i think the difference that i made between the two of them was that jones refused to acnowledge a 8 year cooling trend was significant vs a 10 year warming trend that was.
He said that the 1995-2009 (15 years, give or take) warming trend wasn't significant but that it was close to the level required for significance, and that the cooling trend for 2002-2009 was of the same magnitude but over a shorter period (which raises the threshold for significance).
i think these people need to go back and take a college ethics class again because they jumped ship a long time ago.
this is just report after report after report showing up where they are just wrong and not partially wrong but dead wrong.
yet all of this stuff is supposedly peer reviewed to keep this from happening. someone fell asleep on the job evidently.
I think it was canada a while back ago wanted to start killing off moose herds because the report blame flatulance as a major production of green house gasses.
I know locally wise this is the coolest that it has been this time of year since i have been down here. it is usually in the 80's this time of year and we are still in the low and mid 70's.
for me that is great seeing how summer can get up to 100 easily. one thing i hate about this area during the summer is the heat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Remember how I wanted you to respond to these but all you could do was scoff at the sources? Its a two way street buddy.
you don't seem to read. i have already gone over those when this began and already discussed them. i am not in the habit of repeating myself simply because you refuse to read anything that disagrees with you.
I actually looked at the links unlike you. they are very much bias one way. to constantly try to spout them as fact and absolute truth is very dishonest.
so unless you actually have anything else to add that hasn't been gone over already i will get back to grant and the actual discussion we were having.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Classic mystery. You think that if you get like 50 posts in between when I post something you can just claim to have dealt with it when you never responded to it at all. Looking at every response after I posted that will show that they were ignored.
not just classic mystery but classic republican to just ignore something and then consider it dealt with. reminds me of the republican cries that of COURSE they agree the system needs reform just not the way the dems did it. well they had 8 years and ignored it.
I have a possibly far-fetched thought on this subject. I was watching something the other day that mentioned the eruptions in Iceland as a possible reason for the Global Changes. I wish I could link something here...but I can't.
The gist of what they were discussing is that the Eyjafjallajokull eruption may trigger the Hekla volcano to blow as well. The scientist then proceeded to say that the amount of ash and debre that would be produced would cause a major shift in the climate of the earth and we could end up facing another "year without a summer". The guy said that this happened several hundred years ago and that if it happened again it would be a big deal.
Please forgive my vagueness here but...does anyone else have any information on this?
Anyway...my point is...could it be that any kind of global warming / cooling be caused from within the earth itself and not be caused by mankind at all? Is this a possibility or is everyone just assuming that this isn't the case?
I have a possibly far-fetched thought on this subject. I was watching something the other day that mentioned the eruptions in Iceland as a possible reason for the Global Changes. I wish I could link something here...but I can't.
The gist of what they were discussing is that the Eyjafjallajokull eruption may trigger the Hekla volcano to blow as well. The scientist then proceeded to say that the amount of ash and debre that would be produced would cause a major shift in the climate of the earth and we could end up facing another "year without a summer". The guy said that this happened several hundred years ago and that if it happened again it would be a big deal.
Please forgive my vagueness here but...does anyone else have any information on this?
Anyway...my point is...could it be that any kind of global warming / cooling be caused from within the earth itself and not be caused by mankind at all? Is this a possibility or is everyone just assuming that this isn't the case?
I think this is a great observation. We know a lot, but there is even more we dont know about this world. Also, consider the Suns impact on the earth, with the lowest recorded sunspot activity since atleast 1910's (if not father back then that). The midatlantic anomaly, and many other things that might effect the planets temps.
Then consider the poltical side of it. The left with sources like MSNBC (parent company GE) and the right with sources like Fox (parent company Newscorp with 1 and 2 share holders being Murdoch, and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed).
In the end, its more then just the "science". Its about who can position themselves to make the bigger buck.
1.Consider the amount of time that humans have been collecting accurate climate data.
2. Next, consider the amount of time that Earth has had a climate.
You'll notice that the number resulting from point 2 is significantly larger, exponentially larger, in fact. When comparing the number of years we have data to the number of years we don't, I'd say this more or less constitutes and inadequate sample size. Basically, we don't have enough information to make a meaningful statement. All we can say for now is that, given climate data over the past ~400 years, we can say that the average temperature around the world has indeed increased. What we don't know is how that temperature stacks up against the average temperature for the other ~ 4.55 billion years.
Anyway...my point is...could it be that any kind of global warming / cooling be caused from within the earth itself and not be caused by mankind at all? Is this a possibility or is everyone just assuming that this isn't the case?
No one has ever said that CO2 emissions are the only factor in global climate. Other factors have huge impacts, but in regard to the specific science of AGW, we have a very good idea of what is going on.
I can go address the other big ones: ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN. They're all subject to the same bull crap slant and just plain making ☺☺☺☺ up. News is a product being sold, not public service.
Which is why scientists get their information from research and peer review.
1.Consider the amount of time that humans have been collecting accurate climate data.
2. Next, consider the amount of time that Earth has had a climate.
Direct recording is not the only method of how we know what the climate was in the past. There are many useful methods that we know about that reveal the climate thousands, if not millions, of years ago.
Even if we couldn't record the past climate, we know what CO2 does, we know what the greenhouse effect is, we know the levels of CO2 we are currently putting into the atmosphere.... what is the issue?
but even so FOX News manages to stand out as uniquely terrible.
but thats just plain not true. Is it biased? yes. Does it have poor practices? yes. Are its practices any different or worse than other major news networks? No.
The difference is the side of the political spectrum you are sitting on. You are on the left side of the spectrum, so of course the right side looks worse, you disagree with it! Carry that even farther because you (Tuss) are sitting on the extreme left side, so it looks even worse to you.
Direct recording is not the only method of how we know what the climate was in the past. There are many useful methods that we know about that reveal the climate thousands, if not millions, of years ago.
Even if we couldn't record the past climate, we know what CO2 does, we know what the greenhouse effect is, we know the levels of CO2 we are currently putting into the atmosphere.... what is the issue?
This of course, assumes our methods for determining historical climates are accurate. Which there's no way to really prove.
Direct recording is not the only method of how we know what the climate was in the past. There are many useful methods that we know about that reveal the climate thousands, if not millions, of years ago.
The issue I have with this is that the methods of detecting what the climate was like in the past can only give us general trends over thousands (or more) of years. They can't give us enough information to actually determine if what is happening now is normal or not. I guess the main problem I have is we are looking at the "signal" in super zoomed-in-o-scope mode and consequently we see tons of noise, and even our regressions of zoomed in data are skewed by the noise. We have no way of knowing what kind of signal noise occurred across the zoomed out view we have of the "millions of years" of weather data.
Now, that doesn't mean we should say screw it and not try to reduce our impact. Being environmentally cautious is almost never a bad thing in and of itself.
If other channels are every bit as bad as FOX News in all capacities then American political media is beyond worthless and I feel really sorry for you.
I hope you don't mind me adding a word to your quote since I think thats what you meant to say (really, American entertainment media isn't that bad!).
But then, I'd also pretty much agree with that statement. There is not strong independently run government funded television outlet in the US like the BBC (UK) or CBC (Canada), so the private interests infect all the news media on TV.
Its a fact of life, and one that probably won't change for a while.
Simply put, its a little of both. The earth goes in natural cycles of warm/cold. Ice ages happen for no real reason. Im sure since eveyrone is driving cars and cows are bealching methan (yes people blame teh cows) were putting unprecidented levels of green house gases in the air.
But did you know, england used to be alot warmer than it was now. Did you now england used to be alot colder than it was now also!!?? Little Ice age? Anyone know about that? Im sure in the 1600's everyone had their hummers spewing out thoes nasty ozone gasses. To be honest, its probably near impossible to actually tell how much of it is us and how much is just Mother Nature being hormonal. You get fanatics like Al "Super Cereal" Gore spouting near-ignorance (i cant say ignorance because hes right about some things) blaming us instead of actually thinking the whole thing out. Fun fact...did you know his house consumes as much engery as a small city...so it obviosly gives him credit to what hes saying...
Though I can't truly say global warming is real, kinda like the whole "is god real arguement" (no flames about that plz take that argument to another thread. I'm just relating 2 extremly blurry topics). They're both arguments, that depending, how selective and how you twist the data it can come out in your favor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you see someone playing a control deck, the following strategy is considered acceptable: 1) Slowly reach upward 2) Grab your opponent firmly by the throat 3) Squeeze 4) ???? 5) Profit...and a fountain of red Kool Aid!!!
Though I can't truly say global warming is real, kinda like the whole "is god real arguement" (no flames about that plz take that argument to another thread. I'm just relating 2 extremly blurry topics). They're both arguments, that depending, how selective and how you twist the data it can come out in your favor.
There is no comparison whatsoever.
I've done plenty of research into the global warming issue, and I will tell you right now that all of the "science" suggesting that we aren't significantly contributing to it is false. Paid for by people with a massive political agenda and falsified to make the actual science look bad.
The truth of the matter is that we are quite clearly causing a problem, and there is no factual argument to oppose that. It's true. Accept it and try to help slow it down, or reject it and look like yet another ignorant talking head backed by false unscientific crap.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
He said that the 1995-2009 (15 years, give or take) warming trend wasn't significant but that it was close to the level required for significance, and that the cooling trend for 2002-2009 was of the same magnitude but over a shorter period (which raises the threshold for significance).
Oh, you didn't mean it in the statistical sense. Fair enough.
man the IPCC ooppsss again.
i think these people need to go back and take a college ethics class again because they jumped ship a long time ago.
this is just report after report after report showing up where they are just wrong and not partially wrong but dead wrong.
yet all of this stuff is supposedly peer reviewed to keep this from happening. someone fell asleep on the job evidently.
I think it was canada a while back ago wanted to start killing off moose herds because the report blame flatulance as a major production of green house gasses.
http://www.theinsider.com/news/322535_The_farce_continues_Moose_farts_blamed_for_global_warming
(i don't know how true this is but i had to laugh when i saw it. not putting much stock in it.)
http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html
another interesting article.
I know locally wise this is the coolest that it has been this time of year since i have been down here. it is usually in the 80's this time of year and we are still in the low and mid 70's.
for me that is great seeing how summer can get up to 100 easily. one thing i hate about this area during the summer is the heat.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Nor does posting Fox News articles.
do you actually have anything to add? probably not.
bringing up where i live is more or less a general statement it has nothing to do with credibility to my arguement.
as for fox news that is your opinion. nothing more and adds nothing to your arguement at all.
if you had read the main source of the article is here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259867/Veggies-wrong-eating-meat-NOT-save-planet.html#ixzz0j26Pey0n
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/tropical-ssts-natural-variations-or-global-warming/
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/25/cato-institute-global-warming-denial-ad-patrick-michaels-swanson/
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/21/hadley-study-warns-of-catastrophic-5%C2%B0c-warming-by-2100-on-current-emissions-path/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/warming-interrupted/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/09/noaa-says-el-nino-arrives-persist-winter-2009-2010-record-temperatures-hottest-decade-on-record/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/urban/Parker_JClimate2006.pdf
Remember how I wanted you to respond to these but all you could do was scoff at the sources? Its a two way street buddy.
you don't seem to read. i have already gone over those when this began and already discussed them. i am not in the habit of repeating myself simply because you refuse to read anything that disagrees with you.
I actually looked at the links unlike you. they are very much bias one way. to constantly try to spout them as fact and absolute truth is very dishonest.
so unless you actually have anything else to add that hasn't been gone over already i will get back to grant and the actual discussion we were having.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The gist of what they were discussing is that the Eyjafjallajokull eruption may trigger the Hekla volcano to blow as well. The scientist then proceeded to say that the amount of ash and debre that would be produced would cause a major shift in the climate of the earth and we could end up facing another "year without a summer". The guy said that this happened several hundred years ago and that if it happened again it would be a big deal.
Please forgive my vagueness here but...does anyone else have any information on this?
Anyway...my point is...could it be that any kind of global warming / cooling be caused from within the earth itself and not be caused by mankind at all? Is this a possibility or is everyone just assuming that this isn't the case?
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
I think this is a great observation. We know a lot, but there is even more we dont know about this world. Also, consider the Suns impact on the earth, with the lowest recorded sunspot activity since atleast 1910's (if not father back then that). The midatlantic anomaly, and many other things that might effect the planets temps.
Then consider the poltical side of it. The left with sources like MSNBC (parent company GE) and the right with sources like Fox (parent company Newscorp with 1 and 2 share holders being Murdoch, and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed).
In the end, its more then just the "science". Its about who can position themselves to make the bigger buck.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
1.Consider the amount of time that humans have been collecting accurate climate data.
2. Next, consider the amount of time that Earth has had a climate.
You'll notice that the number resulting from point 2 is significantly larger, exponentially larger, in fact. When comparing the number of years we have data to the number of years we don't, I'd say this more or less constitutes and inadequate sample size. Basically, we don't have enough information to make a meaningful statement. All we can say for now is that, given climate data over the past ~400 years, we can say that the average temperature around the world has indeed increased. What we don't know is how that temperature stacks up against the average temperature for the other ~ 4.55 billion years.
No one has ever said that CO2 emissions are the only factor in global climate. Other factors have huge impacts, but in regard to the specific science of AGW, we have a very good idea of what is going on.
Which is why scientists get their information from research and peer review.
Direct recording is not the only method of how we know what the climate was in the past. There are many useful methods that we know about that reveal the climate thousands, if not millions, of years ago.
Even if we couldn't record the past climate, we know what CO2 does, we know what the greenhouse effect is, we know the levels of CO2 we are currently putting into the atmosphere.... what is the issue?
but thats just plain not true. Is it biased? yes. Does it have poor practices? yes. Are its practices any different or worse than other major news networks? No.
The difference is the side of the political spectrum you are sitting on. You are on the left side of the spectrum, so of course the right side looks worse, you disagree with it! Carry that even farther because you (Tuss) are sitting on the extreme left side, so it looks even worse to you.
This of course, assumes our methods for determining historical climates are accurate. Which there's no way to really prove.
The issue I have with this is that the methods of detecting what the climate was like in the past can only give us general trends over thousands (or more) of years. They can't give us enough information to actually determine if what is happening now is normal or not. I guess the main problem I have is we are looking at the "signal" in super zoomed-in-o-scope mode and consequently we see tons of noise, and even our regressions of zoomed in data are skewed by the noise. We have no way of knowing what kind of signal noise occurred across the zoomed out view we have of the "millions of years" of weather data.
Now, that doesn't mean we should say screw it and not try to reduce our impact. Being environmentally cautious is almost never a bad thing in and of itself.
I hope you don't mind me adding a word to your quote since I think thats what you meant to say (really, American entertainment media isn't that bad!).
But then, I'd also pretty much agree with that statement. There is not strong independently run government funded television outlet in the US like the BBC (UK) or CBC (Canada), so the private interests infect all the news media on TV.
Its a fact of life, and one that probably won't change for a while.
But did you know, england used to be alot warmer than it was now. Did you now england used to be alot colder than it was now also!!?? Little Ice age? Anyone know about that? Im sure in the 1600's everyone had their hummers spewing out thoes nasty ozone gasses. To be honest, its probably near impossible to actually tell how much of it is us and how much is just Mother Nature being hormonal. You get fanatics like Al "Super Cereal" Gore spouting near-ignorance (i cant say ignorance because hes right about some things) blaming us instead of actually thinking the whole thing out. Fun fact...did you know his house consumes as much engery as a small city...so it obviosly gives him credit to what hes saying...
Though I can't truly say global warming is real, kinda like the whole "is god real arguement" (no flames about that plz take that argument to another thread. I'm just relating 2 extremly blurry topics). They're both arguments, that depending, how selective and how you twist the data it can come out in your favor.
Not a fan or supporter of New Magic
There is no comparison whatsoever.
I've done plenty of research into the global warming issue, and I will tell you right now that all of the "science" suggesting that we aren't significantly contributing to it is false. Paid for by people with a massive political agenda and falsified to make the actual science look bad.
The truth of the matter is that we are quite clearly causing a problem, and there is no factual argument to oppose that. It's true. Accept it and try to help slow it down, or reject it and look like yet another ignorant talking head backed by false unscientific crap.