The REAL truth on global warming... with "facts and figures" (753 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: -1.23 on 23 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by 314159265358979 (View user info) at 2007-02-28 00:37:25 EST
Apparently this is too long to put as a comment but it has to be said.
Sigh... It's undoubtedly lost on the likes of you but...
Resources and facts:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
A summary of one of the best points:
"Well, why is the planet warming so catastrophically if it's not CO2 then?
Who says it is warming catastrophically? Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. As we've already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth's temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004. We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic warming while people have been trying to measure the planet's temperature. If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year -- although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about -- so there's really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when looking at such a short history. "
We've been consistently ATTEMPTING to measure temperature for ~130 years. The Earth has been around how long again?
And then of course there is:
"
Ah, this is where it gets rather contentious because the big warming numbers come not from measurements but from computer models. These computer models and their output are passionately defended by the modeling clique and frequently derided by empiricists -- but the bottom line is that models make an enormous range of assumptions. Whether all the assumptions, tweaks and parameter adjustments really collectively add up to a realistic representation of the atmosphere is open to some conjecture (current climate models do not model "natural" climatic variation very well), but there is no evidence yet that they can predict the future with any greater certainty than a pack of Tarot cards. Moreover, humans do a lot besides emitting greenhouse gases, changing vegetation and transpiration rates through agriculture, for example, and many effects expected to both increase and decrease regional temperatures are not included in these models.
Regardless, climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of "positive feedbacks" (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models. It appears to have become something of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models but there remains no evidence the planet includes any such effects or behaves in a similar manner.
"
Bob eloquently dumbed this down for you and the others with his suggestion that you can't possibly solve an equation a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h=256 (which is probably closer to sqrt(a)*b^2+(xzy^a^2)=256 with 100 more variables). Apparently that didn't make it through your thick skull so I doubt the real scientific explanation will either.
Now here is where you and your ilk attack the source "that's just some dumb website" "I know xyz organization that supports global warming" "blah blah blah" - If somebody tells me 2+2 = 4 I don't have to look too hard at the source to conclude that I agree with it. If the association of tenured professors of ivy league schools tells me 2+2 = 5 or that they've solved A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H=256 for G I'm going to conclude that they are fuckwits. It's called critical reasoning - given your ability in that field I don't believe you are in Harvard or if you are boy have they lowered their standards. I don't know what field of study a fuckwit like you engages though and if its not environmental science it's not relevant here.
If you want to know what's wrong with their exponential model by the way, check out this article that explains in part why this type of idiotic thinking caused the dot.com bubble and subsequent bursting of said bubble:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/HA011118881033.aspx
Again I don't have high hopes that this is going to hit home with the likes of you but you asked for facts and figures. The problem with an exponential model is clear - it predicts growth at a continual rate of acceleration into infinity. The same models that "prove" global warming would have to suggest by the very nature of exponential growth that the Earth will eventually surpass even the Sun's temperature. Also given the nature of exponential growth this will happen a great deal sooner than you would expect if you just extend that prediction out a bit following the same model of growth.
Last but not least to address your idiotic conspiracy comment - I never suggested there was any conspiracy. In fact there is not any conspiracy - what there is are a bunch of stupid and/or fraudulent jackasses (like Al Gore) given an unreasonable voice in the public sphere by like-minded idiots in the media and a general public stupid and inept enough to buy into it. Al Gore and others like him are getting rich off this bullshit. Not to mention the motherfucker either doesn't believe it or doesn't care about despite what he says - his private jet usage alone demonstrates this point beyond a reasonable doubt. He lectures us all on driving more efficient cars mean while his pompous use of the most luxurious form of travel available wipes out the supposed good done by eliminating an entire large SUV for an entire year with one short flight. On the contrary the information is readily available for inquiring minds. We are a country of mediocre people with mediocre intelligence with mediocre heroes that we worship and listen to without question. Have you turned on a TV lately? Britney fucking spears and anna nicole smith all over the news! That's news? We're supposed to care about that? Maybe if those two fucking hoe bags weren't sucking up all the lime light there might be room for some real science.
How about these assholes getting rich too: http://www.terrapass.com/ ?
Come the fuck off it, your cause is junk science and your greatest spokes people are frauds.
I just assraped your position with logic, facts and science and I'm willing to bet my next years salary that you're going to continue to write back with inane bullshit. Carry on.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-27 18:25:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's break this down, shall we.
and acusations of OMFG CONSPIRACY!)!010101010101. Seriously? This is your argument? Shut the fuck up you daft fucking twit. PS climate change isn't a conservative vs. liberal thing, as it involves science not politics.
Sounds like the issue flew right over your head. I've got resources and facts, you have conjecture and insults which is usually the backup for those too dim to participate in an itteligent discussion.
User Reviews
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2007-03-02 13:08:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-23 16:49:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't know where you're from but it really doesn't matter, America could really make your country its bitch any time it pleases. Sit down and shut up.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2007-02-23 12:32:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hah, how can I -2 this? For an anti-American like myself, this is gold. Or do you mean you think this is a good expenditure graph? More than half of the 'free' money goes to war efforts.
America is like that weird paranoid fucker who lives at the end of a long road, shooting anyone trespassing (and some people in general) and spends more than half of his paycheck on buying ammunition, before dying alone, bitter, and filled with extremely overweight people.
_______________________________
Way to prove my point, dipshit.
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-03-01 01:43:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Al Gore and others like him are getting rich off this bullshit"
Are you honestly, without reservation and any sort of doubt, saying that Al Gore and the other Scientific groups propounding Global Warming models are doing it for money? What? They just sat around and decided to manufacture this incredibly complex theory of environmental change so they could make a movie or two and give speeches?
Come on. COME ON. I'm not even on the side of the climate change advocates, as i think there is conflicting and incomplete evidence at this point in time pertain to both sides.
But seriously, the suggestion that global warming is some sort of get-rich-quick bogeyman is utterly, utterly ludicrous, and serves to discredit your argument better than any contrary statistics.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-03-01 00:50:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
?????
This has what to do with the FACT that you don't have a statistically significant sample size to work with?
I started measuring the temperature yesterday. Today was hotter. The planet must be warming.
How dumb can you really be?
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-28 16:40:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:33:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Better retake that statistics course retard. Who taught you 25 / 4+ billion was a statistically significant sample size?
Also interesting that you took half a degree and magically turned it into 5C.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:32:30 (#)
Ranking: -2
If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year
++++++++++++++++++++
"New international climate data show that 2005 is on track to be the hottest year on record, continuing a 25-year trend of rising global temperatures."
"At this point, people shouldn't be surprised this is happening," said Goddard atmospheric scientist David Rind, noting that 2002, 2003 and 2004 were among the warmest years on record."
Washington Post Oct 13, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Y'know. If you can't read well enough to comprehend what I've written, then you should stop playing with your Daddy's computer.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-28 16:40:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:33:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Better retake that statistics course retard. Who taught you 25 / 4+ billion was a statistically significant sample size?
Also interesting that you took half a degree and magically turned it into 5C.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:32:30 (#)
Ranking: -2
If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year
++++++++++++++++++++
"New international climate data show that 2005 is on track to be the hottest year on record, continuing a 25-year trend of rising global temperatures."
"At this point, people shouldn't be surprised this is happening," said Goddard atmospheric scientist David Rind, noting that 2002, 2003 and 2004 were among the warmest years on record."
Washington Post Oct 13, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Y'know. If you can't read well enough to comprehend what I've written, then you should stop playing with your Daddy's computer.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2007-02-28 08:13:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
itteligent
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-28 08:07:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:48:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
So it's a conspiracy?
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:33:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Better retake that statistics course retard. Who taught you 25 / 4+ billion was a statistically significant sample size?
Also interesting that you took half a degree and magically turned it into 5C.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:32:30 (#)
Ranking: -2
If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year
++++++++++++++++++++
"New international climate data show that 2005 is on track to be the hottest year on record, continuing a 25-year trend of rising global temperatures."
"At this point, people shouldn't be surprised this is happening," said Goddard atmospheric scientist David Rind, noting that 2002, 2003 and 2004 were among the warmest years on record."
Washington Post Oct 13, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:37:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Snare:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/99007
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:36:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
mega lame.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:32:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year
++++++++++++++++++++
"New international climate data show that 2005 is on track to be the hottest year on record, continuing a 25-year trend of rising global temperatures."
"At this point, people shouldn't be surprised this is happening," said Goddard atmospheric scientist David Rind, noting that 2002, 2003 and 2004 were among the warmest years on record."
Washington Post Oct 13, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html
++++++++++++++++++++
"although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about"
The resulting additional 5°C rise in average temperatures would have been sufficient to kill off most of the life on earth
Now, however, it is commonly accepted that the event lasted less than a million years, from 252.3 to 251.4 Ma (both numbers ±300,000 years), a very brief period of time in geological terms
It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with about 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
So if a 5 degree rise in planetary tempertures over one million yearrs (give or take 300K) was rapid enough change to wipe out 95% of ocean and 70% land based species, a rise of a 10% of the total over 0.01% of the time is 'nothing to write home about.'
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:23:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Have fun with this one jerkoffs:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Amazing coming form a liberal socialist country like Canada - WOW.
Highlights:
"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
"Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Now taking bets on which industry you fucktards will say is bribing Dr. Tim Patterson and Dr. Bob Carter to say this drivel... Airlines? Coal mining? I recall reading many statements from liberal alarmists here to the effect "you can't quote one credible scientist anywhere that doesn't support the "global warming" theory. Funny that article alone quotes no less than 5 including this guy:
"Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K."
Maybe he's "former" because he was fired due to his shoddy research, you know either that or he must be on the take from big oil.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:09:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Funny that a scholarly scientist such as yourself seems to have no concept of "margin of error"
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:03:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
At best, you have a poor conception of working science and have been misled; at worst you're a malicious fucktard. Familiarize yourself with reality before you go making pronouncements about the way professional scientists go about doing their jobs.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:03:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Your opinion is shit. You're deluding yourself if you think you're getting an accurate picture of the physics that goes into climate modelling from that website.
If climate models can be so freely tweaked, then how come NONE of the 20 groups doing this kind of modelling have produced a model that supports your position? Competing groups that would have a vested interest in distinguishing themselves from the pack in order to attract funding and recognition.
And if climate models are so bad, then explain how come the temporary cooling of 0.5 C that occurred in the months after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 was accurately predicted by the very same models that you claim have no predictive power?
At best, you have a poor conception of working science and have been misled; at worst you're a malicious fucktard. Familiarize yourself with reality before you go making pronouncements about the way professional scientists go about doing their jobs.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:01:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yea I forgot to include this one, these fucking idiots can't make up their minds:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:00:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ahahaha
hose your daddy?
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:59:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This would be way better with some pretty pictures and maybe some large print. Then I reckon I could understand it.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:57:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey fuckwit, it should be plainly obvious that Jack is a superior more capable writer than I am and that he cares far more about what he posts on her even in terms of grammatical and spelling errors. The writing "style" (if you could even call mine a style) couldn't be more dissimilar. Idiot.
Not sure what that has to do with the FACTS presented above either.
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:53:31 (#)
Ranking: -2
homer42 = horse87 = Jack_McCallum
its so simple really.
the clues are all there, like in the davinci code
h-o-r-s-e = 5 letters h-o-m-e-r = 5 letters
jack is 42 years old and hasn't been laid since 1987.
sadly, the alter he will create next year will be hoser87.
i doubt the poor sod will ever be able to truthfully update those last digits
Submitted by jojo747 (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:55:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:53:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
homer42 = horse87 = Jack_McCallum
its so simple really.
the clues are all there, like in the davinci code
h-o-r-s-e = 5 letters h-o-m-e-r = 5 letters
jack is 42 years old and hasn't been laid since 1987.
sadly, the alter he will create next year will be hoser87.
i doubt the poor sod will ever be able to truthfully update those last digits
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:41:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I rest my case. "No pretty pictures and large print, I can't read or understand this. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."
Submitted by garudave (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:39:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
Sico's post had much better formatting, I could actually get through it. This is just a bunch of annoying walls of text.
FUCKING DIE
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:39:08 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by garudave (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:39:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Sico's post had much better formatting, I could actually get through it. This is just a bunch of annoying walls of text.
FUCKING DIE