Taking individual, current events and using them to "prove" climate change (or whatever they're calling it these days) simply doesn't work. You can't use singular events (or even just a few events) to prove anything. The fact that someone would even think you could casts immense doubt on their own ability to comprehend the "science".
what!??
this is akin to saying ... showing lung cancer on a 2 pack a day smoker is not proof that there is a correlation and anyone who tries to do so is showing poor judgement ...
do you have a science background?
It's more like seeing a couple of hairs in the sink and stating conclusively that I'm undergoing chemotherapy.
Humans have a couple of hundred years of accurate records at the very very most. How can we possibly have any idea what is normal for the earth?
It's just downright ridiculous to use 2 tornados as concrete proof of climate change. It's kind of sad to think there are people who do think that way.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i think it has been a little more than two tornados.
melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i think it has been a little more than two tornados.
melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
over what timeframe are we talking about here? you know mans existence has been but a blip on the radar, so while ive never discounted global warming as a natural part of earths life cycle, i have to question mankinds spazz outs in regards to climate change. do we think climate has been consistent during earths lifespan? and what exactly is climate change? can you tell me without drowning me in links? you speak of long term droughts where there have previously been no droughts. i live in australia and let me tell you droughts are a way of life here. when is that one day when we see the situation as dire??? i have said in the past and will continue to maintain that what is at stake here is not the death of our planet but the exitinction of humans.. and THAT in my opinion is what is the greater fear here. humans have become so comforatble in their own arrogance as the supreme being on this planet that the thought that we may well make ourselves existinct is simply unfathomable.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I watched the vid over the weekend, not saying one way or the other but the vid reminded me of a propaganda
bullshit session full of "what if's" and "it looks like"
if memory serves me right.... :shock:(late 70's and 80's were wild) our planet has has gone thru extreem changes in climate change that some say may have caused extiction of dinosor's and also created the little ice age,valcano's that wiped out whole civilizions and caused extreem winters around the world and all this before the industrial age of man
so with all the hard proof that everybody seems to want on this forum I am superized that so many of you have taken the stance on this issue you have.....come to think of it.. no I'm not.
i think it has been a little more than two tornados.
melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
Care to do a little research into the increase of ocean temperatures and how they are measured?
Actually Ill just do that for you.
1) Prior to 1940 - Records collected from ships that used the "bucket method." Which is quite simple, throw a bucket overboard, pull it up and stick a thermometer in it.
2) Post 1940 (approx) - measurements were taken directly via intakes on the ship.
3) Post 1980 - RSS, or satellite data, became available.
So three sets of measurements, all collected differently and each with their own idiosyncrasies. Method 1 is, well, a joke. Method 2 is much more reliable, however, depth of the intakes/sensors is not controlled and can vary significantly by ship design and weight of cargo. Method 3 only measures the first few centimeters of the surface. Obviously, the sun, wind and other factors have a significant effect on those readings.
One problem shared by one and two is that measurements were only taken from standard shipping lanes and therefore represent a very, very small percentage of sea area.
It appears that 2/3 of the average global temp was collected by very inconsistent and unreliable means and, IMO, begets more questions than answers. How could you follow something so blindly?
I watched the vid over the weekend, not saying one way or the other but the vid reminded me of a propaganda
bullshit session full of "what if's" and "it looks like"
if memory serves me right.... :shock:(late 70's and 80's were wild) our planet has has gone thru extreem changes in climate change that some say may have caused extiction of dinosor's and also created the little ice age,valcano's that wiped out whole civilizions and caused extreem winters around the world and all this before the industrial age of man
so with all the hard proof that everybody seems to want on this forum I am superized that so many of you have taken the stance on this issue you have.....come to think of it.. no I'm not.
Godfather.
the arrogance of man godfather. though i dont deny we have some effect.. its the level of such that i question.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I have a few questions for people who understand this issue better than I do:
1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?
2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?
It's more like seeing a couple of hairs in the sink and stating conclusively that I'm undergoing chemotherapy.
Humans have a couple of hundred years of accurate records at the very very most. How can we possibly have any idea what is normal for the earth?
It's just downright ridiculous to use 2 tornados as concrete proof of climate change. It's kind of sad to think there are people who do think that way.
dude ... your regurgitated talking point has been addressed in the science ...
and it's been more than 2 tornados ... there has been mass flooding all around the world accompanied by mass drought ... did you watch the video in the initial post?
either way - anytime you want to discuss the science behind global warming ... let us know ... but coming on these threads every now and then and posting the same thing serves no purpose ...
i think it has been a little more than two tornados.
melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
Care to do a little research into the increase of ocean temperatures and how they are measured?
Actually Ill just do that for you.
1) Prior to 1940 - Records collected from ships that used the "bucket method." Which is quite simple, throw a bucket overboard, pull it up and stick a thermometer in it.
2) Post 1940 (approx) - measurements were taken directly via intakes on the ship.
3) Post 1980 - RSS, or satellite data, became available.
So three sets of measurements, all collected differently and each with their own idiosyncrasies. Method 1 is, well, a joke. Method 2 is much more reliable, however, depth of the intakes/sensors is not controlled and can vary significantly by ship design and weight of cargo. Method 3 only measures the first few centimeters of the surface. Obviously, the sun, wind and other factors have a significant effect on those readings.
One problem shared by one and two is that measurements were only taken from standard shipping lanes and therefore represent a very, very small percentage of sea area.
It appears that 2/3 of the average global temp was collected by very inconsistent and unreliable means and, IMO, begets more questions than answers. How could you follow something so blindly?
what does any of that have to do with melting ice caps and melting ice on mountain tops?
you said you were doing research for me yet you only presented different types of methodology, no findings. i was aware of that methodology, but i thought you were going to present some earthshattering finding to debunk climate change. :?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I watched the vid over the weekend, not saying one way or the other but the vid reminded me of a propaganda
bullshit session full of "what if's" and "it looks like"
if memory serves me right.... :shock:(late 70's and 80's were wild) our planet has has gone thru extreem changes in climate change that some say may have caused extiction of dinosor's and also created the little ice age,valcano's that wiped out whole civilizions and caused extreem winters around the world and all this before the industrial age of man
so with all the hard proof that everybody seems to want on this forum I am superized that so many of you have taken the stance on this issue you have.....come to think of it.. no I'm not.
Godfather.
the arrogance of man godfather. though i dont deny we have some effect.. its the level of such that i question.
i think it has been a little more than two tornados.
melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
Care to do a little research into the increase of ocean temperatures and how they are measured?
Actually Ill just do that for you.
1) Prior to 1940 - Records collected from ships that used the "bucket method." Which is quite simple, throw a bucket overboard, pull it up and stick a thermometer in it.
2) Post 1940 (approx) - measurements were taken directly via intakes on the ship.
3) Post 1980 - RSS, or satellite data, became available.
So three sets of measurements, all collected differently and each with their own idiosyncrasies. Method 1 is, well, a joke. Method 2 is much more reliable, however, depth of the intakes/sensors is not controlled and can vary significantly by ship design and weight of cargo. Method 3 only measures the first few centimeters of the surface. Obviously, the sun, wind and other factors have a significant effect on those readings.
One problem shared by one and two is that measurements were only taken from standard shipping lanes and therefore represent a very, very small percentage of sea area.
It appears that 2/3 of the average global temp was collected by very inconsistent and unreliable means and, IMO, begets more questions than answers. How could you follow something so blindly?
what does any of that have to do with melting ice caps and melting ice on mountain tops?
you said you were doing research for me yet you only presented different types of methodology, no findings. i was aware of that methodology, but i thought you were going to present some earthshattering finding to debunk climate change. :?
are you absolutely certain that the melting of the polar ice caps isnt a cyclic occurrence??? do you entertain that this could be a possibility???
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
More evidence that temperature drives CO2 -
Ray Tomes took temperature data from the monthly global land-ocean or GHCN, which is available from NOAA and compared it to the atmospheric CO2 data from Mauna Loa in Hawaii and charted it. The graph clearly shows that eh Co2 lags the temperature by appx 6 months which make sense considering that both the land and the oceans give up their Co2 as they warm.
BTW for any that want to doubt the graph here is the links for the GHCN data
I have a few questions for people who understand this issue better than I do:
1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?
2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?
WHAT ????? no takers,I wish I could answer these questions Vinny.
I have a few questions for people who understand this issue better than I do:
1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?
2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?
1. it's been decades
2. you are focusing on a distraction aimed at misleading the public ... if i make a toxic substance and people develop cancer - do i need to wait 2 centuries to determine it's link? ... instrumentation has improved in every facet of our lives ... what other sciences uses the same methods from a century ago?
global warming and all it's complexities basically boils down to whether or not you believe in the greenhouse effect ... it wouldn't take someone 20 minutes to learn it, question it and come to a conclusion ... seriously, all you skeptics have to do is learn the greenhouse effect ...
stop listening to fox news and all these op-ed pieces ... do you folks ever question why only in america is global warming doubted as much? ...
again - this should not be a partisan issue ... don't get your information from msnbc or fox or media outlets ...
let me know when someone is prepared to discuss the science ...
I have a few questions for people who understand this issue better than I do:
1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?
2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?
WHAT ????? no takers,I wish I could answer these questions Vinny.
Godfather.
uhhh ... he posted it like an hour ago ... and i just responded ...
also - would you skeptics care to discuss the science ... that's where there are no takers ...
i think it has been a little more than two tornados.
melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
Care to do a little research into the increase of ocean temperatures and how they are measured?
Actually Ill just do that for you.
1) Prior to 1940 - Records collected from ships that used the "bucket method." Which is quite simple, throw a bucket overboard, pull it up and stick a thermometer in it.
2) Post 1940 (approx) - measurements were taken directly via intakes on the ship.
3) Post 1980 - RSS, or satellite data, became available.
So three sets of measurements, all collected differently and each with their own idiosyncrasies. Method 1 is, well, a joke. Method 2 is much more reliable, however, depth of the intakes/sensors is not controlled and can vary significantly by ship design and weight of cargo. Method 3 only measures the first few centimeters of the surface. Obviously, the sun, wind and other factors have a significant effect on those readings.
One problem shared by one and two is that measurements were only taken from standard shipping lanes and therefore represent a very, very small percentage of sea area.
It appears that 2/3 of the average global temp was collected by very inconsistent and unreliable means and, IMO, begets more questions than answers. How could you follow something so blindly?
what does any of that have to do with melting ice caps and melting ice on mountain tops?
you said you were doing research for me yet you only presented different types of methodology, no findings. i was aware of that methodology, but i thought you were going to present some earthshattering finding to debunk climate change. :?
ummmmmmmm... What I researched shows that you can not reach a conclusion. So again, what do you base your increase of ocean temperature on? How was that data compared? WHich tests method was used? How accurate is that test method? And how do you compare the most recent testing method with previous mtesting methods which were a joke? Your the one that made the claim now back it up.
More evidence that temperature drives CO2 -
Ray Tomes took temperature data from the monthly global land-ocean or GHCN, which is available from NOAA and compared it to the atmospheric CO2 data from Mauna Loa in Hawaii and charted it. The graph clearly shows that eh Co2 lags the temperature by appx 6 months which make sense considering that both the land and the oceans give up their Co2 as they warm.
BTW for any that want to doubt the graph here is the links for the GHCN data
I have a few questions for people who understand this issue better than I do:
1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?
2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?
WHAT ????? no takers,I wish I could answer these questions Vinny.
Godfather.
uhhh ... he posted it like an hour ago ... and i just responded ...
also - would you skeptics care to discuss the science ... that's where there are no takers ...
You are by far the wort debater on this subject (that why I hate these threads) You never answer anybodys questions, all you say is SCIENCE, and then walk away. How about address my questions concerning testing the ocean temperatures and how you can come to any conclusion? How about addres my post on data showing that Temperature drive CO2, not the other way around. Its that same science. TESTING is science. I noticed you did not answer the question concerning instrumentation, How is that not a SCIENCE question? Get your head out of your ass, take your blinders off, and actually debate and answer the questions people post on here.
Saying the word SCIENCE does not educate anybody here.
ummmmmmmm... What I researched shows that you can not reach a conclusion. So again, what do you base your increase of ocean temperature on? How was that data compared? WHich tests method was used? How accurate is that test method? And how do you compare the most recent testing method with previous mtesting methods which were a joke? Your the one that made the claim now back it up.
:idea:
why not use your methodology to prove to all of us that climate change is not occuring then?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
More evidence that temperature drives CO2 -
Ray Tomes took temperature data from the monthly global land-ocean or GHCN, which is available from NOAA and compared it to the atmospheric CO2 data from Mauna Loa in Hawaii and charted it. The graph clearly shows that eh Co2 lags the temperature by appx 6 months which make sense considering that both the land and the oceans give up their Co2 as they warm.
BTW for any that want to doubt the graph here is the links for the GHCN data
You are by far the wort debater on this subject (that why I hate these threads) You never answer anybodys questions, all you say is SCIENCE, and then walk away. How about address my questions concerning testing the ocean temperatures and how you can come to any conclusion? How about addres my post on data showing that Temperature drive CO2, not the other way around. Its that same science. TESTING is science. I noticed you did not answer the question concerning instrumentation, How is that not a SCIENCE question? Get your head out of your ass, take your blinders off, and actually debate and answer the questions people post on here.
Saying the word SCIENCE does not educate anybody here.
uhhh ... are you serious!? ... i challenged you to read ONE ... not all ... just ONE of the "scientific" journals you posted and i would do the same and we would discuss ... did you!?? ... you do what you always do ... you abandon the thread when your copy and paste links are discredited ...
and i actually answered the questions ... have you learned the greenhouse effect yet!?? ... have you taken 20 mins to understand that before you continue to post your links from more PR related companies? ...
and it's funny because as you have seen - I REPLIED TO YOUR POST before you posted this ... so, feel free to continue to say i am the worst debater and accuse me of things that just aren't true ...
you guys post and expect people to answer in like 2 minutes!?? ... meanwhile - you guys are all over every thread not answering questions ... how many global warming threads have you started that you've abandoned because you are posting links paid for by the oil companies!?? ...
i know it sounds condescending to you but it's not meant to be ... we wouldn't be having this discussion - if people would just take the time to read up on the issue ...
ummmmmmmm... What I researched shows that you can not reach a conclusion. So again, what do you base your increase of ocean temperature on? How was that data compared? WHich tests method was used? How accurate is that test method? And how do you compare the most recent testing method with previous mtesting methods which were a joke? Your the one that made the claim now back it up.
:idea:
why not use your methodology to prove to all of us that climate change is not occuring then?
Wow, you are pathetic, you just blindly posted something that you have no idea on how its tested/compared/processed.
Ill ask again. YOU MADE THE STATEMENT - What do yo base your increase of Ocean temperature on?
...
also - would you skeptics care to discuss the science ... that's where there are no takers ...
go. but first please tell me your definition of climate change and of global warming. and do you think they are the same thing?
i've explained it before but i will do so again for yours and everyone's benefit ...
global warming is the overall phenomena of the warming of the planet caused primarily by increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, namely CO2 ... this means that the overall temperature of the planet is warming ... this does not mean that in all parts of the world it will be warmer all the time ... just simply that the overall temperature of the planet is warming ...
climate change is the primary consequence of global warming ... temperature is one of the main variables in determining weather ... with sudden increases in temperature - there are consequences to our weather patterns ... increased extreme weather events (floods, droughts, etc.) ... there are other consequences of global warming such as rising oceans, decreased permafrost, altered growing seasons for farmers ...
the primary problem is global warming but unfortunately people are too simplistic to understand that and took it to mean only that it would be warmer everywhere ... so, people then focused on climate change as it is the primary consequence of global warming ... but sadly, people then used the switch in words to cast doubt where there is no doubt ...
...
also - would you skeptics care to discuss the science ... that's where there are no takers ...
go. but first please tell me your definition of climate change and of global warming. and do you think they are the same thing?
i've explained it before but i will do so again for yours and everyone's benefit ...
global warming is the overall phenomena of the warming of the planet caused primarily by increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, namely CO2 ... this means that the overall temperature of the planet is warming ... this does not mean that in all parts of the world it will be warmer all the time ... just simply that the overall temperature of the planet is warming ...
climate change is the primary consequence of global warming ... temperature is one of the main variables in determining weather ... with sudden increases in temperature - there are consequences to our weather patterns ... increased extreme weather events (floods, droughts, etc.) ... there are other consequences of global warming such as rising oceans, decreased permafrost, altered growing seasons for farmers ...
the primary problem is global warming but unfortunately people are too simplistic to understand that and took it to mean only that it would be warmer everywhere ... so, people then focused on climate change as it is the primary consequence of global warming ... but sadly, people then used the switch in words to cast doubt where there is no doubt ...
do you allow that the planet is warming as a matter of course? that she is still coming out of the last ice age we experienced and as a consequence it only makes sense that the earth is warming?? that what we are experiencing is to the most degree cyclic?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
why don't you just post the original link you copy and pasted the text from? ... this would make it easier as the body of your text doesn't say a whole lot ... and the graph you posted just shows the earth is warming ... the revised link you sent shows grid temperature data for around the world and doesn't in any way support your theory ...
do you allow that the planet is warming as a matter of course? that she is still coming out of the last ice age we experienced and as a consequence it only makes sense that the earth is warming?? that what we are experiencing is to the most degree cyclic?
coming out of an ice age does not equate to warming ... if i took an ice cube from a freezer and put it on the kitchen table ... it would melt (unless the kitchen was sub-freezing) ... the ice cube would melt regardless of whether the temperature in the kitchen was in an overall warming cycle or not ...
there are cyclical things in nature for sure however, the link between our emissions to temperature are evident ... even if we are to say that we are indeed part of a warming cycle, the speed of which this warming is occurring is unprecedented ...
why don't you just post the original link you copy and pasted the text from? ... this would make it easier as the body of your text doesn't say a whole lot ... and the graph you posted just shows the earth is warming ... the revised link you sent shows grid temperature data for around the world and doesn't in any way support your theory ...
okay ... nevermind ... i googled it and found where you copied it from ... i will take a look and respond ...
Has the IPCC has not determined the impact of solar activity? which is the heat source of the warming.
If so, how is it tested/compared to previoius time periods?
The AR4 does not explain why atmospheric CO2 increase lags temperature increase, when in fact, the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is based on GHG (mainly CO2) as being the catalyst of the warming.
Also the AR4 speaks in terms of "likely" and "very likely" which are not facts/scientific.
Comments
It's more like seeing a couple of hairs in the sink and stating conclusively that I'm undergoing chemotherapy.
Humans have a couple of hundred years of accurate records at the very very most. How can we possibly have any idea what is normal for the earth?
It's just downright ridiculous to use 2 tornados as concrete proof of climate change. It's kind of sad to think there are people who do think that way.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
over what timeframe are we talking about here? you know mans existence has been but a blip on the radar, so while ive never discounted global warming as a natural part of earths life cycle, i have to question mankinds spazz outs in regards to climate change. do we think climate has been consistent during earths lifespan? and what exactly is climate change? can you tell me without drowning me in links? you speak of long term droughts where there have previously been no droughts. i live in australia and let me tell you droughts are a way of life here. when is that one day when we see the situation as dire??? i have said in the past and will continue to maintain that what is at stake here is not the death of our planet but the exitinction of humans.. and THAT in my opinion is what is the greater fear here. humans have become so comforatble in their own arrogance as the supreme being on this planet that the thought that we may well make ourselves existinct is simply unfathomable.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
bullshit session full of "what if's" and "it looks like"
if memory serves me right.... :shock:(late 70's and 80's were wild) our planet has has gone thru extreem changes in climate change that some say may have caused extiction of dinosor's and also created the little ice age,valcano's that wiped out whole civilizions and caused extreem winters around the world and all this before the industrial age of man
so with all the hard proof that everybody seems to want on this forum I am superized that so many of you have taken the stance on this issue you have.....come to think of it.. no I'm not.
Godfather.
Actually Ill just do that for you.
1) Prior to 1940 - Records collected from ships that used the "bucket method." Which is quite simple, throw a bucket overboard, pull it up and stick a thermometer in it.
2) Post 1940 (approx) - measurements were taken directly via intakes on the ship.
3) Post 1980 - RSS, or satellite data, became available.
So three sets of measurements, all collected differently and each with their own idiosyncrasies. Method 1 is, well, a joke. Method 2 is much more reliable, however, depth of the intakes/sensors is not controlled and can vary significantly by ship design and weight of cargo. Method 3 only measures the first few centimeters of the surface. Obviously, the sun, wind and other factors have a significant effect on those readings.
One problem shared by one and two is that measurements were only taken from standard shipping lanes and therefore represent a very, very small percentage of sea area.
It appears that 2/3 of the average global temp was collected by very inconsistent and unreliable means and, IMO, begets more questions than answers. How could you follow something so blindly?
the arrogance of man godfather. though i dont deny we have some effect.. its the level of such that i question.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?
2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
dude ... your regurgitated talking point has been addressed in the science ...
and it's been more than 2 tornados ... there has been mass flooding all around the world accompanied by mass drought ... did you watch the video in the initial post?
either way - anytime you want to discuss the science behind global warming ... let us know ... but coming on these threads every now and then and posting the same thing serves no purpose ...
you said you were doing research for me yet you only presented different types of methodology, no findings. i was aware of that methodology, but i thought you were going to present some earthshattering finding to debunk climate change. :?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
fully agree Cate.
Godfather.
are you absolutely certain that the melting of the polar ice caps isnt a cyclic occurrence??? do you entertain that this could be a possibility???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Ray Tomes took temperature data from the monthly global land-ocean or GHCN, which is available from NOAA and compared it to the atmospheric CO2 data from Mauna Loa in Hawaii and charted it. The graph clearly shows that eh Co2 lags the temperature by appx 6 months which make sense considering that both the land and the oceans give up their Co2 as they warm.
BTW for any that want to doubt the graph here is the links for the GHCN data
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-pr...ducts.php#data
and the link for the Mauna Loa data
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
it would be interesting if one of the AGW people here would DL the data and put it in an excel spreadsheet for comparison
WHAT ????? no takers,I wish I could answer these questions Vinny.
Godfather.
1. it's been decades
2. you are focusing on a distraction aimed at misleading the public ... if i make a toxic substance and people develop cancer - do i need to wait 2 centuries to determine it's link? ... instrumentation has improved in every facet of our lives ... what other sciences uses the same methods from a century ago?
global warming and all it's complexities basically boils down to whether or not you believe in the greenhouse effect ... it wouldn't take someone 20 minutes to learn it, question it and come to a conclusion ... seriously, all you skeptics have to do is learn the greenhouse effect ...
stop listening to fox news and all these op-ed pieces ... do you folks ever question why only in america is global warming doubted as much? ...
again - this should not be a partisan issue ... don't get your information from msnbc or fox or media outlets ...
let me know when someone is prepared to discuss the science ...
uhhh ... he posted it like an hour ago ... and i just responded ...
also - would you skeptics care to discuss the science ... that's where there are no takers ...
i'm not sure what your point is ...
of course CO2 and temperature are linked ... that is the foundation of global warming ... what aspect of the science are you attempting to disprove?
your first link doesn't work
You are by far the wort debater on this subject (that why I hate these threads) You never answer anybodys questions, all you say is SCIENCE, and then walk away. How about address my questions concerning testing the ocean temperatures and how you can come to any conclusion? How about addres my post on data showing that Temperature drive CO2, not the other way around. Its that same science. TESTING is science. I noticed you did not answer the question concerning instrumentation, How is that not a SCIENCE question? Get your head out of your ass, take your blinders off, and actually debate and answer the questions people post on here.
Saying the word SCIENCE does not educate anybody here.
:idea:
why not use your methodology to prove to all of us that climate change is not occuring then?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-preci ... s.php#data
Try that, Its working for me.
My point is that its data showing Temperature driving CO2, not the otherway around
go. but first please tell me your definition of climate change and of global warming. and do you think they are the same thing?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
uhhh ... are you serious!? ... i challenged you to read ONE ... not all ... just ONE of the "scientific" journals you posted and i would do the same and we would discuss ... did you!?? ... you do what you always do ... you abandon the thread when your copy and paste links are discredited ...
and i actually answered the questions ... have you learned the greenhouse effect yet!?? ... have you taken 20 mins to understand that before you continue to post your links from more PR related companies? ...
and it's funny because as you have seen - I REPLIED TO YOUR POST before you posted this ... so, feel free to continue to say i am the worst debater and accuse me of things that just aren't true ...
you guys post and expect people to answer in like 2 minutes!?? ... meanwhile - you guys are all over every thread not answering questions ... how many global warming threads have you started that you've abandoned because you are posting links paid for by the oil companies!?? ...
i know it sounds condescending to you but it's not meant to be ... we wouldn't be having this discussion - if people would just take the time to read up on the issue ...
Ill ask again. YOU MADE THE STATEMENT - What do yo base your increase of Ocean temperature on?
i've explained it before but i will do so again for yours and everyone's benefit ...
global warming is the overall phenomena of the warming of the planet caused primarily by increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, namely CO2 ... this means that the overall temperature of the planet is warming ... this does not mean that in all parts of the world it will be warmer all the time ... just simply that the overall temperature of the planet is warming ...
climate change is the primary consequence of global warming ... temperature is one of the main variables in determining weather ... with sudden increases in temperature - there are consequences to our weather patterns ... increased extreme weather events (floods, droughts, etc.) ... there are other consequences of global warming such as rising oceans, decreased permafrost, altered growing seasons for farmers ...
the primary problem is global warming but unfortunately people are too simplistic to understand that and took it to mean only that it would be warmer everywhere ... so, people then focused on climate change as it is the primary consequence of global warming ... but sadly, people then used the switch in words to cast doubt where there is no doubt ...
do you allow that the planet is warming as a matter of course? that she is still coming out of the last ice age we experienced and as a consequence it only makes sense that the earth is warming?? that what we are experiencing is to the most degree cyclic?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
why don't you just post the original link you copy and pasted the text from? ... this would make it easier as the body of your text doesn't say a whole lot ... and the graph you posted just shows the earth is warming ... the revised link you sent shows grid temperature data for around the world and doesn't in any way support your theory ...
coming out of an ice age does not equate to warming ... if i took an ice cube from a freezer and put it on the kitchen table ... it would melt (unless the kitchen was sub-freezing) ... the ice cube would melt regardless of whether the temperature in the kitchen was in an overall warming cycle or not ...
there are cyclical things in nature for sure however, the link between our emissions to temperature are evident ... even if we are to say that we are indeed part of a warming cycle, the speed of which this warming is occurring is unprecedented ...
okay ... nevermind ... i googled it and found where you copied it from ... i will take a look and respond ...
If so, how is it tested/compared to previoius time periods?
The AR4 does not explain why atmospheric CO2 increase lags temperature increase, when in fact, the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is based on GHG (mainly CO2) as being the catalyst of the warming.
Also the AR4 speaks in terms of "likely" and "very likely" which are not facts/scientific.