Any links to why it is debatable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Printable View
Any links to why it is debatable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Plenty, but right now I'm in the middle of a staring contest with my cat. I'm winningQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Bah, you got nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
True. I got no acid rain, no global warming, no god. I'm an atheist I don't believe in death by apocalyps. If we don't act right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
But do have a tip, google will do fine
edit lol http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...est=latestnews
Himaliya-gate is the IPCC deciding there is consensus because of a collumn in a hiker's magazine by the way, mentioned it earlier. You can't know that because of quality media so I oblige thee
So, not believing in gods means you don't believe we can ruin the environment? That is a very religious attitude if you ask me.
Publishers of an atlas who fouls up the facts is proof of what? That the science is wrong or that it is a big conspiracy? Gee, if it is the scientists pointing out the error then what to make of it? "Himalaya-gate" is an excellent example of how one should NOT rely too much on non peer reviewed articles. It actually looks like the scientific process works fine as it weeds out mistakes, yet at the same time the really big "mistakes" seem to persist because somehow the deniers are kept down or something.
Your two examples does not show global warming is wrong nor does it provide anything on why the ozone hole and acid rain is debatable. Heck, I'll provide a book for you then: The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling from 1993. It is a great example of bad science, demonizing environmentalism and juicy global conspiracies. You'll love it.
' So, not believing in gods means you don't believe we can ruin the environment? That is a very religious attitude if you ask me'
Sure we can, few nukes will absolutely change the climate. But you still can't just decide temperatures are rising, it really has to happen. And it isn't happening. I don't really care if you believe in god or are absolutely terrified of CO2, just don't pass me the bill as I don't have the patience
How do you know the average global temperature has not been rising?
For fun. Care to guess how many month in a row the global land temperature has been above the 1901-2000 average, for that month?Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
The same for sea temperature is just silly.
Oh it did, rised 0.2 degrees celsiusQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
I actually want to know the answer to this. 14?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
From wich time period? I'm seeing a 0.4 degrees celsius rise compared to the 1961-1990 average data. I got trouble to get anything on what influence that has though. Extrapolation from the only source I could find, that equals a climate zone move of about 50-70 kilometers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's worth remembering that it's larger closer to the poles. Sweden got about 1.0 degrees celsius in the same period and it's even more around the north pole.
:laugh4: More (I will give the answer later).Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It might be helpful to know that the 1901-2000 average is lower than the 1961-1990 average.
Ok possibly 0.4 degrees celcius in a hundred of years please tell me it isn't so
Hmmm. Second guess. 35 years x 12 months/year = 420 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
In a hundred years it's about 0.6 degrees celcius. Well, larger actually, since that's the current deviation from the 1901-2000 average. 1901 was colder than that. I admit that should it stabilise at this level long term (it's done it short term), it's not much of a problem. Except for polar bears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Why they're obsessed with the 1961-1990 data is because they have a rigid 30 year system. The next data set of the same type will be 1991-2020.
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
That's actually spot on for the sea temperature, it's been above average since october 1976.
Now for land temperature, it's been above average for a shorter period. You're closer in one way and further away in another. It's only happened once after februari 1994, but was quite common before that. And no, the answer is not close to mars 1994.
Awesome, my intuition was right. Interesting how the warming trend affected oceans much sooner than the land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
My intuition is telling me around 200-220 months.Quote:
Now for land temperature, it's been above average for a shorter period. You're closer in one way and further away in another. It's only happened once after februari 1994, but was quite common before that. And no, the answer is not close to mars 1994.
Oh you don't have to worry about teh polar bear, they are doing just fine, becomming a problem actually. Their population almost doubled since the fifties. There are so many of them that they started mating grizley's resulting in a hellish terror-bears
More lies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distributionQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
" In Nunavut, some Inuit have reported increases in bear sightings around human settlements in recent years, leading to a belief that populations are increasing. [...]
Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data."
My bad, four times as many, and since the sixties, 5.000 then, 20.000 nowQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
http://www.sej.org/publications/alas...ngand-going-an
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...upwalking4.jpg <- terrorbears from hell, half polar bear half grizly. Yikes
Could you please provide a link to where you get 0.4 degrees Celsius because it seems to be at least 0.2 less than what I have seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
0.2 according to some but that's blogosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Blogosphere or not there should be some reference to where that number came from. If not it is worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I'll oblige but promise me you won't treat me cruelly http://www.climategate.com/australia...e-climate-dataQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
That is temperature for Australia and not global.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You don't even read the articles you site to support your :daisy:. Every single paragraph except the first one states how early guesses of polar bear populations were limited to one nesting place and extrapolated globally, or were incredibly crude and inaccurate compared to modern testing techniques. EDIT: The scientists they quote even went so far as to call them "wild ass guesses".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Every. Single. Statement you make, is a big lie covered with articles from crazy blogs and credible pieces that actually speak against what you are saying. :daisy:
I think it has rather to do with lower temperature fluctations for the sea, but I haven't red through the data that carefully to make comparations.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Not quite. It's 142, since november 2000. So you were only an extra number wrong with your first guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Source
I know, same modelsQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Sure, there is no climate gate, no Himaliya-gate, no rising water-gate, IPCC wasn't forced to resign because he manipulated data, the models aren't flawedQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
This is the first true statement you have made all thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Can't just decide that, it has to be true otherwise it isn't real. Feel free to google. Forgot Greenland-gate by the wayQuote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
What models? At best (for the skeptics) this is manipulation of individual data for one country. That it is not a model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony