This is rather alarming. Any idea if this is legit?
If so, I just want to give a big fat "well played" kudos to left-wing parties around the world for such a highly successful power grab tactic! Wonder what will happen now...
If so, I just want to give a big fat "well played" kudos to left-wing parties around the world for such a highly successful power grab tactic! Wonder what will happen now...
Why even phrase this thread as a question if you've already picked a team to join and are busy waving their flag around?
This is rather alarming. Any idea if this is legit?
Pro tip: when assessing how biased a source is on the internet, try typing the name into wikipedia and see what comes up: http://en.wikipedia....i/Free_Republic
Gee, I THINK Freep may have a slight ideological bias. And probably is not staffed by professional meteorologists. Just a thought.
If so, I just want to give a big fat "well played" kudos to left-wing parties around the world for such a highly successful power grab tactic! Wonder what will happen now...
Why even phrase this thread as a question if you've already picked a team to join and are busy waving their flag around?
Bro, this is all over the internet on multiple websites. Pro tip - when assessing whether a piece of news is biased, try typing the topic into google.
It's climate in northern europe for SUMMER only. This isn't very conclusive especially since the largest part of "global warming" is affecting the colder seasons more.
And greenjoke, since "climate change" is something that has always happened you take all previous data to see if the earth is out of its normal climate change period.
The even more hilarious thing is that the graph, from like 1900+ is above the "cooling" trend line.. further proving nothing EXCEPT that before 1900 we were in a cooling trend.
The key thing to take away though is that according to this study, the tempature (during summer) has been higher in the past 2000 years where the study has also proven was during a cold trend.. but this is all with like a 1 degree Celsius variance.
The issue with the data is that it is averaged over 2000 years. If global warming is due to human activity then we should compare the time before the industrial revolution to the time after that period. Looking at the data I see the reported downward trend until we get to the time around the industrial revolution, at which point there seems to be an upward trend.
Not proof, but certainly inconsistent with what the author intended.
I've heard this theory plenty of times before. That climate change is a cycle and goes up and down and peaks every two thousand years.
Not informed enough on the subject to say which is more likely true though. I do know they try to peddle Global Warming like its some sort of drug though.
"new study shows"
pizza is a vegitable...nuff said half this crap i dont beleive...do i beleive the earth is warming?...potentally maybe its just part of the cycle
or maybe aliens are blasting us with a heat laser<--NEW STUDY SHOWS -.-
same people who say milk is bad for you and beer is good for you
This is rather alarming. Any idea if this is legit?
Pro tip: when assessing how biased a source is on the internet, try typing the name into wikipedia and see what comes up: http://en.wikipedia....i/Free_Republic
Gee, I THINK Freep may have a slight ideological bias. And probably is not staffed by professional meteorologists. Just a thought.
If so, I just want to give a big fat "well played" kudos to left-wing parties around the world for such a highly successful power grab tactic! Wonder what will happen now...
Why even phrase this thread as a question if you've already picked a team to join and are busy waving their flag around?
There are very few unbiased sources on this matter. The most favorite movie on the matter, 'An Inconvenient Truth' was done by someone and parties who had everything to gain by causing panic and knee jerk reactions to the thought that if people didn't change their consumption then the world was going to burn.
One thing everyone can agree on is that over the past forty years the planet in most regions has warmed up to a centigrade or so higher than in the past. The cause for concern is over the fact that this trend coincides with increased fuel consumption across the globe. What pro-warmers fail to properly respect is that trends are not proper cause and effect and the planet has a known history of warming and cooling.
Quite plainly more data is needed and by the time we gather the relevant data it most likely won't matter.
Now as towards the decreasing consumption of fossil fuels, I'm all for that. Fossil fuels are in dwindling supply, and more efficient solar power would be nice. Although do not forget that solar power harnesses solar radiation that would otherwise heat the planet, so the amount of use needs to be carefully managed or we could screw with the planet even further by creating new pockets of cool that were previously warm (If we ever bumped solar cell efficiency to somewhere around 50%). Wind and ocean current turbines extract energy from those mediums and remove it from that system, meaning the regions they extract the energy from move slightly slower, put in too much and you could take a blustery wind and turn it into a stale breeze. Take that into account when at the coast, coastal breezes help moderate temperatures inland, without that ocean air moving inland, inland temperatures begin to roast.
But yeah, the entire point being, that no energy is free, if you remove it from a source, then that source has it taken away, take too much away and things can go wrong. For example, if you took $100 out of $1 billion, that really doesn't effect the $1 billion that much, it's still quite a large sum of money. Take $50,000 out and then it's a bit more noticable chunk taken away. Take away $1 million and that is even more noticeable and starts to seriously impact the overall value. Take away $20 million and that formerly $1 billion isn't close to $1 billion anymore, it's just $80 million (each subtraction is a separate event from an independent $1 billion pool).
All it says is that there's a chance that it's just a change due to the sun going through cycles. It does not disprove CO2s effect on climat changes. Only says it's not the only factor. That can't be news to anyone can it? It only mentions CO2 once, when saying:
"Together with long-term CO2 variability resulting from biogeochemical feedbacks of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems14, these insolation cycles have initiated the interplay between glacial and interglacial periods15."
All this says is that CO2 has an effect on the climate, regardless of human influence.
Besides, this observation is based on one method of estimating temperatures, which is also admitted by the article.
All in all the linked post in the original post is a conclusion based on a scientific paper, that the paper itself doesn't even do. It's searched and biased.
ok, lets say climate change is false and humans don't do anything strong enough to change climate... that doesn't mean we can go throwing all our trash into the ocean, or polluting the rivers with chemicals, or burning oil until our cities have more smoke than air, or digging holes into the ground and spilling all the oil around like it is clean water and so on...
If climate change is true, then more reason to change our ways, if not, it doesn't mean we can keep going as we are unless we want a wasteland for a planet :/
We are still polluting the planet like mad though... Global warming was, from the beginning, a marketing trend. A ploy.
We do have the technology to "fix" this shit but its just too profitable for certain groups of people to keep the status quo for like, forever xD
Biological capture and utilization of CO2 is one of the promising options in my opinion.
Edit: Oh and @Karalius: Yet you completely ignored Daemaro's post, and you totally contradict yourself by posting an off topic post in a thread that you want to have a rational discussion in...
It is just another data point which shows that no side really knows (and any competent scientist will say as much). Predicting weather /climate changes is hard. Really hard. So hard in fact that physicists snicker at the predictions made by climatologists and meteorologists because they are little more than guesses. The ability to correctly model climate changes is beyond our capability at this point in time, so all estimates are made using historical data and loose models that tend to return widely varying results with small input changes.
The fact that it is a political issue is a problem. It is no longer a purely scientific issue, so there is a lot of FUD thrown around by both sides. The fact is none of us are in any position to have an opinion on the matter (unless one of you are working on your PhD at the moment). We hear things and we latch on to them, but we don't have the education or experience to disseminate that information and judge it critically, we just accept it (and its supposed consequences) as fact.
It is just another data point which shows that no side really knows (and any competent scientist will say as much). Predicting weather /climate changes is hard. Really hard. So hard in fact that physicists snicker at the predictions made by climatologists and meteorologists because they are little more than guesses. The ability to correctly model climate changes is beyond our capability at this point in time, so all estimates are made using historical data and loose models that tend to return widely varying results with small input changes.
The fact that it is a political issue is a problem. It is no longer a purely scientific issue, so there is a lot of FUD thrown around by both sides. The fact is none of us are in any position to have an opinion on the matter (unless one of you are working on your PhD at the moment). We here things and we latch on to them, but we don't have the education or experience to disseminate that information and judge it critically, we just accept it (and its supposed consequences) as fact.
This. When I was working on my MS, I did some collaborative work with a Computational Science PHD who specialized in various physics-based simulations of weather phenomena, such as hurricane prediction models. We got to talking a bit about global climate change and while I went in knowing that I didn't really know anything, I quickly found out that I knew even less than I thought. For that matter, apparently nobody else knows much of anything either. His argument was that there are a variety of ways to explain the data and there is no remotely definitive evidence that climate change is real, and beyond that, no definitive evidence that humans have a measurable effect on any climate change which might exist. That's not to say that it doesn't exist or the it's not man made, but merely that the models we have aren't very good. Anybody who guarantees you that climate change is provably real and man made or that it's provably not real or not man made is either wrong, lying to you or has some sort of definitive proof which they haven't made available to the rest of the scientific community.
This really shouldn't be a problem as this sort of thing happens all the time in science wherever there are various theories and no one can definitively prove one or another. The issue in this case is that politicians have decided to run with one heavily debated theory and to try to use it to affect social change for, imho, ideological and not scientific reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...and if you disagree with me, you're probably <insert random ad hominem attack here>.
This is rather alarming. Any idea if this is legit?
Pro tip: when assessing how biased a source is on the internet, try typing the name into wikipedia and see what comes up: http://en.wikipedia....i/Free_Republic
Gee, I THINK Freep may have a slight ideological bias. And probably is not staffed by professional meteorologists. Just a thought.
If so, I just want to give a big fat "well played" kudos to left-wing parties around the world for such a highly successful power grab tactic! Wonder what will happen now...
Why even phrase this thread as a question if you've already picked a team to join and are busy waving their flag around?
Bro, this is all over the internet on multiple websites. Pro tip - when assessing whether a piece of news is biased, try typing the topic into google.
And? Now its on this website and that makes it less biased?
Your logical leap here is that a scientific article becomes biased when picked up by a biased news media? This is highly amusing to me.
This is rather alarming. Any idea if this is legit?
Pro tip: when assessing how biased a source is on the internet, try typing the name into wikipedia and see what comes up: http://en.wikipedia....i/Free_Republic
Gee, I THINK Freep may have a slight ideological bias. And probably is not staffed by professional meteorologists. Just a thought.
If so, I just want to give a big fat "well played" kudos to left-wing parties around the world for such a highly successful power grab tactic! Wonder what will happen now...
Why even phrase this thread as a question if you've already picked a team to join and are busy waving their flag around?
Bro, this is all over the internet on multiple websites. Pro tip - when assessing whether a piece of news is biased, try typing the topic into google.
And? Now its on this website and that makes it less biased?
Your logical leap here is that a scientific article becomes biased when picked up by a biased news media? This is highly amusing to me.
It does. This website states what they think this paper means. They tell their side of the story. Read the actual paper instead, not some guys opinion on it.
Global warming is a myth to biologists. The people you should be reading about are the geologists who have been studying samples of data that go back tens of thousands of years rather than a mere ~60ish years. It's not real.
This is rather alarming. Any idea if this is legit?
If so, I just want to give a big fat "well played" kudos to left-wing parties around the world for such a highly successful power grab tactic! Wonder what will happen now...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderHa. Bagstone.
Pro tip: when assessing how biased a source is on the internet, try typing the name into wikipedia and see what comes up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic
Gee, I THINK Freep may have a slight ideological bias. And probably is not staffed by professional meteorologists. Just a thought.
Why even phrase this thread as a question if you've already picked a team to join and are busy waving their flag around?
Bro, this is all over the internet on multiple websites. Pro tip - when assessing whether a piece of news is biased, try typing the topic into google.
And greenjoke, since "climate change" is something that has always happened you take all previous data to see if the earth is out of its normal climate change period.
The even more hilarious thing is that the graph, from like 1900+ is above the "cooling" trend line.. further proving nothing EXCEPT that before 1900 we were in a cooling trend.
The key thing to take away though is that according to this study, the tempature (during summer) has been higher in the past 2000 years where the study has also proven was during a cold trend.. but this is all with like a 1 degree Celsius variance.
Not proof, but certainly inconsistent with what the author intended.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderNot informed enough on the subject to say which is more likely true though. I do know they try to peddle Global Warming like its some sort of drug though.
Many people tried to claim polar bears were becoming endangered because of global warming. http://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityconservation/a/polar_bears.htm
When recently a few people have been saying there are more than ever. http://times247.com/articles/polar-bear-population-at-highest-level-it-s-ever-been
pizza is a vegitable...nuff said half this crap i dont beleive...do i beleive the earth is warming?...potentally maybe its just part of the cycle
or maybe aliens are blasting us with a heat laser<--NEW STUDY SHOWS -.-
same people who say milk is bad for you and beer is good for you
There are very few unbiased sources on this matter. The most favorite movie on the matter, 'An Inconvenient Truth' was done by someone and parties who had everything to gain by causing panic and knee jerk reactions to the thought that if people didn't change their consumption then the world was going to burn.
One thing everyone can agree on is that over the past forty years the planet in most regions has warmed up to a centigrade or so higher than in the past. The cause for concern is over the fact that this trend coincides with increased fuel consumption across the globe. What pro-warmers fail to properly respect is that trends are not proper cause and effect and the planet has a known history of warming and cooling.
Quite plainly more data is needed and by the time we gather the relevant data it most likely won't matter.
Now as towards the decreasing consumption of fossil fuels, I'm all for that. Fossil fuels are in dwindling supply, and more efficient solar power would be nice. Although do not forget that solar power harnesses solar radiation that would otherwise heat the planet, so the amount of use needs to be carefully managed or we could screw with the planet even further by creating new pockets of cool that were previously warm (If we ever bumped solar cell efficiency to somewhere around 50%). Wind and ocean current turbines extract energy from those mediums and remove it from that system, meaning the regions they extract the energy from move slightly slower, put in too much and you could take a blustery wind and turn it into a stale breeze. Take that into account when at the coast, coastal breezes help moderate temperatures inland, without that ocean air moving inland, inland temperatures begin to roast.
But yeah, the entire point being, that no energy is free, if you remove it from a source, then that source has it taken away, take too much away and things can go wrong. For example, if you took $100 out of $1 billion, that really doesn't effect the $1 billion that much, it's still quite a large sum of money. Take $50,000 out and then it's a bit more noticable chunk taken away. Take away $1 million and that is even more noticeable and starts to seriously impact the overall value. Take away $20 million and that formerly $1 billion isn't close to $1 billion anymore, it's just $80 million (each subtraction is a separate event from an independent $1 billion pool).
All it says is that there's a chance that it's just a change due to the sun going through cycles. It does not disprove CO2s effect on climat changes. Only says it's not the only factor. That can't be news to anyone can it? It only mentions CO2 once, when saying:
"Together with long-term CO2 variability resulting from biogeochemical feedbacks of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems14, these insolation cycles have initiated the interplay between glacial and interglacial periods15."
All this says is that CO2 has an effect on the climate, regardless of human influence.
Besides, this observation is based on one method of estimating temperatures, which is also admitted by the article.
All in all the linked post in the original post is a conclusion based on a scientific paper, that the paper itself doesn't even do. It's searched and biased.
No, it has not been disproven.
If climate change is true, then more reason to change our ways, if not, it doesn't mean we can keep going as we are unless we want a wasteland for a planet :/
We do have the technology to "fix" this shit but its just too profitable for certain groups of people to keep the status quo for like, forever xD
Biological capture and utilization of CO2 is one of the promising options in my opinion.
Edit: Oh and @Karalius: Yet you completely ignored Daemaro's post, and you totally contradict yourself by posting an off topic post in a thread that you want to have a rational discussion in...
The fact that it is a political issue is a problem. It is no longer a purely scientific issue, so there is a lot of FUD thrown around by both sides. The fact is none of us are in any position to have an opinion on the matter (unless one of you are working on your PhD at the moment). We hear things and we latch on to them, but we don't have the education or experience to disseminate that information and judge it critically, we just accept it (and its supposed consequences) as fact.
This. When I was working on my MS, I did some collaborative work with a Computational Science PHD who specialized in various physics-based simulations of weather phenomena, such as hurricane prediction models. We got to talking a bit about global climate change and while I went in knowing that I didn't really know anything, I quickly found out that I knew even less than I thought. For that matter, apparently nobody else knows much of anything either.
This really shouldn't be a problem as this sort of thing happens all the time in science wherever there are various theories and no one can definitively prove one or another. The issue in this case is that politicians have decided to run with one heavily debated theory and to try to use it to affect social change for, imho, ideological and not scientific reasons.
Your logical leap here is that a scientific article becomes biased when picked up by a biased news media? This is highly amusing to me.
It does. This website states what they think this paper means. They tell their side of the story. Read the actual paper instead, not some guys opinion on it.