved data to calculate the oceans’ heat content and the global “energy imbalance.” They found that for every square meter of surface area, the planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun’s energy than it is radiating back to space as heat — a historically large imbalance. Such absorbed energy will steadily warm the atmosphere.
translated wrong. It's sediment, tree rings, thickness and gases trapped in layers of ice in the poles and glaciers, etc. measured by scientists all over the world, form all nationalities, all agreeing.[b said:Quote[/b] ]"such as tree rings and sediments"
translated "a ton of guesswork, and vague data that is easy to reconstruct to give the readout we want, and lots of other tree ring and sediment data that doesent give us the answer we want can be easily ignored and not reported"
... uhhh... based on the temperatures through which it goes through?[b said:Quote[/b] ]"linear trend" (1000-1850)
based on what?
they dont say..
that it is NOT just a 5-10 year span or whatever it is you said. You wanted a long period of time and then YOU narrow it down and say it was also the warmest since 1996. If it was a billion years, would you say so what it was the warmest since 1996 too?[b said:Quote[/b] ]and so what if 1998 was the warmest year in 1,000 years?
that is also utterly meaningless..
it was also the warmest year since 1996,
so what?
we're not talking about the earth becoming a sun for pete's sake! millions of years ago there were giant cockroaches and dinosaurs. that was a very different place today. WHO CARES how warm it was millions of years ago? that is totally irrelevant. The point is that the earth is warming up and that it's our fault, not that we are becoming a sun!!![b said:Quote[/b] ]we are talking about MILLIONS of years..
now, if you can show me that 1998 ws the warmest year in the entire history of the planet, then you may have something!
a billion years is also a meaningless blip...[b said:Quote[/b] ]1,000 years is also a meaningless blip..
same as 300 years,
same as 3 months..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/[b said:Quote[/b] ]we could very well be warming..that would be natural when coming out of an ice age..
again..so what?
there is zero evidence that humans have anything to do with it..
[b said:Quote[/b] ]your chart shows me nothing..other than some people have tweaked the numbers to show what they think the truth is..
I have "proof" that shows the opposite..big deal..